PDA

View Full Version : amd duron (1.3ghz) is equal to pentium?



jonkimnicko
27-08-2006, 09:43 PM
amd duron (1.3ghz) is equal to pentium 1,2 or 3?

Jen
27-08-2006, 10:13 PM
A 1.3 GHz is considered a Pentium 4

tweak'e
27-08-2006, 11:41 PM
mmmmm.......i would suspect more along the lines of p3 800-1000mhz. depends a bit on what ram goes with it (sdram or DDR). don't forget the duron is AMD's ver of the celeron and performed much better than it while being cheaper.

i susgest go find some benchmarks on the varoius cpu's.

RandomCarnage
28-08-2006, 12:38 AM
AMD's and pentiums of less than ~ 1.8GHz were of an era where AMD was able to match intel for speed but lacked over all processing power.

The difference can be related to 2 rooms full of mathmeticians. Each mathmetician can solve a problem at the same speed, but the intel room had twice as many mathmeticians in it than the AMD room.

AMD as a result began listing their chips as intel equivolent speeds rather than actual speeds...hence the current trend toward such gems as AMD 5000+ which is their estimated intel equivolent even though the actual number of cycles is much less.

As for your question, it would be upper P3, lower P4 area.

Pete O'Neil
29-08-2006, 08:38 PM
AMD's and pentiums of less than ~ 1.8GHz were of an era where AMD was able to match intel for speed but lacked over all processing power.

The difference can be related to 2 rooms full of mathmeticians. Each mathmetician can solve a problem at the same speed, but the intel room had twice as many mathmeticians in it than the AMD room.

Huh? The original Thunderbird(Athlon) and Spitfire(Duron) cores clock for clock were very competitive with Intels Pentium 3, and provided superior performance compared with the P4. There was no way Intel chips were twice as fast as AMD alternatives.

While the Duron had less cache, this didnt cripple it to the extent the Celeron was crippled by its lack of cache. I remember reading benchmarks where the 1.3GHz gave the early P4's a run for their money. It would be fair to compare the Duron to chips of the era and with the same clockspeeds. Granted cache, memory arcitechture and FSB all effect performance, but not enough to result in huge lossing margin (with the possible exception of the Celeron).

tweak'e
29-08-2006, 11:22 PM
AMD's and pentiums of less than ~ 1.8GHz were of an era where AMD was able to match intel for speed but lacked over all processing power.


other way around i think ;) AMD killed intel with the early atho exspecially in performance per $

Strommer
29-08-2006, 11:51 PM
While the Duron had less cache, this didnt cripple it to the extent the Celeron was crippled by its lack of cache. I remember reading benchmarks where the 1.3GHz gave the early P4's a run for their money.

What Pete says seems to confirm what I have found...
I bought a 1.3 Ghz Duron off Tradme for my wife's business and it is surprising how fast and clean it operates. They use it for WP and printing / altering photos but it only has 256 RAM. I had a Celeron and would never ever get one of those again. With the Duron we can run a couple of programs at once with no problem.

RandomCarnage
30-08-2006, 12:29 AM
At the time that P3 hit the market, it dominated AMD.

My point was that this gap did indeed close up, but not until near the end of the P3 era.

There are always going to be AMD supporters that disagree, but it was common knowledge at the time that P3 was a stronger all round package than the equivolent AMD offering at the time.

I'm not saying it was twice as good, I was just trying to demonstrate a principle for the benefit of those that simply base comparrison on clock speed.

SolMiester
30-08-2006, 03:36 PM
At the time that P3 hit the market, it dominated AMD.

My point was that this gap did indeed close up, but not until near the end of the P3 era.

There are always going to be AMD supporters that disagree, but it was common knowledge at the time that P3 was a stronger all round package than the equivolent AMD offering at the time.

I'm not saying it was twice as good, I was just trying to demonstrate a principle for the benefit of those that simply base comparrison on clock speed.

That is totally incorrect my friend......clock for clock the athlon(not duron) beat the P3.
Check your benchmarks again!

tweak'e
30-08-2006, 07:58 PM
At the time that P3 hit the market, it dominated AMD.

My point was that this gap did indeed close up, but not until near the end of the P3 era.


sort of correct. the early p3 was better but if i remeber correctly the atho wasn't out then, they only had the budget k6-2. the early atho held its own against the p3 but at the end the atho stomped all over the p3. partly due to intel contiued to sell it due to its very poor performing (and expencive) p4 and the atho also got DDR which p3 never had (some p3 systems came out with single chanel RDRAM. afaik the last of the p3's where recalled due to stability problems.

mind you i'm an AMD fan ;)

Battleneter
30-08-2006, 09:02 PM
At the time that P3 hit the market, it dominated AMD.

My point was that this gap did indeed close up, but not until near the end of the P3 era.

There are always going to be AMD supporters that disagree, but it was common knowledge at the time that P3 was a stronger all round package than the equivolent AMD offering at the time.

I'm not saying it was twice as good, I was just trying to demonstrate a principle for the benefit of those that simply base comparison on clock speed.

Yea sorry but I will have to shoot you down as well, both your posts are drivell. I clearly remember ditching my Intel P2 and going Athlon as they slaughter P3 in the equivalent price range. You remember the only thing Intel could come up with was "gee those Athlons run hot".

AMD held the performance crown right up to when P4 went 800FSB(gee those Intels run hot), then AMD got slaughtered for some time till AMD64's went Mainstream. And as of the last few months its back to Intel with there new Dual core duo's.

I will leave it up to you to go Googleing.

RandomCarnage
30-08-2006, 09:36 PM
/shrug w/e

When I built my P3 450, AMD couldn't touch it. But I guess everyone has their team.

As for your google it remark...pfft.

Pete O'Neil
31-08-2006, 03:25 PM
When I built my P3 450, AMD couldn't touch it. But I guess everyone has their team.

Are you thinking of the K6-2's? At the time the early P3's were released they would have been Intel main competitor and greatly inferior. The early Athlons used a slot interface as opposed to a socket which had greater latency and thus werent as competitive. But by the time AMD and Intel had reached 700MHz both were using sockets and had very similar performance.