Lo-Cost Duel: Duron 1100 vs. Celeron 1200 – THG.RU

Priced To Go: Duron 1100 & Celeron 1200

Currently no CPU offers more performance for less than $150. AMD and Intel unveil their fastest low-cost processors for the bottom end of the market. AMD expands its Duron series with a 1100-MHz variation – Intel keeps up with the competition by offering the Celeron 1200 in the same class. One thing is certain at any rate; the top models at the beginner level were never to be had so inexpensively! However, both CPUs are equipped with state-of-the-art technology and, seen in terms of value for money, are absolute front-runners – you just can’t get more power for your money. Among these, the AMD Duron 1100 wins honorable mention: it only costs $102 and fits into all Socket 462 boards (Socket A). That makes it the ideal upgrade solution without giving rise to additional costs. What’s more, the speed increase over an older AMD processor – of about 600 MHz — is immediately noticeable. Things are a little different with the Intel Celeron 1200: It needs a special board that supports the Tualatin core. Those boards have only been on the market for about 10 weeks. The Celeron 1200 will only work with a mainboard that is equipped with an Intel 815 EPT, Intel 810 (B2 stepping) or VIA Apollo Pro 133T chipset. That makes this CPU unsuitable for an upgrade. The market situation results in another minus – comparable boards with Socket 370 for the Intel Celeron cost at least $140.

Left, the AMD Duron 1100 with the Morgan core; right, the Intel Celeron 1200 with the Tualatin core. On the Celeron, a large piece of sheet metal covers up the tiny CPU core.

PC manufacturers, on the other hand, have a much easier time of it. They can put together a fairly inexpensive PC system with an Intel processor and, on top of this, gain attention with the convincing addition of “1200 MHz”. This type of PC system flies off the shelves at prices of approximately $650 to $750 – especially when large, well-known discount superstores offer PCs by the hundreds of thousands. The lessl-informed customer, after all, couldn’t care less which CPU or mainboard his cheaply got bargain PC has – the main thing is that he got lots of Megahertz and Gigabytes for a song.

Blow-up of the AMD Duron 1100’s CPU core (Morgan).

AMD Duron vs. Intel Celeron: A Fair Fight

Comparison of the two low-cost processors. The Intel Celeron 1200 has the Tualatin core and is manufactured according to the 0.13-micron process.

In a comparison of the rivals’ specification sheets, it transpires that the two processors have completely different features. While the Intel Celeron 1200 is equipped with a 32-KB L1 cache, the AMD Duron 1100 relies on a cache which, at 128 KB, is four times as large. But the L2 cache tells a different story: Intel equips the Celeron 1200 with 256 KB, making it identical to the Tualatin version of the Intel Pentium III/1133. AMD provides an L2 cache that only holds 64 KB. Even now, the question arises: How noticeable is the different cache size in practice? In the connection of the processors to the front side bus, the two CPUs are equal, both working on 100 MHz. Consideration of AMD’s and Intel’s top models, which work with an FSB speed of more than 100 MHz, begs the question of whether the manufacturers are not artificially limiting the clock speed to 100 MHz in order to distinguish themselves clearly from the high-end market – and from CPUs like the AMD Athlon XP, which are automatically much more pricey. For the home user and above all for ambitious freaks, there is still the option of overclocking. We illustrated this with our comparative test.

Tualatin Core: Intel Imitates A “Normal” Celeron

Intel has an ace up its sleeve with the Celeron 1200: although the CPU is equipped with a completely new core compared to the Celeron 1100 (the Tualatin core rather than the Cu-Mine core), there is nothing to hint at this on the outside. The Celeron 1200 conceals a modern processor that is made according to the 0.13-micron process. However, the Socket 370 platform, which is past its prime, will be obsolete within the medium term — i.e. in the foreseeable future — so at this point, only boosts in speed can be expected. However, the Celeron 1200 runs “with the handbrake on”, as the front side bus and memory speed remains limited to 100 MHz. It is clear from our overclocking experiments that more speed can be coaxed out of the processor. If the memory speed is set at 133 MHz, the Celeron shows high performance rates and edges closer to the Pentium 4 at the same speed.

But in the final balance, it must be acknowledged that the Celeron 1200 can be recognized by its new housing with the large piece of sheet metal covering it. The “old” Intel Celeron 1100, on the other hand, leaves the CPU core completely free.

Test Configuration: Special Features

The tests were carried out both on Windows 98 SE and Windows 2000. The individual benchmarks are well-known 3-D games and programs that calculate office performance. Synthetic benchmarks complete the procedure and round off the test scenario.

Test Results: More Than 30 Benchmark Graphics!

OpenGL Performance/Windows 98: Quake 3 Arena

In all four Quake benchmarks, the AMD Duron 1100 leads the Intel Celeron 1200. It has a 5 to 8 percent advantage.

3D Game Performance/Windows 98: Dronez

The new Dronez game works marginally better with the AMD Duron 1100 – there is a difference of about 3 to 7 frames.

3D Games Performance/Windows 98: Evolva

The difference between the two CPUs is becomes clearly noticeable in Evolva. In the lower CPU-heavy resolution, the Duron 1100 gets 15 frames more than the Celeron 1200.

Direct3D Performance/Windows 98: Unreal Tournament

In this benchmark, the two contestants are very close – but the AMD Duron 1100 could just squeeze past.

3D Mark 2000/Windows 98: Duron Wins

3D Mark 2001/Windows 98: Duron Ahead Of Celeron

In this benchmark suite, the AMD Duron 1100 is again ahead of the Intel Celeron 1200.

Office Performance/Windows 98: Sysmark 2000

In the “Office performance” category, the Intel Celeron 1200 shows its muscle and is well above the AMD Duron 1100.

SiSoft Sandra Benchmarks: Windows 98

With the SiSoft Sandra benchmark 2001, the Celeron gains a little ground – until the memory test, where the Duron is miles ahead.

OpenGL Performance/Windows 2000: Quake 3 Arena

The results of the Quake benchmarks paint a similar picture to that in Windows 98: the AMD Duron 1100 is ahead of the Intel Celeron 1200 by a clear distance.

Direct3D Performance/Windows 2000: Unreal Tournament

This comparison is almost a tie between the two test candidates.

3D Mark 2000/Windows 2000: Duron Squeezes Past

The Duron leads the Celeron by just a hair.

3D Mark 2001/Windows 2000: Duron Marginally Above Celeron

The 3D Mark 2001 shows a more obvious distance between the two contestants than the 3D Mark 2000.

Office Performance/Windows 2000: Sysmark 2001

In the “Office performance” category, the Intel Celeron 1200 is well ahead of the AMD Duron 1100. Here you can see the effect of Celeron’s 256-KB L2 cache.

Internet Performance/Windows 2000: Sysmark 2001

The difference in the Sysmark 2001 “Internet content creation” category is huge: the Celeron 1200 leads with close to 30 percent more performance.

Office Performance/Windows 2000: Sysmark 2001

The Celeron 1200’s advantage in “office productivity” is not as great.

3D Rendering Performance/Windows 2000: Cinema 4D XL

This benchmark just slightly favors the AMD Duron 1100.

CPU And Memory Performance/Windows 2000: SiSoft Sandra 2001

The “SiSoft Sandra” benchmark suite looks rather different in Windows 2000 than in Windows 98: up to the memory benchmark, these disciplines belong to the Celeron 1200.

Boosting Performance By Overclocking: Celeron With 1500 MHz

The Celeron 1200 with the Tualatin core proves to lend itself especially well to overclocking: 1500 MHz were no problem in the test.

The 0.13-micron technology is what makes it all possible. The Celeron 1200 was overclocked to 1500 MHz without any problem at all in the test. When this happens, the FSB runs at a speed of 125 MHz, the PCI bus at 41.5 MHz and the AGP bus at 83 MHz. Sensitive components such as the GeForce 3 graphics cards can have problems with the high AGP or PCI speed. An experiment in which the Celeron 1200 was overclocked to 1600 MHz was unsuccessful, although the temperature of the CPU core was not even close to the critical range. It is only at the 1600-MHz speed that the CPU equipped with a fixed multiplier would run at specified speeds (FSB speed at 133 MHz, PCI at 33 MHz and AGP at 66 MHz). Most impressive were the benchmark results of the overclocked Celeron 1500, which beat the AMD Duron 1250 in all benchmarks. Only in interaction with the Intel 815 EPT chipset and at an FSB and memory speed of 125 MHz does the Celeron 1500 show off its true performance. With its factory-set 100 MHz memory speed, the Celeron 1200 runs with the handbrake on.

Duron Overclocking: 1250 MHz For $102

The AMD Duron 1100 has no fixed multiplier, making a simple overclocking possible by giving the multiplier a high setting. Despite good cooling, it was only possible for us to overclock the Duron 1100 to 1250 MHz. But a stable 1250 MHz is an excellent rate, considering that you can get the CPU for $102. Dyed-in-the-wool AMD freaks will without a doubt find specimens that in exceptional cases can be overclocked marginally higher.

Summary: Duron faster in 3D games – Celeron ideal for overclocking

If our comprehensive benchmark results are considered and analyzed separately, the following conclusions can be drawn: the AMD Duron 1100 beats the Intel Celeron 1200 not only in 3D games but also in both Windows 98 SE and Windows 2000. The reason for this is the AMD processor’s L1 cache, which is larger than that of the Celeron. In several disciplines, the Duron 1100 can even trump the much more expensive Intel Pentium III/1133 with the Tualatin core. The strengths of the Intel Celeron 1200 lie in the area of office applications, where its performance is slightly better than the AMD Duron 1100. The difference is greater in ‘Internet applications’: The Intel Celeron leads by up to 30 percent. But the AMD Duron 1100 is just a nose ahead in 3D rendering.

A price comparison of the two processors looks like this: The AMD Duron 1100 has a sensationally low retail price of $102 – you can’t get more performance for so little money. The price for the Intel is 23% higher: you have to fork out $125 for the Celeron 1200. If a user is searching for an inexpensive upgrade solution, only the AMD Duron 1100 will do – the Intel Celeron 1200 simply isn’t a contender. Because of the Tualatin core, the Celeron 1200 needs a special Socket 370 motherboard equipped with the Intel 810 or 815 EPT chipset (B2 stepping). The system won’t start on just any conventional motherboard with Socket 370. But the Celeron 1200 also has its advantages. Thanks to the 0.13-micron manufacturing process, this CPU can be overclocked very heavily. In our test, the Celeron 1200 ran with total stability at 1500 MHz. By comparison, the maximum (stable) clock speed of the AMD Duron 1100 was 1250 MHz.

All in all, the AMD Duron 1100 remains uncontested as the most powerful and inexpensive upgrade CPU: the processor can be used in any Socket 462 board (socket A) – regardless of the chipset and revision of the board. In comparison to the Intel Celeron 1200 – which can only work with SDRAM memory at 100 MHz – the AMD Duron 1100 can also be operated using DDR-SDRAM on the appropriate boards.