<!–#set var="article_header" value="El Cheapo:
Duron 1300 vs. Celeron 1300″ –>
The Battle Continues: Duron 1300 vs. Celeron 1300
Typically, the cheap PC systems that are often sold by the big retail chains are equipped with an AMD Duron or Intel Celeron. Here, the price range of these cheapies starts with $425, but the spartan configuration of such PC systems is striking: usually, the PC contains integrated graphics, a very small hard drive (e.g. 20 GB) and 128 MB SDRAM. If you want to upgrade the system later to keep up with the current standards, you are out of luck, as this is not possible. From an economic standpoint, for the end user the investment has gone to waste. So it is no wonder that in 2001, AMD was able to sell more Athlon processors than Durons. It is an established fact that there’s a big demand for low-priced processors (also known in marketing jargon as “entry level” processors). But this is not the case in Europe or the USA; the major markets for the AMD Duron are clearly in Eastern Europe and Asia.
A typical low-cost system for $499 – equipped with an Intel Celeron in this case.
Duron 1300 vs. Celeron 1300, Continued
With the launch of the Duron 1300, AMD introduces another processor based on the well-known Morgan core. It is quite possible that the manufacturer will also present the Duron 1400 with the same core until the new CPU core (codenamed Appaloosa, based on 0.13 micron technology) is introduced, early this year. We’ve already looked at the primary structure of the Duron and put it through many lab tests in the articles Intel против AMD: Celeron 1300 versus Duron 1200 and AMD Duron 1200 атакует Pentium 4
The two arch enemies: AMD Duron 1300 and Intel Celeron 1300.
A view of the CPU die of the AMD Duron 1300.
Detailed Comparison: Duron 1300 vs. Celeron 1300
| Manufacturer | AMD | Intel |
| Processor | Duron 1300 | Celeron 1300 |
| CPU Core | Morgan | Tualatin |
| Manufacturing Technology | 0.18 Micron | 0.13 Micron |
| CPU Platform | Socket 462 | Socket 370 |
| CPU Bus Clock (Front Side Bus) | 100 MHz | 100 MHz |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 32 KB |
| L1 Cache Access | core clock | core clock |
| L2 Interface | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| L2 Cache | 64 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 Clock Speed | core clock | core clock |
| L2 Cache Range | 64 GB | 64 GB |
| Chipset and Memory Support | ||
| Memory Type | SDRAM, DDR-SDRAM | SDRAM, DDR-SDRAM |
| Memory Clock | 133 MHz | 100 MHz |
| Chipset | VIA KT133 to KT266A SiS 735 Ali Magik 1 Nvidia nForce AMD 750 and 760 |
Intel 815EPT VIA Apollo 133T SiS 633/635T |
| 3D Instruction Extensions | ||
| MMX | yes | yes |
| 3D Now | yes | no |
| 3D Now+ | yes | no |
| SSE | yes | yes |
| SSE2 | no | no |
| Electrical Specifications | ||
| Multi-processor Capability | no | no |
| Core Voltage | 1.45 to 1.75 Volt | 1.30 to 1.65 Volt |
| Power (max.) | 43 Watt | 29 Watt |
| Amperage | 47 Amperes | 50 Amperes |
| Thermal Protection (Thermal Diode) | yes | yes |
| Integrated Thermal Logic | no | yes |
| Price | ~ $95 | ~ $118 |
Overclocking: AMD Puts A Clamp On The Multiplier?
In the routine overclocking tests, we noticed that the multiplier of the Duron 1300 was locked. Even after bridging the L1 contacts, we still weren’t able to release the multiplier. We investigated the Duron 1300 together with many of the latest motherboards with the VIA KT266A chipset as well as the SiS 735 chipset. However, the results were always the same: adjusting the multiplier to below 13.0 hampered the bootup process, while CPU settings of 14.0 or 15.0 (pseudo-multipliers) were promptly ignored. In any case, we couldn’t tell if this had to do with a hand-picked CPU, or if AMD has begun using a multiplier lock starting with the Duron 1300. So the only way to overclock was to increase the FSB clock speed. In the test, the AMD Duron 1300 ran stably at a maximum of 1438 MHz, using traditional air-cooling.
1438 MHz is the limit: the Duron 1300 runs stably all the way up to this clock speed.
Test Configuration and Details
| AMD Hardware Socket 462 |
|
| Processor | AMD Athlon XP 1500+ (1333/266 MHz DDR) AMD Athlon 1400 MHz (1400/266 MHz DDR) AMD Duron 1300 MHz (1300/200 MHz DDR) AMD Duron 1200 MHz (1200/200 MHz DDR) |
| Motherboard | EPOX EP-8KHA+ (VIA KT266A) Revision: 2.0. |
| Memory | 256 MB DDR-SDRAM, CL2, PC2100, Micron |
| Intel Hardware P4 Socket 478 |
|
| Processor | Intel Pentium 4/1700 MHz (400 MHz QDR FSB) |
| Motherboard | ASUS P4T-E (I850) Revision: 1.00 |
| Memory | 2 x 128 MB, RDRAM, 400 MHz, Viking |
| Intel Hardware Celeron Socket 370 |
|
| Processors | Intel Celeron 1200 MHz (100 MHz FSB) Intel Celeron 1300 MHz (100 MHz FSB) |
| Motherboard | ASUS TUSL2-C (I815EPT) Revision: 1.04 |
| Memory | 1 x 256 MB, SDRAM, 100 MHz, CL2, Micron |
| Common Hardware | |
| Graphics Card | GeForce 3 Memory: 64 MB DDR-SDRAM Memory Clock: 400 MHz Chip Clock: 250 MHz |
| Hard Disk | Chip Clock: 250 MHz UDMA100 7200 rpm 2 MB Cache |
| Drivers & Software | |
| Graphics Driver | Detonator 4 Series V21.88 |
| DirectX Version | 8.1 |
| OS | Windows XP, Build 2600 |
| Benchmarks and Settings | |
| Quake III Arena | Retail Version 1.16 command line = +set cd_nocd 1 +set s_initsound 0 Graphics detail set to ‘Normal’ Benchmark using ‘Q3DEMO1’ |
| 3DMark2000 | Version 1.1 Build 340 – default Benchmark |
| 3DMark2001 | Build 200 – default Benchmark |
| SiSoft Sandra 2001 | Professional Version 2001.3.7.50 |
| Newtek Lightwave | Rendering Bench SKULL_HEAD_NEWEST.LWS |
| mpeg4 encoding | Flask V0.6 (MPEG 3) DivX 4.02.01 Compression: 100 Data Rate: 1500 Kbit Format: 720×480 Pixel@25 fps no Audio |
| Studio 7 | Version 7.02.7 (MPEG 2) |
| Sysmark 2001 | Patch 3 |
| Lame | Lame 3.89 MMX, SSE, SSE 2, 3DNow |
| WinACE | 2.04, 178 MB Wave-File, Best Compression, Dictionary 4096 KB |
| Cinema 4D XL R6 | CineBench 6.103 |
| Suse Linux 7.3 | Kernel 2.4.13 Compilition |
Benchmarks Under Windows XP
We used a total of 16 different benchmark tests in order to obtain a well-rounded and balanced picture of how the Duron 1300 performs. The OpenGL performance is measured through various Quake 3 tests – the Direct3D performance from the DirectX package is measured with 3D Mark 2000 (based on DirectX 7) and 3D Mark 2001 (based on DirectX 8). A comprehensive test scenario is created by a variety of benchmarks for MPEG encoding: with the help of the Lame MP3 Encoder, a 178 MB WAV file is converted to the MPEG-1 Layer 3 format. In addition, we took a look at MPEG-2 encoding within a project, for which we used the video editing software Pinnacle Studio 7. For a while, we have been using the professional Lightwave package version 7b from Newtek to evaluate rendering performance. Another important and practical application is archiving, for which we used WinACE-Packer. Compiling the newest Linux Kernel 2.4.13 has long been part of our standard repertoire. In order to test office performance, we used the Sysmark 2001 benchmark.
OpenGL-Performance: Quake 3 Arena
In the Quake 3 Arena time demo runs, the Duron 1300 is positioned ahead of the Intel Celeron 1300. A similar picture is found with the NV15 demos, where the Duron 1300 is ahead of the Intel processor.
Direct3D Performance – DirectX 7: 3D Mark 2000
3D Mark 2000 shows the Direct3D performance from DirectX 7 under Windows XP. The chart shows that the Celeron 1300 has a weaker performance than the Duron 1300.
Direct3D Performance – DirectX 8: 3D Mark 2001
3D Mark 2001 reveals the Direct3D performance of DirectX 8 under Windows XP. In this benchmark, the Duron 1300 is once again clearly in the lead over the Intel Celeron 1300.
MP3-Audio-Encoding: Lame MP3
With the Lame MP3 Encoder, a 178 MB sound file in WAV format is converted to MPEG-1 Layer 3 format under Windows XP. In this discipline, the Intel Celeron 1300 overtakes the Duron 1300 for the first time.
SiSoft Sandra Benchmarks: CPU and Multimedia
The SiSoft Sandra Benchmark 2001 shows that the Celeron 1300 leads the Duron 1300 in two of the tests. Still, these results are to be taken with a grain of salt.
3D-Rendering: Newtek Lightwave 7b
The Celeron 1300 clearly has the advantage, as shown by the results of the Lightwave benchmarks. These results are exactly the same as in the previous test – the Duron cannot change things, despite its increased clock speed.
Office Performance: Sysmark 2001
In the Office Performance category, the Duron 1300 overtakes the Celeron 1300 by a nose.
Linux Compiling: Suse Linux 7.3/ Kernel 2.4.13
The Celeron 1300 is faster at compiling the newest Linux kernel than its competitor from AMD. The Celeron takes only 263 seconds to do the task, while the Duron 1300 takes 311 seconds.
Archiving: WinACE 2.04
Archiving is a very practical application. With the help of WinACE 2.04 Packers under Windows XP, a 178 MB WAV file is packed, and the time it takes to complete the task is measured. Here, the Celeron 1300 is slightly ahead of the AMD Duron 1300.
3D-Rendering Performance: SPECviewperf “Lightscape”
In the Lightscape benchmark, the AMD Duron 1300 is clearly ahead of the Intel Celeron 1300.
Video-Encoding MPEG-2: Pinnacle Studio 7
The Duron 1300 gives an impressive performance in MPEG 2 video encoding, leaving the Intel Celeron 1300 in the dust.
Conclusion: Duron 1300 – The Better Choice Compared To Celeron 1300
This test clearly shows that, at the same clock speed, the more expensive Intel Celeron does not measure up to the AMD Duron. The reasons for this are quite obvious: for one thing, the Celeron’s Socket 370 platform runs on an outmoded memory clock speed of 100 MHz! In this case, even the latest Tualatin core with its 256 KB L2-Cache would not be able to compete. In contrast, AMD is built on a 133 MHz memory clock that even works in DDR mode, depending on the chipset. However, both competitors are specified to work with a Front Side Bus of 100 MHz. For those that want to assemble a low-priced PC system, the AMD Duron 1300 is the better choice when compared to the Intel Celeron 1300. In reality, the price difference for typical PC systems of this performance class is approximately $85. Low-cost PCs with the Duron cost about $425, while similarly configured systems with the Celeron start at $510.
An interesting result turned up in our overclocking test: despite the fact that we bridged the L1 contact, the multiplier of the AMD CPU could not be released. So it remains to be seen whether this has to do with a special hand-picked CPU sample, or whether AMD has now made it a general rule to lock the multiplier. This presents a new challenge for us.
It appears as if AMD has done some of its homework. In any case, the manufacturer has made sure that the majority of its processors are no longer available at an entirely piddling price. This fact mirrors the average sales price (ASP), which increased significantly in the last quarter: it was $61 in the summer, and is now at $90. In addition, the number of Duron processors sold last year (at a low ASP) comprised less than 50%. In many of the previous articles, we’ve recommended keeping in mind the saying, “you get what you pay for,” and apparently this has not fallen on deaf ears.
