performance differences

[Mentallo]

What kind of performance differences are there between similarly clocked Celerons and Pentium III's? How about between Athlon Thunderbirds and Durons?

I don't NEED a new system, but if I'm on a budget, does it make sense to buy a socket A motherboard and a $100 processor now, and then upgrade to a better processor later? Or should I wait for the new motherboards for Socket A processors -- 200MHZ FSB vs. 266MHZ FSB?

What kind of a performance difference will there be with these newer (266) motherboards? Any idea when they will out and available?

 

[Smbu]

P3's always outperform Celeron's at the same clock speed. Even some slower P3's are able to outperform Celeron's at a higher clock speed.

Thunderbirds are usually about 5%-10% faster than Duron's, but it depends on the program.

 

[paulip88]

At the same clock speed:
133FSB PIIIs and TBirds are APPROXIMATELY equivalent overall.
PIIIs are a bit better at games, TBirds are a bit better at graphics apps.
100FSB PIIIs are a bit slower (a couple percent or so)

Durons are about 5-10% slower than an equivalently clocked Tbird/PIII.
5% slower at 600MHz, 10% slower at 1GHz. This is because the Durons don't scale as well since they have a smaller cache.

Celerons get spanked. About 15% slower than a Duron at the same clock speed.

 

[Mentallo]

Thanks for the info. I think I'll buy a mobo for the PII/350 I have sitting around, with plans to upgrade at some future point.

I've read about all the problems people have with the AMD chips and affixing heat sinks on them -- it seems like such a hassle.

 

[Zedfu]

if you really want it, it's never a hassle. that's my motto. and by the way, what problem with amd chips? my system has served me without a hitch so far. and for the heatsink, you really have to be drunk to break them. you just gotta be careful, like everyone should in the first place, right?