Niels Tijssen submitte het nieuws dat Ome Tom een review online heeft gegooid van een vergelijking van de Celeron met de Duron processor. Doordat de Duron op een Bus Clock van 200 Mhz loopt en de Celeron maar op 66 Mhz, kan je op je klompen aanvoelen dat een Duron 700 toch een stukje sneller is dan een Celeron 700.
Duron is the close brother of 'Thunderbird', the new 'Socket-Athlon'. As a matter of fact the architectures of Thunderbird and Duron are pretty much identical. The only two differences are the size of the second level cache and the core voltage. Thunderbird comes with 256 kB on-die and full speed L2 cache, while Duron has only got 64 kB of that stuff. In both cases the L2-cache is connected to the core over a 64-bit wide interface, which has been criticized by us as well as others at the Thunderbird release already.
Most of you will certainly know that Intel's latest Celeron processors at 566 MHz and up are using the so-called 'Coppermine-128' core. This core is identical to the silicon used for Pentium III (E) processors, with half of its L2-cache disabled, resulting in only 128 kB second level cache versus the 256 kB L2-cache of Pentium III. On top of that, Intel is hindering the performance of Celeron by specifying it for a today mediocre 66 MHz bus clock. Only Celeron-overclockers know the real potential of the Celeron, the 'normal' Celeron user finds himself with a chip that is seriously limited by this slow bus clock.
You can see that Duron is much closer to the performance of its big brothers than Celeron, because AMD is using the same bus clock for Duron as well as Athlon. Intel is using the little FSB-limitation trick to make people fall into the MHz-trap. Inexperienced users might think that a Celeron 700 is just as fast as a Pentium 700. Both sell at the same price, but Celeron is significantly slower.
[break]Tom komt uiteindelijk tot een duidelijke conclusie:[/break]
There is no doubt; we've got to congratulate AMD for bringing us the best low-cost x86-processor that money can buy. Duron can't deny its Athlon-genes, which make it an excellent performer that is even able to touch high-end CPUs. Intel's Celeron has been beaten badly and if it wasn't for its excellent overclocking record, this Intel-processor would be completely obsolete by now.
/u/1231/crop67444c3dedc86_cropped.png?f=community){kind=small}
:strip_icc():strip_exif()/u/182/crop66d4984812e9a_cropped.jpg?f=community){kind=small}
:strip_icc():strip_exif()/u/5379/barbarian_2.jpg?f=community){kind=small}