3D Rendering

To test 3D Studio Max rendering performance, we rendered the SinglePipe2.max benchmark file and used the render time as the score.


In an area where Intel has traditionally done very well, AMD leads across the board. Only our P4 1.8A is able to edge out the XP 1700+ in this test.

DivX Encoding Development Workstation Performance
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Keeksy - Thursday, December 4, 2003 - link

    Great article. I never knew the Celeron was such a bad performer. If I had to build a new machine on budget, I'd definitely go with a Barton Athlon.

    Hey, what's with the freaking huge ads at the top of every page? Really annoying.
  • pxc - Thursday, December 4, 2003 - link

    I'm a little happier about the Duron 1.8GHz/motherboard combo I purchased now for $60 on black Friday. :D As a bonus, it's a 1.5v core and came unlocked. With 2 pencil traces and a short wire, it's an 11.5x 333MHz FSB Duron which still performs great without the rest of the cache enabled and has headroom for overclocking.

    The Celerons are really affected by the low speed memory (@ PC2100 on the test system) more than any other processors. Those processors would still lag in this review, the Celerons would have scaled better on other chipsets that allow better memory/FSB ratios. For example, PC3200 on single channel to match the bandwidth of the 400MHz FSB (SiS and VIA) or dual channel PC2100 (SiS648).
  • FishTankX - Thursday, December 4, 2003 - link

    ..Why does it say 'It is clear which *card* 'offers the better performance'??
  • Pandaren - Thursday, December 4, 2003 - link

    Is anyone suprised at all by these test results? THG OC'ed a Celeron to 3 GHz a few months ago and even then, the Pentium 4 2.0A beat the pants off the Celeron.

    Fact is that most consumers don't give a rats @ss if they will get half the FPS in a game they will never buy or play. For email, Microsoft Word, and AOHell, a 2.6 GHz Celeron will seem the same as a 1.6 GHz Duron to the average person.

    I am sure that Compaq and other retail companies are well aware of the current Celeron's shortcomings. I am also sure that they will pay this article no heed and that they really don't care. The Celeron is mediocre enough.

    What I'd like to see is Celeron M (Banias-512) based desktops in the budget segment. This 800 MHz wonder provides all the office firepower most people need, and probably doesn't even need a fan to keep it cool.
  • Boonesmi - Thursday, December 4, 2003 - link

    and whats is really pitiful is that the 1.6ghz duron is faster then the P4 1.8A in most tests

    and the duron only costs $41 LOL
  • Boonesmi - Thursday, December 4, 2003 - link


    celerons suck more then i though!!
  • mattsaccount - Thursday, December 4, 2003 - link

    The message is clear! Celerons are even worse than I thought...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now