Advertisment

AMD Duron 800

author-image
PCQ Bureau
New Update
AMD Duron 800
Entry-level processor. Rs 5,400



Features: 128 kB L1 cache; 64 kB L2 cache; 800 MHz frequency.


Pros: Inexpensive; good performance.


Cons: None.


Source: Aditya Infotech


Khemka Centre


DDA Building


2-5 Nehru Place, 


New Delhi 110019.


Tel: 11-6223810, 6452211 


Fax: 6227979 


E-mail: kavita_modi@adityagroup.com
website: www.adityagroup.com










Advertisment

AMD has come quite far since the days when the K6-2 or K6-3 tried to play

catch-up with Intel’s offerings. First, it was the Athlon in its different

forms–K7, K75 and Thunderbird–that gave Intel’s PIII a run for its money

in the high-end segment. Then, the Duron released in June last year did the same

to the Celeron in the entry-level market.

The Duron is based on the Athlon K7 core, minus 12 million transistors. It

has a 128 kB L1 cache and a 64 kB L2 cache, both running at the same speed as

the core itself. All Duron processors have a 462-pin Socket A interface, which

is the same as Thunderbird’s. The latest Duron runs on 800 MHz and, going by

our tests, is quite a performer.

For our tests we used a Creative GeForce display card, a VIA VT82C686A

chipset motherboard, and 128 MB RAM. We ran the same set of tests on a Celeron

600 MHz based machine, with an Asus CUSL2-C motherboard and the same

configuration. For the benchmarks, we used Business Winstone 99, Winbench 99,

Quake III Arena and 3D Winbench 2000. Whereas Winstone and Quake III help us in

looking at the larger picture, specialized processor tests in Winbench and 3D

Winbench stress the CPU and measure its performance.

Advertisment

So, how did the Duron 800 fare? We wouldn’t be too far off the mark if we

said that perhaps the only reason that the Duron is called a low-end processor

is because of its price. It was able to pump out 108 frames per second (fps) in

Quake III at 640x480 resolution with 32-bit color depth, which is about 12

frames more than its older cousin, the Duron 700. These dropped to about 82 fps

at 800x600 with 32-bit color depth. Nevertheless, these are really good frame

rates for a 3D game, resulting in very smooth game play.

In Business Winstone 99, which measures performance in running normal

productivity applications like office suites and Web browsers, our test setup

got a score of 28.8, which is higher than the Duron 700 by only about 0.8 marks.

We then moved to benchmarks that stress the processor specifically, which

include CPU Mark and FPU Mark of Winbench, and the 3D Winbench 2000 processor

test. The CPU Mark showed a 12.6 percent gain, while it was ahead in the other

two tests by about 10 percent each. We also tried to see where the new Duron

stands compared to a Celeron 600 MHz–Intel’s processor for the entry-level

segment. The scores for the Celeron were way below those of Duron 800, and even

those of Duron 700. Unfortunately, we didn’t have the Celeron 700 MHz for

comparison. Another Celeron version, which runs at 800 MHz on 100 MHz FSB, was

announced only recently; so we couldn’t catch it on time.

Advertisment
  Business

Winstone 99 (Winmarks)
Quake

III Arena 640x480 at 32-bit color depth
Quake

III Arena 800x600 at 32-bit color depth
Winbench

(FPU Mark) (FPU marks)
Winbench

(CPU Mark) (CPU marks)
3D

Winbench 2000 (Processor test)



(CPU Winmarks)

Duron 800

28.8

108

82.3

4360

65.9

1.3

Duron 700

28

95.7

80

3810

59.1

1.18

Celeron 600

25.6

64.1

60.2

3180

44.4

0.997

Overall, Duron 800 is the way to go for entry-level PCs. Another interesting

point here is that entry-level processors are fast approaching the GHz limit.

So, every desktop may well have one soon.

Anuj Jain for PCQ Labs

Advertisment