AMD Duron 1.2GHz vs. Intel Celeron 1.2GHz

In terms of bleeding-edge performance, the Duron vs. Celeron bout has never been in the heavyweight class. The Don King electric PR frizz is AWOL, creating lower-profile PR sparring. But this fight is no less important in terms of market share, that's for sure. The value business sector sales far outweigh our beloved enthusiast performance market, and that's also where the real money is made. With the release of Athlon XP, it's easy to forget that AMD also caters to the value (both business and consumer) sector with Duron steppings. The latest is the Duron 1.2GHz, upping the previous Duron 1.1GHz by 100MHz.

The players. So in the green corner is AMD's new challenger, weighing in at 0.18-micron, sporting the Morgan core, with 64KB of L2 cache trim and green pants (I made that bit up), the 1.2GHz Duron. Running at 1.75 volts, the Duron 1.2GHz is socket 462-based with a 12x multiplier and 100MHz frontside bus, which has support for PC-133 SDRAM or 2100 DDR RAM platforms. In the blue corner, weighing in at 0.13-micron, sporting the Tualatin core, with 256KB of L2 cache, is Intel's Celeron 1.2GHz (out for a while now).

Morgan is a stripped-down version of the Athlon XP Palomino core. The major difference is in the size of the L2 cache. Morgan comes with 64KB as opposed to the 256KB on Palomino. Unlike the Athlon XP, the Morgan-based Duron is still packaged with an older CPGA (Ceramic Pin Grid Array) ceramic case. The Morgan core improves upon the previous Spitfire core (used on sub-1GHz Durons), lowering power consumption by 20% and adding data prefetch and 3DNow! Professional instructions, making the new Duron SSE-compliant.

Performance. Benchmarking both contestants under WinXP Pro, with 256MB and a GeForce3, the winner was crystal clear. The Duron 1.2GHz sweeps in Quake III, SYSmark2001 (a close call), and 3DMark2001. The winning scores don't touch an Athlon XP 1900+ or Pentium 4 2GHz, but obviously these budget CPUs, aimed at the corporate space, are not supposed to. Nevertheless, it's reassuring that you can play games respectably on a Duron 1.2GHz.

Overclockers should be content with either CPU. By joining the L1 bridges via a pencil, the Duron 1.2GHz bounced up to 1.35GHz, an extra 135MHz. By increasing the voltage and utilizing more eccentric cooling techniques, it could likely go higher. The Intel Celeron 1.2GHz actually becomes more attractive than its Duron counterpart with overclocking in mind. The Celeron's 100MHz FSB needs to be upped to 125MHz, which really allows the Celeron to party at around the 1.5GHz mark (thanks to its 0.13-micron core). This implies that, should Intel ship 133MHz FSB Celerons, they would be far better equipped to duke it out with Durons. s it the name? Despite the Duron outperforming the Celeron, the corporate space still seems to pass over AMD's chip, whether because of historical stability concerns, lack of brand recognition, misinformation, or perhaps just benign neglect. In the OEM sector, where most Celerons are sold, performance doesn't seem to be the priority. The Intel name seems to be what matters, so clearly AMD has its corporate back against a wall, albeit with a better performing CPU and at a more attractive price. Intel's marketing department wins again as the company does have a slightly wider spectrum differential between their high-end Pentium 4 part and their lower-end Celeron part. The difference in the performance delta between the Duron and Athlon is much less, as is the difference in price.

Final word. If you read this magazine, chances are you're an enthusiast (just like yours truly), and hence the processor is not a place to be cost-cutting. Still, the performance lead in the value sector goes to AMD's Duron 1.2GHz, and although neither processor particularly floats my boat, I find the Celeron 1.2GHz less buoyant. As an enthusiast, you are going to need a bigger boat (hence the relatively mediocre ratings), and I urge you to find a way to spend the extra cash on a pricier Athlon XP for its superior performance. For those who can't, choosing the Duron 1.2GHz over Celeron 1.2GHz is a better bang for the buck, as it's cheaper. Better still: Sit on the fence until AMD's die-shrunk 0.13-micron Appaloosa core is released in mid/late Q1 2002, according to AMD's latest roadmap, rumored to be entering at the 1.5GHz level. I might sail in one of those. . . .