AMD E2-1800 review | 64 facts and highlights
30points
AMD E2-1800
AMD E2-1800
Why is AMD E2-1800 better than the average?
- GPU clock speed?
523MHzvs419.67MHz - Thermal Design Power (TDP)?
18Wvs48.14W - L2 core?
0.5MB/corevs0.44MB/core
Which are the most popular comparisons?
AMD Ryzen 5 5500U
vs
Intel Core i5-1135G7
AMD Ryzen 3 5300U
vs
Intel Core i3-1115G4
AMD Ryzen 3 3250U
vs
Intel Core i3-1115G4
AMD Ryzen 7 5800H
vs
Intel Core i7-11800H
AMD Ryzen 5 3500U
vs
Intel Core i5-10210U
AMD Ryzen 7 5700U
vs
Intel Core i7-1165G7
AMD Ryzen 5 4600H
vs
Intel Core i5-10300H
AMD Ryzen 5 3500U
vs
Intel Core i3-1115G4
Intel Core i3-1115G4
vs
Intel Core i5-1135G7
AMD Ryzen 5 5500U
vs
Intel Core i3-1115G4
Price comparison
User reviews
Performance
1. CPU speed
2 x 1.7GHz
The CPU speed indicates how many processing cycles per second can be executed by a CPU, considering all of its cores (processing units). It is calculated by adding the clock rates of each core or, in the case of multi-core processors employing different microarchitectures, of each group of cores.
2.CPU threads
More threads result in faster performance and better multitasking.
3.turbo clock speed
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value.
When the CPU is running below its limitations, it can boost to a higher clock speed in order to give increased performance.
4.Has an unlocked multiplier
✖AMD E2-1800
Some processors come with an unlocked multiplier which makes them easy to overclock, allowing you to gain increased performance in games and other apps.
5.L2 cache
A larger L2 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.
6.L3 cache
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value.
A larger L3 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.
7.L1 cache
A larger L1 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.
8.L2 core
0.5MB/core
More data can be stored in the L2 cache for access by each core of the CPU.
9.L3 core
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value.
More data can be stored in the L3 cache for access by each core of the CPU.
Memory
1.RAM speed
1333MHz
It can support faster memory, which will give quicker system performance.
2.maximum memory bandwidth
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value.
This is the maximum rate that data can be read from or stored into memory.
3.
DDR memory version
DDR (Double Data Rate) memory is the most common type of RAM. Newer versions of DDR memory support higher maximum speeds and are more energy-efficient.
4.memory channels
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value.
More memory channels increases the speed of data transfer between the memory and the CPU.
5.maximum memory amount
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value.
The maximum amount of memory (RAM) supported.
6.bus transfer rate
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value.
The bus is responsible for transferring data between different components of a computer or device.
7.Supports ECC memory
✖AMD E2-1800
Error-correcting code memory can detect and correct data corruption. It is used when is it essential to avoid corruption, such as scientific computing or when running a server.
8.eMMC version
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value.
A higher version of eMMC allows faster memory interfaces, having a positive effect on the performance of a device. For example, when transferring files from your computer to the internal storage over USB.
9.bus speed
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value.
The bus is responsible for transferring data between different components of a computer or device.
Benchmarks
1.PassMark result
This benchmark measures the performance of the CPU using multiple threads.
2.PassMark result (single)
This benchmark measures the performance of the CPU using a single thread.
3.Geekbench 5 result (multi)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value.
Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures a processor’s multi-core performance.
(Source: Primate Labs, 2022)
4.Cinebench R20 (multi) result
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value.
Cinebench R20 is a benchmark tool that measures a CPU’s multi-core performance by rendering a 3D scene.
5.Cinebench R20 (single) result
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value.
Cinebench R20 is a benchmark tool that measures a CPU’s single-core performance by rendering a 3D scene.
6.Geekbench 5 result (single)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value.
Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures a processor’s single-core performance. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)
7.Blender (bmw27) result
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value.
The Blender (bmw27) benchmark measures the performance of a processor by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render the scene in less time.
8.
Blender (classroom) result
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value.
The Blender (classroom) benchmark measures the performance of a processor by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render the scene in less time.
9.performance per watt
This means the CPU is more efficient, giving a greater amount of performance for each watt of power used.
Features
1.uses multithreading
✖AMD E2-1800
Multithreading technology (such as Intel’s Hyperthreading or AMD’s Simultaneous Multithreading) provides increased performance by splitting each of the processor’s physical cores into virtual cores, also known as threads. This way, each core can run two instruction streams at once.
2.Has AES
✖AMD E2-1800
AES is used to speed up encryption and decryption.
3.Has AVX
✖AMD E2-1800
AVX is used to help speed up calculations in multimedia, scientific and financial apps, as well as improving Linux RAID software performance.
4.SSE version
SSE is used to speed up multimedia tasks such as editing an image or adjusting audio volume. Each new version contains new instructions and improvements.
5.Has F16C
✖AMD E2-1800
F16C is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting the contrast of an image or adjusting volume.
6.bits executed at a time
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value.
NEON provides acceleration for media processing, such as listening to MP3s.
7.Has MMX
✔AMD E2-1800
MMX is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting the contrast of an image or adjusting volume.
8.Has TrustZone
✖AMD E2-1800
A technology integrated into the processor to secure the device for use with features such as mobile payments and streaming video using digital rights management (DRM).
9.
front-end width
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value.
The CPU can decode more instructions per clock (IPC), meaning that the CPU performs better
Price comparison
Cancel
Which are the best CPUs?
AMD E2-1800 processor review: CPU specs, performance benchmarks
Buy on Amazon
E2-1800 processor released by AMD; release date: 20 March 2012. The processor is designed for laptop-computers and based on Zacate microarchitecture.
CPU is locked to prevent overclocking. Total number of cores — 2, threads — 2. Maximum CPU clock speed — 1.7 GHz. Manufacturing process technology — 40 nm. Cache size: L1 — 128 KB, L2 — 1024 KB.
Supported memory types: DDR3.
Supported socket types: FT1 BGA 413-Ball. Maximum number of processors in a configuration — 1. Power consumption (TDP): 18 Watt.
Benchmarks
| PassMark Single thread mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark CPU mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench 4 Single Core |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench 4 Multi-Core |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1. 5 DesktopFace Detection |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop Ocean Surface Simulation |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop T-Rex |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop Video Composition |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop Bitcoin Mining |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 Car Chase Offscreen |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 Manhattan |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4. 0T-Rex |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 Car Chase Offscreen |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 Manhattan |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 T-Rex |
|
|
237 Frames/s
909 mHash/s
000 Fps| Name | Value |
|---|---|
| PassMark — Single thread mark | 523 |
| PassMark — CPU mark | 440 |
| Geekbench 4 — Single Core | 138 |
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core | 247 |
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection |
1.125 mPixels/s |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation | 30.303 Frames/s |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex | 0.132 Frames/s |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition | 2.223 Frames/s |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining | 5.909 mHash/s |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen | 322 Frames |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan | 638 Frames |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex | 1099 Frames |
GFXBench 4. 0 — Car Chase Offscreen |
322.000 Fps |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan | 638.000 Fps |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex | 1099.000 Fps |
Specifications (specs)
| Architecture codename | Zacate |
| Launch date | 20 March 2012 |
| Place in performance rating | 2522 |
| Series | AMD E-Series |
| Vertical segment | Laptop |
| 64 bit support | |
| Die size | 75 mm |
| L1 cache | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 1024 KB |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 100 °C |
| Maximum frequency | 1. 7 GHz |
| Number of cores | 2 |
| Number of threads | 2 |
|
|
|
| Supported memory types | DDR3 |
| Max number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 |
| Sockets supported | FT1 BGA 413-Ball |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 18 Watt |
| PowerNow | |
| AMD Virtualization (AMD-V™) | |
Navigation
Choose a CPU
Compare processors
Compare AMD E2-1800 with others
AMD
E2-1800
vs
AMD
Turion 64 MT-37
AMD
E2-1800
vs
AMD
Z-01
AMD
E2-1800
vs
Intel
Atom E3826
AMD
E2-1800
vs
AMD
E1-2200
AMD
E2-1800
vs
Intel
Atom C2358
AMD
E2-1800
vs
Intel
Atom C2558
AMD E2-2000 processor review: features, benchmark tests
The E2-2000 processor was released by AMD, release date: January 1, 2013.
The processor is designed for laptop computers and is built on the Zacate architecture.
Processor locked for overclocking. The total number of cores — 2, threads — 2. The maximum clock frequency of the processor — 1.75 GHz. Technological process — 40 nm. Cache size: L1 — 128 KB, L2 — 1024 KB.
Supported memory type: DDR3.
Supported socket type: FT1 BGA 413-Ball. The maximum number of processors in the configuration is 1. Power consumption (TDP): 18 Watt.
Benchmarks
| PassMark Single thread mark |
|
|||||
| PassMark CPU mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench 4 Single Core |
|
|||||
| Geekbench 4 Multi-Core |
|
|||||
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop Face Detection |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop Ocean Surface Simulation |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop T-Rex |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop Video Composition |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop Bitcoin Mining |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 Car Chase Offscreen |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 Car Chase Offscreen |
|
|
237 Frames/s 
798 mHash/s | Name | Meaning |
|---|---|
| PassMark — Single thread mark | 555 |
| PassMark — CPU mark | 501 |
| Geekbench 4 — Single Core | 129 |
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core | 233 |
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection |
0.578 mPixels/s |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation | 3.575 Frames/s |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex | 0.044 Frames/s |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition | 3.017 Frames/s |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining | 0.798 mHash/s |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen | 324 Frames |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen | 324.000 Fps |
Features
| Architecture name | Zacate |
| Production date | January 1, 2013 |
| Place in the ranking | 2684 |
| Series | AMD E-Series |
| Applicability | Laptop |
| Support 64 bit | |
| Crystal area | 75mm |
| Level 1 cache | 128KB |
| Level 2 cache | 1024KB |
| Process | 40nm |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 100 °C |
| Maximum frequency | 1. 75 GHz |
| Number of cores | 2 |
| Number of threads | 2 |
| Supported memory types | DDR3 |
| Maximum number of processors in configuration | 1 |
| Supported sockets | FT1 BGA 413-Ball |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt |
| PowerNow | |
| AMD Virtualization (AMD-V™) | |
Navigation
Select processor
Processor comparison
AMD E2-2000 vs.
other processor comparison
AMD
E2-2000
versus
Intel
Core Solo T1200
AMD
E2-2000
versus
AMD
Athlon 64 L110
AMD
E2-2000
versus
Intel
Core 2 Duo SU7300
AMD
E2-2000
versus
Intel
Atom E660
AMD
E2-2000
versus
AMD
C-60
AMD
E2-2000
versus
AMD
A4-1250
Review of the AMD Duron 650 processor
At a time when the popularity of Socket 7 platforms was at its peak, and both major microprocessor manufacturers, Intel and AMD, made processors for this socket, we got used to the fact that AMD offered less productive, but and cheaper solutions.
However, a year ago this situation changed radically. By announcing the Athlon, which is architecturally superior to the Intel Pentium III, AMD managed to take the lead in processor performance for a while. And although Intel subsequently managed to improve the core of its processors, which added a built-in second-level cache, AMD firmly established itself in the high-speed CPU market, where it continues to strengthen its position to this day.
AMD is currently using two remedies against Intel. The first is an aggressive pricing policy, as a result of which Athlon processors turned out to be much cheaper than their rivals, Intel Pentium III, operating at the same frequency. And secondly, thanks to its architecture, AMD manages to increase the frequency of its processors somewhat easier than Intel. As a result, at the moment, for example, AMD is already mass-selling its gigahertz CPUs, while similar Intel Pentium IIIs are expected only by September.
However, AMD also has problems.
The biggest headache with the Athlon is the L2 cache, implemented as SRAM chips, which until recently were located on the processor board and were manufactured by third parties. The younger Athlon models had an L2 cache running at half the processor core frequency, but as the frequencies increased, SRAM manufacturers could not keep up with AMD and could not supply cache chips operating at 1/2 the processor core frequency. As a result, starting from 750 MHz, Athlon began to be equipped with cache memory operating at 2/5 of the processor frequency, and starting from 900 MHz — and does work at 1/3 of the frequency. Thus, a paradoxical situation has turned out, when the fastest L2 cache turned out to be in the 700 MHz Athlon. AMD, of course, could not arrange such a situation, since the slow second-level cache memory began to restrain the growth of processor performance.
Therefore, the decision to finally move the AMD Athlon L2 cache from an external processor board into the core looks quite logical.
Moreover, both AMD plants in Austin and Dresden successfully mastered the 0.18 µm technology, which made it possible to reduce the area of the Athlon core by 82 sq. mm when switching from the old 0.25 µm technology.
As a result, the AMD Athlon line continued with processors based on the Thunderbird core with a 128KB L1 cache and a 256KB L2 cache integrated into the core running at full CPU frequency. This family of new AMD Athlons at 750 MHz and above was announced more than two weeks ago.
However, AMD didn’t stop there. A year ago, when introducing Athlon, the company announced its intention to produce various modifications of its CPU, designed for various market sectors. And now, finally, now it has begun to implement its plans, introducing the AMD Duron processor family, oriented to the low-end sector and being a direct competitor to Intel Celeron.
So, let’s see what Duron processors are from the point of view of their main characteristics:
- A chip manufactured using 0.
18 micron technology using copper connections - Spitfire core based on the Athlon architecture. Contains 25 million transistors and has an area of 100 sq. mm
- Works in special motherboards with a 462-pin Socket A processor socket
- Uses high-performance 100 MHz DDR EV6 system bus
- L1 cache 128 KB — 64 KB each for code and data
- Integrated 64 KB L2 cache. Runs at full core frequency
- Supply voltage — 1.5V
- 3DNow!
- Versions with frequencies of 600, 650, 700 MHz are released
So, from the point of view of architecture, Duron is no different from the usual Athlon, except for the 64-KB L2 cache built into the core. If we compare Duron with the new Athlons based on the Thunderbird core, then the differences between them will be in the size of the integrated L2 cache (Thunderbird has 256 KB versus 64 KB in Duron) and in frequencies (Thunderbird is released with frequencies starting from 750 MHz, and Duron — with frequencies up to 700 MHz).
In other respects, both old and new Athlon and Duron are architecturally the same, so details about the core structure of these CPUs can be found in the AMD Athlon 600 review. an updated and technologically improved core, manufactured using 0.18 micron technology. As a result, for example, it even turns out that the Duron core with the built-in L2 cache is even smaller in area than the K75 core (0.18 µm Athlon).
And I would like to touch on the new form factor and processor socket, which AMD now uses for its CPUs. Since the new Duron and Thunderbird processors no longer have SRAM chips used for external L2 cache, AMD, following Intel, again turned their attention to the socket type processor socket. This is not only more profitable for economic reasons (there is no need for a processor board, cartridge, etc.), but also more rational from the point of view of better cooling. As such a socket, AMD decided to use 462-pin Socket A, which is similar in size and appearance to both Socket 7 and Socket 370.
Therefore, old Socket 7 and Socket 370 can be used with Socket A on AMD processors. coolers. The only thing to keep in mind is that the Duron’s heat dissipation is slightly higher than the amount of heat given off by the Celeron, so they need slightly better cooling. For example, the Duron 650 generates about the same amount of heat as the Intel Pentium III 733.
The price of the younger 600 MHz Duron model is set at the same price as the older 600 MHz Intel Celeron model, that is, at $112 in lots of 1000 pieces. Apparently AMD is guided by the cost of Celeron and will continue to keep parity with a competing product. In principle, this is quite logical, given that both AMD Duron and Intel Celeron processor families are aimed at the same category of buyers.
Let’s try to compare the main features of both competing products aimed at use in computers under $700. The first thing I would like to note in this regard is the different approaches of manufacturers to the creation of cheap processors.
The Intel Celeron is actually a stripped-down version of the Intel Pentium III with half the L2 cache disabled and a slower system bus. From this point of view, AMD Duron looks more attractive — nothing was cut off or slowed down. Duron uses its own kernel, different from the older model, Thunderbird. What this ultimately means for us is hard to say. Intel reduces the cost of production due to mass production, AMD — due to a smaller core.
In my review of the Intel Celeron 566, I wrote that the main problem with this processor is the low system bus frequency of 66 MHz. Indeed, at modern CPU frequencies, the processor bus bandwidth of 528 MB / s is clearly not enough. As for AMD Duron, everything is in order with the system bus. Since this processor, like the rest of the Athlon family, uses the 100 MHz DDR EV6 bus, the bandwidth of this link is 1.6 GB / s — 3 times more than the Celeron.
Duron’s L1 cache hasn’t changed since the first Athlons — its size is 128 KB. Just like the Celeron, whose L1 cache is four times smaller than the Duron cache, Duron’s first-level cache is divided into two parts — for data caching and for instruction caching.
As for the second-level cache, here we are in for a little surprise. It is easy to see that Duron has half the L1 cache. Why is he needed then? The answer to this question lies in the algorithm of the Duron L2 cache and, by the way, Thunderbird. The second-level cache of these processors is exclusive, which means that the data stored in the L1 cache is not duplicated in it. This method of L2 cache operation is implemented only in new AMD processors, yet Intel processors have the usual inclusive L2 cache, in which data from the L1 cache is duplicated. Therefore, the total amount of effective cache memory for AMD Duron is 128+64=192 KB, while the Celeron has only 128 KB (32 KB of L2 cache is occupied by a copy of the data available in L1 cache).
As you can see, the Celeron was outperformed by AMD’s low-end processor almost in every way. However, there are spots in the sun. Both Athlon with an external L2 cache, Thunderbird and Duron have a faster L2 cache connected to the processor core by an old 64-bit bus.
Unfortunately, AMD engineers were too lazy to move the cache inside the core and remake its connection with the core. Celeron or Pentium III with Coppermine core look much better from this point of view, the Advanced Transfer Cache technology used in them includes a 256-bit L2 cache bus. Therefore, under heavy load at high frequencies, the cache in new processors from AMD may continue to slow down.
To illustrate all of the above, here are graphs showing the speed of writing data blocks of various sizes to memory for Intel Celeron 667 and AMD Duron 650 processors: that the size of the first-level cache area for Duron data is larger than the size of the corresponding Celeron area. Duron’s L2 cache is almost invisible against the backdrop of a truly gigantic L1 cache. But what can be seen very well is the higher speed of working with memory in Duron. There is nothing surprising in this, Celeron in this case does not keep up with the rival due to the 66 MHz bus with low bandwidth.
The theory is over. Let’s move on to practice. The test system used the following hardware
- AMD Athlon 600, 650, and 700 processors; Intel Pentium III 600EB, 667 and 733; Intel Celeron 667; AMD Duron 650
- Chaintech 6ATA4, ASUS K7V and Gigabyte 7ZM motherboards
- Micron 128MB PC133 SDRAM
- Creative 3DBlaster Annihilator Pro video card
- IBM DJNA-372200 SoundBlaster9 sound card
And before proceeding directly to the results of practical tests, I would like to say a few words about the Socket A motherboard, on the basis of which the AMD Duron processor was tested. Currently, AMD only recommends four Socket A motherboards Biostar M7VKA, FIC AZ-11, Gigabyte GA-7ZM and Microstar MS-6340. One of them, Gigabyte 7ZM, I managed to get. This MicroATX board is based on the VIA Apollo KT133 chipset and has 3 DIMM slots, 3 PCI slots, and one AGP and one AMR slot each. The processor configuration on this board is done by dip switches that allow you to set several FSB speeds: 95, 100, 105, 110, 113, 115, 117 and 133 MHz.
The integrated sound on the Gigabyte 7ZM is based on the software AC’97 codec. The board uses BIOS from AMI.
So let’s get started. First, we’ll take a look at the performance in synthetic benchmarks, and then we’ll take a look at how the Duron performs in real-world applications.
This test shows the performance of the integer part of the processor and the speed of working with data. As you can see, Duron 650 feels very good. Its performance is at the level of Intel Pentium III 600EB and AMD Athlon 600. For a processor designed for the lower price category, this is a pretty good indicator. Look, for example, at the results shown by Celeron 667. Against the background of Duron, it suffers a complete fiasco. For this, we must thank Intel, which endowed its value processor with a real brake in the form of a 66 MHz bus.
This benchmark shows the «net» speed of the arithmetic coprocessor. The results once again confirm that the core of the new Duron is the same as that of the old Athlon.
Both processors running at the same frequency show the same performance. By the way, since all the necessary data for FPU WinMark fit in the L1 cache of all tested processors, Celeron, for example, demonstrates an unprecedentedly high performance. Now we have one more indication of the reason why it works so slowly in real tasks: as you can see, this reason is clearly outside the processor core.
This benchmark included in 3Dmark2000 demonstrates the theoretical speed of the processor processing typical 3D game scenes with the active use of the SSE and 3Dnow! SIMD instruction sets. Well, the fact that AMD paid special attention to the implementation of 3Dnow! in Athlon still affects. As we can see, only Intel Pentium III 733 can compete with Duron 650. As for Celeron, despite the fact that it is based on the Coppermine128 core and supports SSE technology, its result shown in this test can only be called a failure.
Moving on to tests based on real applications. According to Content Creation Winstone 2000, AMD processors are slightly ahead of their rivals from Intel.
As a result, it turns out that Duron 650 is even ahead of Intel Pentium III 733. As for the performance ratio of AMD processors, Duron turns out to be quite a bit (2-3%) slower than the classic Athlon running at the same frequency. Of course, this cannot but please us, who want to get more, but pay less. However, it is still very interesting under what sauce AMD is going to continue selling old Athlons…
This test also uses office productivity applications. However, the composition of the tasks included in SYSmark 2000 is such that processors from Intel show better results. There are two reasons — the best support for SSE by applications of this test and the best implementation of work with L2 cache in Intel processors. As for the subject of our consideration, Duron 650, its performance is even lower than that of Intel Pentium III 600. As you can see, Duron willy-nilly has to be compared with Pentium III, since its real competitor, Celeron, is completely uncompetitive. Judge for yourself — Intel Celeron 667 lags behind AMD Duron 650 by more than 12%.
Now let’s look at how AMD Duron behaves in games. As I have repeatedly said, the number of fps at high resolutions in Quake3 mainly depends on the frequency of the memory bus and AGP. This case is no exception. Therefore, AMD Duron, AMD Athlon, and Intel Pentium III show the same speed here. But Celeron lags behind other processors. This is not surprising — FSB 66 MHz cannot guarantee the bandwidth necessary for modern tasks.
Fast mode is a very good benchmark. The performance of the Duron 650 is close to that of the AMD Athlon 600, ie 4% slower than the Athlon running at the same frequency of 650 MHz. The Intel Celeron 667 lags behind the AMD Duron 650 quite well — by about 35%. Yes, provided that both these processors cost about the same, Duron does not leave any chances for Celeron.
AMD Duron is again only 3% slower than Athlon running at the same frequency. However, here it also loses a bit to the Intel Pentium III 600EB.
The picture is similar to the results of the previous benchmark.
Once again, Celeron 667 is far behind: it is more than 16% behind AMD Duron 650.
Expendable is a game that performs intensive operations on large amounts of data during its operation. Therefore, in this case, the presence of a large second-level cache has a strong effect. That’s why here AMD Duron 650 slightly outperforms AMD Athlon 600 and its performance is at the level of Intel Pentium III 600EB. As for the Celeron 667, it lags behind the Duron 650 by about 25%.
At low resolution in Expendable, the results are similar. The only thing that can be noted is that Celeron 667 lags even more.
In conclusion, a few words about overclocking. As we showed in one of our last articles, the Intel Celeron is a highly overclockable processor. For example, Celeron 667 can be overclocked to 1 GHz. At the same time, one of the main factors hindering Celeron’s performance, the slow processor bus, is removed, and it starts showing more adequate speed. How is it with Duron?
Duron, like all other modern processors, has a multiplier fixed in the core.
Although there is information that a number of motherboards will be able to «bypass» this limitation, in practice such solutions are not yet available. Therefore, the only way to overclock AMD Duron at the moment is to do it by increasing the system bus frequency. However, the EV6 system bus used in Socket A systems is not very overclock friendly. Due to the fact that data is transmitted on it at a frequency of 200 MHz, the slightest increase in this frequency can cause a sharp deterioration in the stability of the system. Therefore, when testing Duron 650, I was able to increase the FSB frequency by only 10% — up to 110 MHz. All attempts to further overclock AMD Duron did not bear fruit — the system either became extremely unstable or hung at boot.
Thus, it turns out that if you count on system overclocking, now the best choice is still Intel Celeron, which can often be overclocked by 50% or more. But a little more time will pass and this situation can also easily change, and again not in favor of Celeron.
The fact is that, as it turned out, it is still possible to bypass the fixed multiplier of Duron. Although this method is not as easy to implement and requires motherboard manufacturers to program at the BIOS level. But a couple of motherboard manufacturers with strong development teams, ASUS and QDI, have implemented this algorithm in their Socket A products. Now we just have to wait for the ASUS A7V and QDI K7T motherboards to appear on the market.
Unfortunately, it is necessary to note the fact that at present it is rather problematic to buy even any Socket A board. We can only hope that the situation that could be observed during the release of Athlon, when the number of processors produced by AMD significantly exceeded the number of motherboards available on the market for it, will not repeat itself.
Pins
AMD Duron processor succeeded. This can be said for sure. Its performance is at a high enough level not only to overtake the competing Intel Celeron, but also to leave it no chance at all in normal mode.