Budget CPU Shootout: Clash of the 'rons
by Derek Wilson on December 4, 2003 10:55 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Final Words
It is very obvious from these tests which line of budget processors is worth the money. When we can find a 1.6GHz Duron for just over half the price of a 2.6GHz Celeron and get better performance consistently in almost every test we ran, the choice is clear.It's obvious that the long pipeline of the Pentium 4 just can't handle the crippled cache of the Celeron. With more cache misses and pipeline stalls, the processor isn't getting as much useful work done as it is trying constantly to refill the pipeline. We are seeing these results for the same reason we saw the performance gains from the P4 Extreme Edition with its 2MB L3 cache: the pipeline needs to stay full for the P4 to really shine.
The Pentium III based Celerons offered, at one time, acceptable performance. However, it is clear that in the value segment today, Intel has nothing to offer but a high clock speed. AnandTech readers will know to stay away from the Celeron at all costs; however, what is troublesome are the number of retail customers who are faced with the decision between a higher priced 2.6GHz Celeron system and an Athlon XP 2200+. We would highly encourage system vendors like Compaq and eMachines to shift their low-end focus to AMD if their customers are of any importance at all. As we've seen through our extensive benchmarking, the Celeron's performance is truly dismal; so while Intel is quite competitive in the mid-range and high-end segments, their value processors are inexcusably slow compared to AMD.
This review really isn't complete without taking a look at overclocking performance. For enthusiasts who want a lot of performance for a small amount of cash (cache?), pushing a cheap processor beyond its limits is the way to go. Every overclocker remembers the original Celeron processor and its amazing ability to run incredibly fast because of its lack of cache. At this point (however unlikely), such a feature would be the only saving grace of the Celeron line. Of course, even if the Celeron is a good overclocker, it will be very interesting to see how high the Duron can be pushed with its cut cache as well.
The conclusion we can make from all this is that the Duron processor is a solid purchase. If you have the extra 40 to 50 dollars to spend, a Barton processor would be a nice addition to any system for that added dimension of performance to a tightly budgeted system. Hopefully, system builders will take note and start offering better performing systems for an even lower price based on the Duron processor rather than the Celeron. For those who want the cheapest possible system, AMD will give you the best performance every time.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
97 Comments
View All Comments
arejerjejjerjre - Friday, December 5, 2003 - link
The celeron test i mentioned earlier was done with far worse system than i posses now so something is defienetly wrong with anandtechs benchmarking method or how they are reported!!They seem to have "lost" some points in making the articles!
arejerjejjerjre - Friday, December 5, 2003 - link
Most of amd processors have been flukes i dont think they can make anything else!! Like the thouroughbred!! There was a significant amount of processors wich suddenly just died!When you clone enough you get these kind of flukes :) LOL FOR AMD!!!!!!1
arejerjejjerjre - Friday, December 5, 2003 - link
Amds cpu really suck they dont work correctly and the life span is quite sort if you have a amd cpu dont be surprised if someday your computer wont start! ITS JUST AMD QUALITY!!!!!arejerjejjerjre - Friday, December 5, 2003 - link
cheater site doesnt even work correctly!arejerjejjerjre - Friday, December 5, 2003 - link
How the hell is that even possible to get 150 fps in quake 3 and with 640x480 ??????Anandtech sure knows how to cheat in benchmarks!!
I got sometime ago a Celeron 2ghz and TI4200 and I scored 170 fps with 1024 resolution!!!!!!!(Every other option to the best grahics mode!)
so how is it possible that they could get such bad results??!!!(AND they even had a RADEON 9800!!!) CHEATERS!!! Trying to mock Intel!!
Now my system is Abit IC7-G,P4 2.4C (800fsb),TI4800(Gainward as was my TI4200),Kingston hyperx 3000(370mhz@400mhz),maxtor sata 120gt in INTEL RAID(It is the fastest no doubt about it!)
and of course the greatest device of all time 56k modem!! :)
now with that machine I score about 305 fps(it varys in range of 300-310) in quake 3 with 1024x768 and other options to best graphics!
DrFreeze - Friday, December 5, 2003 - link
Great Article!I would LOVE to see you add in another lesser known cheap CPU alternative though. It is the $20 Slot-T CPU Upgrade Adapter with a $37 Intel Celeron 1.4GHz 100MHz 256K CPU OEM. It is only running 1.4GHz but yet it is built on the PIII core so it is not hurt as much as the PIV is by branch mispredicts. It might be surprising at how well it performs, and then again, it is only using SDRAM so it might not be. =)
Dr. Ffreeze
$20 Slot-T CPU Upgrade Adapter
http://store.yahoo.com/strattoncomputer/slot1-fcpg...
$37 Intel Celeron 1.4GHz 100MHz 256K CPU
http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?p=CL1.4GFCPG&c=...
BlackShrike - Friday, December 5, 2003 - link
We can at least conclude one thing. Anyone who bought the AMD 2500+ got an awesome CPU, whether you overcloacked it or not, it has the performance of a INTEL 2.4 B, but the price of sub $90. And you know, with the extra money you saved, you can get a radeon 9700 Pro or 9800 Pro instead of a radeon 9600 pro or gefroce 5700 Ultra. For once I think I can say this definitively, THE IMPLICATIONS ARE CLEAR AMD ROCKS THE MID TO CHEAP MARKET ANYWAY YOU LOOK AT IT.Thank you, I just had to say that.
DerekWilson - Friday, December 5, 2003 - link
to update what I just mentioned, that prescott number would have been a little higher if we had had the 1.02 patch for halo at that point (it removed needless memory usage checks in the timedemo mode).skiboysteve - Friday, December 5, 2003 - link
35 just got dick slapedgo derek
die 35
DerekWilson - Friday, December 5, 2003 - link
#35:We wanted to test the upper limit of performance on these processors, so we eliminated as many other bottlenecks in the system as possible.
This is very useful, because it will let you know that you will absolutely not (with current high end technology) be able to acheive more than 34 fps with a celeron 2.6 under Halo at 10x7. When you start adding more bottlenecks to the system (like slower and less RAM and a budget video card) you will end up with an even lower frame rate.
If you take a look at our article with the 256MB 9800 Pro (benched on Prescott 2.8GHz) you will see that we only hit 43.8 fps (slower than with the barton 2500+), and with the Athlon64 FX51 we were able to get 60.5 fps out of a 9800XT card. The barton hit 51.5 fps with the 9800Pro256.
What that says to me is that if you buy a barton 2500+, you are very close to elminiating the processor as a bottleneck in Halo compared to the current fastest gaming system on the market.
That's not bad for less than $100 if you ask me.