Kicking off the performance tests, we have SYSMark 2000.  The first thing we notice is that the Celeron 800 isn't lingering below with the rest of the Celerons.  It's 100MHz FSB gives it the advantage it needs to offer, for the first time in quite a while, respectable performance. 

Granted, the Celeron 800 is still 9% slower than the Duron 800, however it is no longer trailing AMD's "slowest" Duron offering.  In fact, the Celeron 800 is approximately 6% faster than the Duron 600 which is very impressive for a CPU that has half the FSB bandwidth and 64KB less cache than the Duron. 

Business Winstone 2001 doesn't change the picture too much at all.  While SYSMark 2000 is focused around measuring system performance while running a single application, Business Winstone 2001 is more representative of a power user's machine where multiple applications are running at once. 

In this case the Duron 800 is almost 14% faster than the Celeron 800 which happens to be around 4% faster than the Duron 600.  More importantly, however, is the comparison between this new 100MHz FSB Celeron and the 66MHz FSB 766MHz part.  A 4% increase in clock speed (766 > 800MHz) resulted in a 6% increase in performance, indicating a better than linear increase in performance. 

Can you begin to see how much the Celeron was being limited by its 66MHz FSB?

Again the Duron 800 holds a healthy lead over the Celeron 800, this time of just over 8%.  And once again the Celeron 800 is able to outdo its older siblings by offering performance superior to that of the Duron 600. 

In comparison to the Celeron 766, the same 4% increase in clock speed this time results in a 9% increase in performance.  In content creation applications, the Celeron must have really been hurting with its 66MHz FSB. 

Testing the Chip Gaming Performance - Quake III Arena
Comments Locked


View All Comments

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now