Introduction
This is a picture of AMD’s new C-Athlon 1400 for 133 MHz FSB
AMD seems to hold Computex in high regards, something it certainly doesn’t do with hardware journalists, because it didn’t only launch the dual processor AMD760MP chipset and the AthlonMP on Computex-Tuesday, but also Athlon 1400 and Duron 950 on Computex-Wednesday. We barely managed to finish our testing of these two CPUs before Computex, but this article needed to be written in one of the many night sessions that we had the pleasure to experience in Taipei this year.
The newly released AMD processors don’t mark a significant technological step. What we see is an obvious advance in process technology that allowed the release of a C-type (133/266 MHz FSB) Athlon processor that runs at a 5% higher clock than its predecessor Athlon 1333, a B-type (100/200 MHz FSB) Athlon that comes with a 7.6 % clock rate increase over Athlon 1300, and a Duron processor with an a clock increase of 5.5% over the previous Duron 900. You can imagine that the performance improvements seen with those moderate clock speed increases won’t be too substantial, but we should remember that clock speed increases in the traditional x86-processor business are done little by little. Only the C-Athlon 1400 seems more like a marketing product than anything else. While the previous C-Athlon 1333 was launched with a 133 MHz and thus 11% core clock increase over the previous C-Athlon 1200, the new C-Athlon 1400 comes with only 66 more MHz than C-Athlon 1333.
The Two Athlon 1400 Processors
Above you see B-Athlon 1400 for 100 MHz FSB clock.
AMD launched two different Athlon 1400 processors on Wednesday, the Athlon 1400 for 133/266 MHz FSB clock and the Athlon 1400 for 100/200 MHz FSB clock. Both processors are using the well-known ‘Thunderbird’ core that hasn’t changed for exactly one year. The 1.75 V core voltage as well as all other features of the two new Athlons remain the same as with previous Athlon processors. You will neither find the badly needed thermal protection, nor any performance enhancing design changes.
Athlon 1400/266 (C-type) is clearly the by far more attractive of the two, since its 33% faster front side bus ensures a significant performance advantage over the very similarly priced Athlon 1400/200 (B-type). Make sure that you have a very good reason for the purchase of an Athlon 1400/200, because Athlon 1400/266 is the by far better choice.
Duron 950
Duron 950
AMD’s new Duron 950 replaces Duron 900 at the top of the AMD’s value processor range. Duron is now in very close reach of the magic 1 GHz barrier and shows that even value systems will soon reach this important mark. The distance to Intel’s anyway lower performing value processor Celeron has just been increased, making it even more of a mystery why people would still buy this processor. Due to the fact that Duron 950 is so close to the Gigahertz, I was benchmarking it against its Athlon-cousins.
Benchmark Setup
| Athlon 266 MHz FSB System | |
| Motherboard | MSI K7 Master MS-6341, BIOS 1.1 |
| Memory | 256 MB Infineon PC2100 DDR SDRAM 8-8-5-2-2-2-2 |
| Athlon 133 MHz FSB System | |
| Motherboard | Asus A7V133, BIOS 1005A |
| Memory | 256 MB Micron PC133 SDRAM 2-2-2 |
| Pentium 4 System | |
| Motherboard | Asus P4T, BIOS 1005 beta 1 |
| Memory | 256 MB Samsung PC800 RDRAM |
| Other System Components | |
| Hard Drive | IBM DTLA-307030, 7200 RPM, ATA100 |
| Graphics Card | NVIDIA GeForce2 Ultra, Driver 12.40 |
| Operating Systems | Microsoft Windows 98 SE Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional Service Pack 2 |
| Screen Resolution | 1024x768x16x85 1280x1024x32x85 for SPECviewperf 6.1.2 |
Benchmark Results
You will see that we ran a very large number of benchmarks, which should give you a very good idea of the performance of Athlon 1000-1400, also in comparison to Pentium 4. We did not include any of the previous Durons, so that Duron 950 is directly up against the Athlon crowd.
Windows 98 Results AMD760 133/266 MHz FSB
Sysmark 2001
The overall results of Sysmark2001 show Athlon 1400/266 as the current performance leader, but Pentium 4 1.7 GHz is close second.
The ICC-part of Sysmark2001 is clearly ruled by Pentium 4.
Office productivity is Athlon’s strength.
Quake 3 Arena
Quake 3 is dominated by Pentium 4, but Athlon is scoring very respectable results as well.
Unreal Tournament
Unreal Tournament is clearly favoring Athlon over P4.
Evolva
Evolva is also running faster on Athlon, but the processors score all the same at 1024x768x32 with bump mapping enabled.
AquaMark
The new DX8-benchmark Aquamark runs faster on Athlon.
Dronez
Dronez, a new OpenGL-benchmark, favors Pentium 4.
Windows 2000 Results AMD760 133/266 MHz FSB
Sysmark 2001
Athlon is beaten by Pentium 4 in Sysmark2001 under Windows 2000.
In ICC, the difference between the P4 and the Athlon scores is impressive.
Even the office productivity of P4 1.7 GHz under Windows 2000 is quite competitive.
3D Studio Max R3
Don’t forget: Less is better!
3D rendering is Athlon’s clear strength. Pentium 4 has big difficulties with this kind of software.
CINEMA 4D
CINEMA 4D shows very similar results to 3D Studio MAX. Athlon is the by far better 3D-renderer.
Quake 3 Arena – Windows 2000
Quake 3 Arena is running faster under Windows 2000, but the overall picture remains the same. Pentium 4 has an edge over Athlon.
3DMark2001
The differences are minimal.
SPECviewperf 6.1.2
This time the tests were done with a FireGL2 card. We have two pars, two Athlon wins and two Athlon loses.
SiSoft Sandra
Windows 98 Results AMD760 133/266 MHz FSB
The results of the 100 MHz FSB processors are not comparable to the above benchmarks, because the 200 MHz FSB-configuration is using the inexpensive PC133 memory and not DDR.
Sysmark is won by Athlon 1400/1000.
Quake 3 Arena
Here you can see the big impact of the front side bus and the memory type. Athlon 1200/266 on AMD760 and DDR PC2100 is significantly faster than an Athlon 1400/100 on VIA’s KT133A and PC133.
Unreal Tournament
Once more, the faster front side bus wins.
Evolva
Dronez
Dronez is very sensitive to front side bus performance.
Aquamark
The Athlon 1200/266 on AMD760 platform is beating Athlon 1400/100 and Athlon 1300/100 in all of the tested 3D-games, including AquaMark.
Summary
| Processor | Current Street Price |
| Athlon 1400/266 MHz | $220 |
| Athlon 1400/200 MHz | $210 |
| Athlon 1333/266 MHz | $175 |
| Athlon 1300/200 MHz | $165 |
| AthlonMP 1200/266 MHz | $250 |
| Athlon 1200/266 MHz | $145 |
| Athlon 1200/200 MHz | $140 |
| Athlon 1100/200 MHz | $135 |
| AthlonMP 1200/266 MHz | $225 |
| Athlon 1000/266 MHz | $120 |
| Athlon 1000/200 MHz | $120 |
| Duron 950 MHz | $112 |
| Duron 900 MHz | $65 |
| Pentium 4 1700 MHz | $340 |
| Pentium 4 1500 MHz | $240 |
| Pentium 4 1400 MHz | $175 |
AMD’s newly released Athlon 1400/266 is able to beat Intel’s Pentium 4 1.7 GHz in a lot of benchmarks. The Intel processor performs better in Internet content creation software and some new 3D-games. Athlon can leave Pentium 4 far behind in 3D-rendering software, because of its superior FPU-performance.
Except for 3D-rendering software, Athlon 1400 and Pentium 4 1.7 GHz are pretty much neck on neck. However, the lower price tag of Athlon 1400/266 is clearly making it the more attractive product. It is also more versatile, as you can find inexpensive (though lower performing) PC133 platforms as well as DDR-motherboards for it, while Pentium 4 is still only supported by Intel850 platforms that require the expensive RDRAM memory.
The 100/200 MHz FSB version of Athlon 1400 (B-type) should only be considered by people who want to upgrade their VIA Apollo KT133 platforms, which are unable to run the 133 MHz front side bus. The ones of you that are anyway planning the purchase of a new motherboard or a completely new system should stay away from the slower Athlon 1400.
Duron 950 is reaching 75-85% the scores of an Athlon at 1 GHz and its street price is almost the same as the Athlon. From that point of view, it is certainly the least interesting processor of this comparison right now.
