Gaming performance changes the picture slightly.  Games such as Quake III Arena are more FSB dependent than our business and content creation tests from earlier, and thus the Duron gets the major advantage here. 

The Celeron 800 still manages to provide a 24% increase in performance over the Celeron 766, in spite of only boasting a 4% actual clock speed increase (proving our theory regarding FSB dependency in games like Q3A). 

However that 24% increase in performance is only enough to bring it up to the speed of a Duron 600 whose superior L2 cache subsystem (read our explanation on the Duron's L2 vs Celeron's L2) and 100MHz DDR (effectively 200MHz) FSB give it the edge in games like Quake III Arena.

Bumping up the resolution a bit to 1024 x 768 x 32, where performance would normally be determined solely by your graphics card, the Celeron is still only able to offer performance close to that of a Duron 600. 

The Celeron 800 does come out 14% faster than the 66MHz FSB Celeron 766.

Business/Content Creation Application Performance - Win2K Gaming Performance - UnrealTournament
Comments Locked


View All Comments

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now