Article Another "greatest CPU of all times" article.

[Thunder 57]

Yet they were both better than P 3 and Celeron, so that didnt keep them from being the best chips, i had a P3 1GHz and compared to the Duron 700 it couldnt even multitask without the screen freezing until a given task was finished, nothing of the sort with the Duron, the P3 and Celeron did look decent only on a single bench at one time basis and still, on a heavy apps they were both behind a Duron, just look at 3DSMax rendering time on the link below.

Anyway you are focusing on some technical charcteristics while what matter is the end result, that is the final perfs, extending a bus width is useless if the bottleneck is the execution engine.

CC Winstone 2000 & 3D Studio Max - AMD Duron - HardWare.fr

Vous en avez rêvé, AMD l'a fait : le Duron, une version

www.hardware.fr

Facepalm. Yes I am giving you the technical charactestics because they needed to be explained. Yes the Athlon/Duron did great. But go look on the (no archived) Athlon vs P3 Anandtech reviews. The P3 started to catch up beacuse the Athlon ran at fractional cache. Thunderbird changed that.

 

[Abwx]

Facepalm. Yes I am giving you the technical charactestics because they needed to be explained. Yes the Athlon/Duron did great. But go look on the (no archived) Athlon vs P3 Anandtech reviews. The P3 started to catch up beacuse the Athlon ran at fractional cache. Thunderbird changed that.

Yes once the Athlon had an on die L2 things got back to the previous situation.

As for Barton and the rest these were running at close to 2GHz, at 600-700MHz for early Duron bus bandwith was not critical, the bottleneck was rather RAM speed and AMD
had 133MHz SDRAM support while Intel wasnt willing to update the 440BX to 133MHz,
their plan was to wait for RDRAM wich btw ended being a total disaster with the bugged
i820 chipset, in a rare move from Intel they said that there was other solution than Intel for 133MHz RAM, namely Via Apollo 133 wich they didnt explicitely name.

Edit : FTR i add a comparison of AMD s socketed Athlon/Duron and Intel s Pentium 3/Celeron, all in their 1GHz version, there s also an early Pentium 4 clocked at 1.5GHz.

https://www.hardware.fr/articles/376-1/cpu-1-ghz.html

 

[Thunder 57]

Yes once the Athlon had an on die L2 things got back to the previous situation.

As for Barton and the rest these were running at close to 2GHz, at 600-700MHz for early Duron bus bandwith was not critical, the bottleneck was rather RAM speed and AMD
had 133MHz SDRAM support while Intel wasnt willing to update the 440BX to 133MHz,
their plan was to wait for RDRAM wich btw ended being a total disaster with the bugged
i820 chipset, in a rare move from Intel they said that there was other solution than Intel for 133MHz RAM, namely Via Apollo 133 wich they didnt explicitely name.

Edit : FTR i add a comparison of AMD s socketed Athlon/Duron and Intel s Pentium 3/Celeron, all in their 1GHz version, there s also an early Pentium 4 clocked at 1.5GHz.

https://www.hardware.fr/articles/376-1/cpu-1-ghz.html

Again, I am talking about L2 here. Let me put it this way, The P3 and P4 had much more L2 bandwidth than the Athlon or even Athlon 64. The Athlon didn't need plenty of FSB bandwidth (better than the P3) and enough to take on/beat the P4 because Athlon also didn't require as much RAM speed due to the much shorter pipeline/mispredict penalty.

We're talking about two things here, FSB/HT vs L2 cache.