Duron vs P3 performance

[max105]

I am in a computer dilemma in my next upgrade. The Durons are much more cheaper and I can save lotsa money over a P3. What I was wondering was the performance of a Duron compared to the P3. I've heard that they're similar and the Duron is sometimes better. I always thought that the P3 is a better solution, otherwise why would people still pay so much more for it. Can someone clarify the performance differences? And do you think the performance gap is justifies the price gap? Thanks

 

[Dexion]

P3s are much more expensive due too the brand. Intel is a reliable, popular, and respected company. They used to dominate the entire market with no well performing alternatives. Time has changed however, AMD has put out some great products that are just as reliable, stable and perform just as well as any Intel processor.

The Duron is a budget value processor that is supposed to be competing with the Intel Celeron. The performance however is much more suprising, it completely dominates the Intel Celeron line and performance enough to compete with even the P3 line. AMD also has an Athlon that performs at par with the P3 and only 5% difference, and in some benchmarks, it beats the P3.

Tom's P3 Celeron Athlon Duron Comparison(old)

Duron 750 vs P3-700

 

[Zephyr]

Sometimes the P3 will do a little better (in heavily SSE optimized stuff, or stuff that need a lot of L2) sometimes the Duron will do little better (stuff that relies on raw x87)

Anyway the price difference is mainly because the two processors are targetted at two different market segments. The P3 is supposed to be a high end part while the Duron a lowend. However preformancewise the Duron is not behind the P3 with much but a hairs width, wich in it self reprents a dilemma for Intel. So basically the pricegap is justified through brand reconigtion wich is Intels only real selling point these days.

 

[loosbrew]

<< But today the Pentium III is under assault from all directions of late, thanks to a lack of updates in its design, and a lack of MHz improvements that have left the door open for the Athlon to plant a flag in the name of AMD. Today even the budget Duron nips at the P3's heels, like a group of jackals would at the feet of an aging African lion. >>



LAMO!!! this is great!


loooooo

 

[GaryTcs]

Yeah, and you can afford a much higher clocked Duron for the same $, so a $100 Duron will whoop ass on a $100 P-3. ( a pentium 3-55- costs more than a duron 800)

 

[snow patrol]

You'd be better off going for a Duron and saving some money to go towards some more RAM or graphics card etc.

 

[Spoooon]

I went with a PIII over a Duron. I was weary of wondering what would work right with a Via chipset and what wouldn't. For instance, my Radeon. It was a nightmare to install because I didn't know that I was supposed to disable AGP 4X. Admittedly, I probably should have thought to try disabling it. But as a consumer, I shouldn't really have to disable anything. On the other hand, I do understand that it's impossible for a company to make something that will work right on everything. It's up to you I guess. I went from Intel to AMD and now I'm back to Intel.

 

[qiu]

hehe...

I'd choose AMD over Intel for three reasons:

1) PRICE vs PERFORMANCE: AMD bests Intel by far @ this one...
2) overclocking: good cooling &amp; the same as above: I run here an old K7 750@1000, a Duron 700@950 , a T-Bird 900@1.15Ghz

3) upgrade: if u choose Intel &amp; PIII you'll be upgrading to... err... buy a new PC with P4 inside?
if u choose AMD then: u can up the Mobo &amp; keep the CPU or up the CPU&amp; keep the Mobo ;-)
SocketA is here to stay a while ;-)

So this is a simple question...

 

[shiznut123]

intels are toooooooooo expensive

 

[holdencommodore]

I can buy 2 duron 800's for the price of 1 Celeron 766
....now, all they need it to release a duel processor m/b!!