Final Words

It is very obvious from these tests which line of budget processors is worth the money. When we can find a 1.6GHz Duron for just over half the price of a 2.6GHz Celeron and get better performance consistently in almost every test we ran, the choice is clear.

It's obvious that the long pipeline of the Pentium 4 just can't handle the crippled cache of the Celeron. With more cache misses and pipeline stalls, the processor isn't getting as much useful work done as it is trying constantly to refill the pipeline. We are seeing these results for the same reason we saw the performance gains from the P4 Extreme Edition with its 2MB L3 cache: the pipeline needs to stay full for the P4 to really shine.

The Pentium III based Celerons offered, at one time, acceptable performance. However, it is clear that in the value segment today, Intel has nothing to offer but a high clock speed. AnandTech readers will know to stay away from the Celeron at all costs; however, what is troublesome are the number of retail customers who are faced with the decision between a higher priced 2.6GHz Celeron system and an Athlon XP 2200+. We would highly encourage system vendors like Compaq and eMachines to shift their low-end focus to AMD if their customers are of any importance at all. As we've seen through our extensive benchmarking, the Celeron's performance is truly dismal; so while Intel is quite competitive in the mid-range and high-end segments, their value processors are inexcusably slow compared to AMD.

This review really isn't complete without taking a look at overclocking performance. For enthusiasts who want a lot of performance for a small amount of cash (cache?), pushing a cheap processor beyond its limits is the way to go. Every overclocker remembers the original Celeron processor and its amazing ability to run incredibly fast because of its lack of cache. At this point (however unlikely), such a feature would be the only saving grace of the Celeron line. Of course, even if the Celeron is a good overclocker, it will be very interesting to see how high the Duron can be pushed with its cut cache as well.

The conclusion we can make from all this is that the Duron processor is a solid purchase. If you have the extra 40 to 50 dollars to spend, a Barton processor would be a nice addition to any system for that added dimension of performance to a tightly budgeted system. Hopefully, system builders will take note and start offering better performing systems for an even lower price based on the Duron processor rather than the Celeron. For those who want the cheapest possible system, AMD will give you the best performance every time.

Quake III Arena Performance
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • arejerjejjerjre - Wednesday, January 7, 2004 - link

    Someone said that P4 EE loses to A64 3200+ HAH LOL
  • arejerjejjerjre - Wednesday, January 7, 2004 - link



    Even the P4 3.2GHZ rulez over A64 3200+!!!!
    The Extreme Edition rulez quite easily over 3200+ and 3400+!!!
  • Skandaloes - Saturday, December 13, 2003 - link

    "so while Intel is quite competitive in the mid-range and high-end segments, their value processors are inexcusably slow compared to AMD."
    What are you talking about? Intels mid-range segment, 2.4-2.8GHz P4's, offer the same performance as AMD's value segment Barton processors. You should do a comparison of the 2500+ and 2800+ Athlon XP's and the 2.4C, 2.6C, and 2.8C Intel P4's. I think you would be even more surprised.
    The problem is you're comparing the AMD processors to Celeron ones based on their ratings which were meant for P4's. A 2500+ Athlon ($90) has about the same performance as a 2.53GHz P4 ($175) or a 2.4C P4 ($165). A 2800+ ($145) will do almost as well as a 2.8C P4 ($215).
    AMD really has Intel beat in all price segment. The Value segment is completely obvious, and that's because AMD offers mid-range performance processors at value prices. The Athlon 64's control the high performance sector already, and the 3000+ should extend that advantage into the upper mid-range segment. The 3200+ costs about $20 less than a 3.2GHz P4 when configured, and the FX-51 is as fast or at least nearly as fast as the extreme edition for $200-$300 less. It's simple really. AMD offers faster processors for less in every price segment, not just the value one.

  • arejerjejjerjre - Saturday, December 13, 2003 - link

    I am not going to post anymore its pointless you wouldn't believe me anyway!
  • arejerjejjerjre - Thursday, December 11, 2003 - link

    By the way Celeron 2GHZ performed better in raw calculations (Pifast 3.3) than Pentium 4 1.8A

    Basis for claims about celerons low performance was that it was not good in raw calculations! It's better than you think!
  • arejerjejjerjre - Thursday, December 11, 2003 - link

    You would probably have a heart attack if I could prove to you that the review is wrong!
  • arejerjejjerjre - Thursday, December 11, 2003 - link

    How will I prove it? You wouldn't believe anything! You'd have to see for your self that's the problem!!

    Celeron has a different potential with different setting I meant!! And my test's used low end parts if you meant that!!!

    Noone reads magazines anymore :)

    Hard proof is hard to get! Like I said! And even if I had you on my side what does it matter? Still noone else wouldn't believe what I say!

    Yes it's true I just spitted out what I have said crappy text,bad english and all that! :)
    Review got me quite angry because the truth is far from what the article says.

    I cant stop thinking thats my problem! What's yours? If you do not even consider something to be truth you are in denial but that's not me whos in denial then!! :)
  • JAGedlion - Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - link

    you know someone's in denial when they start to spam the boards like arejerjejjerjre. Seriously, if that isn't spamming, what is? At least the spam in my e-mail comes with pr0n, with arejerjejjerjre its just filled with the same old crap over and over.
    arejerjejjerjre, just think for a sec, I'm only asking for one second, so I am hoping that you can comply.
    Yes, some things will do better when on different platforms, that is rather obviouse... So whats your point? This is anandtech, not amdzone or w/e, and as such, they are successful if and only if they are reliable. Who buys a magazine and reads it through (real reading, not liek a comic book) knowing its all crap? Just as always, you have to learn to pick your battles. arejerjejjerjre, you started off at a disadvantage because the article strongly says the opposite of what you claim, and I grant you, that makes your job even harder. But to say they lied? Come on. Admit that they are right first, then say what you want. I will belive you saying that the celerons potential was not revealed, but realize, it was not only compared to durons. It was compared to XP's. These are full fledged chips, it makes sense that they would perform better, just like the worst viper outperforms the best tercel. Second, just stop with your proclamations about the unreliability of AMD procs, try to prove your point, not bash another's. Just the same, your idea of calling people liars is also moot. Compare the palimno to the throughough bred, in paper, not in what you could do. Performance increase may not have been much for you, btu there is no doubt it is a core designed to perform better. I'm not saying your right or wrong, but you need to work on your debate skills. Lastly, these are budget chips. The key word there is budget. 50% off the price of the chip isn't a little. Add to that the fact that amd mobo's are generaly less expensive and you see that for all of Intels capability in higher end systems, little can be said for their low end element.
  • arejerjejjerjre - Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - link

    I only seen a duron run at 40 Celsius :) nothing else!

    Palomino 1700+ 60 C
    Thoroughbred 1700+/1800+ 50 C
    Duron 1300mhz 70 C the case was quite small! :)

    All the other cpus had big tower cases and good cooling!

    And intels stock cooling is silent too!!
  • arejerjejjerjre - Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - link

    Justly if you got the money you should try and test it yourself that much better choice then to trust these reviews! Of Course if your afraid of what the results might be...

    Moronbasher what I said about the scores going high in 3dmark01 and not in quake 3 is completely true!! Hard to believe though I didn't believe it my self first!!!

    And again Intels stock cooling has allways been quite efficient enough my 2.4C is running at 42 degrees celsius!!!

    Hmm my friend had maxtor 80gb in serial ata! So that is the problem then but I've seen in some people say in nforce forums that they had had corruption with other harddrives not just maxtor!

    Yes VIA had had driver problems big time! But their chipset has workt greatly! And the performance difference between nforce 2 and via kt400a isnt much!

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now