K8 processor vs K7 (AMD) doom

[Guest zerodamage]

Take a look at this. This is freakin insane. A 2.0 Ghz processor which happens to be the new Athlon xp duron like chip runs Doom3 at 53 fps.

 

The K8 version of this process 1.8 Ghz. K8 meaning the Athlon-64 version but NOT 64-bit enabled but instead with the memory controller on the CPU is 53% faster at 75 fps. Wow.... and these are budget CPU's too. If you are upgrading, the K8 version ist he way to go.

 

These new CPU's are called Semprons.

 

Anandtech

[Birdman]

If you are upgrading, the K8 version is the way to go.

True.

 

Although the Duron(what the sempron is replacing) always, and I mean always, beat the wholly crap out of the Celeron in games.

 

Celeron has always been a for me.

 

If a friend is buying a cheap 300-500 dollar Dell or Compaq; I always get them to opt for the P4(even if it's slower) because the celerons have always been crippled sad processors(That is the ones based on the P4 core, old skool Pentium 2 and 3 based celerons rocked the house.)

[All Kill3r]

the new Celeron-D's are OK.

 

Semprons look like a real nice budget cpu, lots of performance.

[Birdman]

This article should almost make Intel and all its Celeron owners run and hide in shame.

 

 

Budget CPU Shootout: Clash of the 'rons

 

 

The Pentium III based Celerons offered, at one time, acceptable performance. However, it is clear that in the value segment today, Intel has nothing to offer but a high clock speed. AnandTech readers will know to stay away from the Celeron at all costs; however, what is troublesome are the number of retail customers who are faced with the decision between a higher priced 2.6GHz Celeron system and an Athlon XP 2200+. We would highly encourage system vendors like Compaq and eMachines to shift their low-end focus to AMD if their customers are of any importance at all. As we've seen through our extensive benchmarking, the Celeron's performance is truly dismal; so while Intel is quite competitive in the mid-range and high-end segments, their value processors are inexcusably slow compared to AMD.

 

Cough....

Ahem....

That is pretty clear.

 

Here's an AMD favored test.

 

 

And an Intel one.

 

 

Note the fact that a 1.6 Duron soundly beats all those Celerons.

 

At the time the Duron was half the price of those Celerons too.

 

Course the new Celerons have improved some, but it doesn't make up for how crappy the Celerons were for a couple of years.

Edited August 5, 2004 by Birdman