This is from Anand's latest review of the Duron 900:
The reasoning behind it is simple; with only 60% of the total cache of the Athlon, the Duron is obviously more dependent on memory performance. The data that the CPU cannot find within its L1 or L2 caches must be retrieved from main memory, the longer that retrieval process takes, the longer the CPU must wait and the more performance is lost. Unfortunately the memory performance of both the SiS and VIA low-cost solutions is noticeably lower than what Intel's similarly targeted chipsets are able to provide.
This explains a lot, as there's a lot of main memory fetches while I'm playing games with my Duron 650@800. If AMD doesn't shape up and start producing some quality chipsets, I'll be tempted to go back to Intel. I guess there's not getting around the old saying "you get what you pay for".
The reasoning behind it is simple; with only 60% of the total cache of the Athlon, the Duron is obviously more dependent on memory performance. The data that the CPU cannot find within its L1 or L2 caches must be retrieved from main memory, the longer that retrieval process takes, the longer the CPU must wait and the more performance is lost. Unfortunately the memory performance of both the SiS and VIA low-cost solutions is noticeably lower than what Intel's similarly targeted chipsets are able to provide.
This explains a lot, as there's a lot of main memory fetches while I'm playing games with my Duron 650@800. If AMD doesn't shape up and start producing some quality chipsets, I'll be tempted to go back to Intel. I guess there's not getting around the old saying "you get what you pay for".
