Duron 850 CPU Benchmarks 69
ravedaddy and quite a number of other folks wrote in with the news that Sharky's looks at the processor which benchmarks very well in comparison to Intel's 800MHz Celeron - the AMD Duron 850. Last week, with the release of the Celeron with a 100 Mhz FSB [?] , Intel jumped forward - while AMD's Duron has an equivalent 200 Mhz bus (100 Mhz buses). It looks like AMD is keeping the crown in the "Value" category.
Competiton is what we need (Score:1)
Duron is a Great Chip (Score:4)
Don't get a duron 850 (Score:1)
Not just the value market (Score:3)
The chip (the T-Bird) is a blue core, which means it came from FAB-30 in Dresden. From the pictures at Sharky's you can see they had a green core, which mean it came from Austin (and uses aluminum, not copper interconnects).
Re:Duron is a Great Chip (Score:1)
Re:Competiton is what we need (Score:2)
Unfortunately the history of computers has shown us that increased competition can also lead to overcrowding in a very saturated market, and the most interesting technology dissapears because the manufacturer can't market it properly (i.e. put the most spin on it).
Draw parallels with the home computer market of the late 80s for instance.
I think competition between AMD and Intel is great, but I'm not sure the market can handle any more big-scale players - hey
Re:I stick with Intel. (Score:1)
Definately give the newer AMD line-up a go. I avoided AMD in the past based on articles I read and such but it was just a bunch of FUD. I own a Duron 700MHz and a T-bird 1GHz and they are every bit as stable as the dozen or so Intel CPUs I have purchased over the years.
Re:I stick with Intel. (Score:1)
Folks, you just don't get it ;-) (Score:1)
Re:I stick with Intel. (Score:1)
We need a better benchmark, and we need it soon! (Score:2)
Perhaps we should devise a new number, (call it the power rating) which would multiply all the numbers (bus speed, data path width, pipline parallelism, etc) together to come up with one easy to compare number that I can use when I buy my next PC.
Otherwise I have to know far more about computer architecture than I really want to. How about it CPU manufacturers ? A single number we can compare ?
Re:Not just the value market (Score:2)
Look at the letters and numbers on the core.
Duron v. (Score:1)
Seeka
Re:No! (Score:1)
Re:I stick with Intel. (Score:1)
You already have a good benchmark: SPEC (Score:1)
- vendor independant
- separate integers/floating-point performances (which are quite different beasts really)
There are many available results, look here [spec.org].
Anyway, I think that it is much better than your "power rating" number..
Re:Not just the value market (Score:1)
Re:We need a better benchmark, and we need it soon (Score:1)
Manufactures would just figure out what was the cheapest way to get their number up, even if it meant graphics rendering went to hell because they spent all thier budjet on cache or something... It wouldn't be a fair comparison. You need lot's of numbers, AND, don't think the CPU is the only thing that will effect them!
Hmm, maybe someday I'll find some free time to finish hwinfo2html [current.nu] then at least I would feel a little better about comparing system... But... I have zero time, and it has a LONG way to go before being truely usefull.
AMD vs. Intel (Score:3)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The COBOL Warrior
I think you mean... (Score:1)
Re:You already have a good benchmark: SPEC (Score:1)
Look, take the disk speed, multiply it by the cache speed, the L2 cache speed, the fsb speed, the internal bus speed etc, and you will get a number. Then do the same for another cpu, you will get another number. The one with the biggest number is the fastest.
The imformation is out there, but there does not seem to be a will to make it available. Could it be that CPU manufacturers don't want us to compare perfomance ?
Its even difficult to compare CPUs from the same manufacturer (intel) because they don't make it easy for me.
Re:We need a better benchmark, and we need it soon (Score:2)
I think the last thing we want to do is decide on some arbitrary index to rate all cpus. It would be a synthetic number that doesn't mean anything in the real world aside from bragging rights. It's like the Mhz war. It's a whole lot of bull. What matters is the final outcome, not the theoretical. So, my input is that we must stay away from that golden standardized index.
Sure, this makes it harder for the average consumer who goes to compusa planning to buy a computer, but at this point, anything you buy is damned good, so I am not horribly concerned about that.
Re:No! (Score:1)
Re:I stick with Intel. (Score:1)
I had never bought anything but Intel until this year. I have 2 servers, 2 desktops, and a laptop at home and the other 4 systems are all Intel, but if I have to replace them you better believe I'm going to buy AMD.
But will AMD change the socket type? (Score:2)
But, down the road, will AMD change the socket type for its upcoming 64-bit Sledgehammer chip?
Misleading summary... (Score:1)
The Duron 850MHz still beats the Celeron 800 (actually the Duron 800MHz does too). Though the margin of difference is so small in most of the tests it probably doesn't matter.
And as the article points out, the Thunderbird at 850MHz is about the same price as the Duron *and* the Celeron competes around/above the Thunderbird price point so this is all pretty moot.
The only advantage of the Celeron is the availability of cheap integrated motherboards so you can save a few bucks. Though some of the earlier Athlon boards are pretty darn cheap and if you care about the few dollars you are going to save then why are you caring about the benchmarks of the top end chips in the category.
Re:I told you so! (Score:1)
But such a number would be meaningless (Score:1)
You can have :
- CPU A which is better than CPU B at integers calculation
- CPU B which is better than CPU A at floating-point operations
So which is the fastest?
Answer: it depends on your needs, on the apps that you are going to run on it..
So there is no absolute winner.
And this situation does happen in real life: CPU A would be a 80x86, CPU B would be a RISC.
Judging a CPU on only one "magic" number is quite meaningless and I would even say that it is stupid (no this is not a flame).
Watch those "naive" buying P4 at 1.3 GHz even if:
- there won't be no upgrade path: the socket will change in a few month so you won't be able to reuse the same motherboard.
- a 1.3GHz P4 is quite often beat by a 1GHz Athlon
- it uses some VERY expensive memory
They buy it because they believe in the magical "MHz" number.. Well not all of them, but I do suspect that for many people this is the case..
I'm sorry but to be able to compare CPU you can't use a "magical" number, you must understand a little bit how CPUs works, that's just the way it is...
Re:Folks, you just don't get it ;-) (Score:3)
My operating system of choice for this puppy: Windows 98. Beautiful SMP support, especially after I tweaked and recompiled the kernel. I get _at least_ 100fps in Quake3, in software rendering emulation mode.
Entire Bogusness. (Score:2)
The buggy chip and incompatibility issues have been bogus since 1983. Incorrect drivers, user error, viruses, file corruption, improper install are all common "buggy" problems, but have nothing to do with the chip.
Re:We need a better benchmark, and we need it soon (Score:2)
Now I don't hold any grudge against Intel nor AMD, I have an Athlon at work and a Celeron at home and I think they both have a place in the market, but comparing them is like apples to oranges. The numbers mean very little. This Athlon (old slow slot-A core) runs at 700mhz, while my home PC runs at 850mhz. Some benchmarks say they're equivalent, others make my Celeron glisten in the spotlight. You just can't trust any number, not the mhz, not the MIPS crap, not even the independent benchmarks. The only true benchmark is your own feeling. Does this Athlon feel faster than my Celeron at home ? Yes it does. I don't know why, but it just does. That's all I need to know.
Re:We need a better benchmark, and we need it soon (Score:2)
I think it is futile trying to get a single number to describe the performance of different CPUs, especially as a product of various numbers. Other people have pointed out that what is important is what you use the CPU for. That determines what performance number is important to you.
Think about it like a car. What car has the highest performance? Then ask yourself what kind of performance you mean?
Top speed? Acceleration? Torque? MPG? Range before refueling? Tire grip? Driving characteristics? Ground clearance? Payload capacity? Coolness factor? Envy factor? It all depends on what you want to use your car for (and on your wallet).
It is the same with processors. If you are on a budget and only word-process and browse the web, get the cheapest Celery you can find, if you have a little more dough and want to be able to game some too, get a Duron and a GF2MX card. If you use 3DSMax or pack DivX;-), get a 1 GHz or faster Tbird. If you only play Q3 get a 1.5 GHz P4 and a GF2Ultra, for those important 200 FPS in 640x480... ;-)
/Dervak
C'mon guys... (Score:1)
Re:We need a better benchmark, and we need it soon (Score:1)
I tried this out and it seems to work pretty good so far. Hopefully it will get a little more featureful but, hey, it's a start!
Looking for a 1U Duron Server (Score:2)
Does anybody know where I get one of these in a 1U server for a reasonable price, shipped within the US? It seems like all the rackmount servers are still Intel-based.
Value of Duron (Score:1)
--
Patrick Doyle
Re:You already have a good benchmark: SPEC (Score:2)
-- Real Men Don't Use Porn. -- Morality In Media Billboards
Re:We need a better benchmark, and we need it soon (Score:1)
Re:I told you so! (Score:1)
Face it Hemos, Intel's no match for AMD. (Score:1)
All the more reason to buy AMD. (Score:1)
All the more reason to buy AMD instead of Intel. Changing the socket type is inevitable, so saving money on the CPU is more important than ever since you will be buying a new motherboard also.
Re:4th post! (Score:1)
Re:I told you so! (Score:1)
What does a 100MHz DDR FSB mean? It means that the CPU talks to the chipset at a 200MHz data rate even though the frequency is only 100MHz because it can send two bits of information per clock cycle instead of one.
Let's compare Duron/Athlon vs. Celeron/P4:
FSB MHz: All use 100MHz
FSB throughput: Duron/Athlon: 200MHz, Celeron/P4: 100MHz
Memory Bus MHz: Duron/Athlon: 133MHz, Celeron/P4: 100MHz
Memory Bus throughput: Duron/Athlon: 133MHz, Duron/Athlon(DDR): 266MHz, P4(Rambus): 400MHz, Celeron: 100MHz
OK, so not only does Duron as a chip spank Celeron (especially for the price), we see that a Celeron system is severely lacking compared to a Duron system.
I'm not a hardware guy, so if I'm wrong on any of this, I'm sure it will be corrected in a polite and professional manner
- Rick Alther
Re:You already have a good benchmark: SPEC (Score:1)
Why not just add instead of mulitply? That would give you a much smaller number to work with and would accomplish the same task. Or possibly use subtraction instead. The smaller the number, the better. Or maybe using an inversely squared number derived from the parts of the whole sum of said number that remain from the left over of the originally inversely squared but not yet sequentially mapped. And then multiply that number by zero.
Re:We need a better benchmark, and we need it soon (Score:1)
These people, too, didn't want to learn more about computer architecture than they had to. This doomed them to the narrow "MHz vs. MHz" vision.
Once the semi-techies (people who like computers but don't know shit about them anyway) got ahold of this information, Cyrix CPUs became a kind of pariah. There were so many little local shops in my area who wouldn't sell them because (they said) Cyrix was a dishonest company who lied about the speed of their chips and couldn't even "figure out" how to make a real 200MHz CPU anyway...
Basically, good luck getting anyone to agree to this, especially any companies who currently hold the "speed crown" in terms of MHz and can therefore market it that way to the undereducated masses...
Re:I told you so! (Score:1)
Re:I told you so! (Score:1)
How about a link? (Score:1)
How about a URL? I would like to check it out.
Re:I told you so! (Score:3)
IMHO, the best way to deal with this is to bring back an archaic-sounding word: baud. It's 100 MegaHertz but 200 MegaBaud. And if someone figures out a magic way to cram more transfers into each clock cycle, then we can talk about the baud measurement going up while, at the same time, avoid lying about the clock frequency.
---
Whoops! (Score:1)
Argh, I just marketroided myself! I meant bps, not baud. ;-) It's 200 Megabps, 100 Megabaud.
---
Re:I stick with Intel. (OT) (Score:1)
Performance sucked, it seems that other people with this board had the same problems (a k6-2 350 was faster). It turns out, and Asus won't admit it to this day, that the motherboard couldn't supply the cpu with enough power.
Lucky for me my friend had a k6-2 450 in his (better) super7 board, and we did a straight trade. If not for this, I would be stuck with a K6-2 that costs more than a Duron, and without a working computer at all.
Non-Intel problems indeed.
Re:Duron is a Great Chip (Score:1)
Why would one buy a Duron 850 when an Thunderbird 900 is $130?
Re:I told you so! [OT] (Score:1)
I would prefer memory performance ratings in bps and latency instead of some random clock frequency of given technology. The problem is that some memory types (like RDRAM) gives much better results for sequential reads than for true random access (recardless of the name). It makes a big difference whether bps rating is done with random access or sequential reads. Probably there should be some standart test but how to define one is the problem.
_________________________
Re:We need a better benchmark, and we need it soon (Score:2)
Another advantage of the P4 is that it will scale more easily to higher clocks.
Of course, in the real world, it will be a while before MS can take advantage of this. (Anyone know if gcc can optimize for P4 yet?)
---
Re:No! (Score:1)
Re:Folks, you just don't get it ;-) (Score:1)
Remember that Ford and GM don't officially support adding Lunati racing cams in your engine, either, but that doesn't stop thousands from doing it yearly.
Re:How about a link? (Score:1)
Bogomips! ..... (Score:1)
"Feel faster" has little if any to do with CPU (Score:1)
The only true benchmark is your own feeling. Does this Athlon feel faster than my Celeron at home ? Yes it does. I don't know why, but it just does.
It feels faster because it's either swapping less (more RAM) or swapping faster (better hard drive). Windows 98/ME on a Novell network with antivirus software is a RAM hog; if you have less than 128 MB of RAM, you are going to lose 90% of your performance to the swap file. I learned this the hard way; in June of 1999, I thought a 333 MHz PII laptop with 64 MB of RAM would be enough, until I tried to run Windows; the low-power-consumption i.e. low-rotational-speed i.e. slow-swapping hard drive ate all my performance, making the machine "feel" slower than my old 1 MHz Apple II.
Like Tetris? Like drugs? Ever try combining them? [pineight.com]
You were right the first time. (Score:2)
Like Tetris? Like drugs? Ever try combining them? [pineight.com]
Re:Folks, you just don't get it ;-) (Score:1)
Runs at 2.00v, and has been quite stable. The only problem I've had with this box at all is that the power supply is insufficient, so it sometimes has trouble on initial boot. But I don't usually reboot it, anyhow.
--
Forgot to mention... (Score:1)
--
Re:4th post! (Score:1)
TBird 1100 -- 217
Celeron 800 -- 202
TBird 1000 -- 173
TBird 950 -- 158
Celeron 766 -- 153
TBird 900 -- 133
Celeron 733 -- 113
Duron 850 -- 108
Tbird 850 -- 105
TBird 800 -- 103
Celeron 700 -- 79
Duron 800 -- 73
Duron 750 -- 62
Theres a pretty decent comparison. For the price of a celeron 800, you can put a 1Ghz TBird,to compete with the Duron 850 you'd have to compare it with the 733Mhz Celeron. The 766 did pretty poorly compared to the 850, so i dont see why the 733 would have a chance. I wish someone would put together a Price comparison, compare a couple processors, only marked by price. Then at the end say which one they are. Choose a couple processors, PIII, Celeron, Duron, TBird all of the same price range, see who wins out.
Something like comparing: TBird 850, Duron 850, Celeron 733, and PIII - 550.
You should note you cant actualy buy a PIII that competes in price with the others . . .
Re:Duron is a Great Chip (Score:1)
Re:Not just the value market (Score:1)
Re:Not just the value market (Score:2)
A blue core means it's from the early line of Tbird/Durons, and it's possible to unlock the multiplier by connecting the bridges with something conductive.
Green-core chips are later, and can not be defeated in this way - I should know, I have one.
"If ignorance is bliss, may I never be happy.
Re:"Feel faster" has little if any to do with CPU (Score:1)
Cyrix quality (Score:1)
BTW, I help install the Point of Service computers in the US Post Office. They use Cyrix chips; the first year I did this job, I was installing the same P150+ that was running on my machine at home.
Re:Folks, you just don't get it ;-) (Score:1)