CPU:
AHA!! I wasn't being stoopid. Not only does it keep up, it bests the ol' PIII.
HDD:
I am contributing the difference in drive performance to the newer
ATA/100 south bridge on the KK266.
Memory:
I have to say, this surprised the hell outa me . I had to check the
sandra database to make sure I the PIII memory scores were consistent with
others. All I can say on this one is OWNED!
Multimedia:
I'm not sure how accurate this one is, because Intel uses SSE
and AMD uses 3Dnow, but here it is anyway.
Of course what you have to remember, is all these benchmarks
are synthetic - so it may be argued you can't really say these show true life
performance. And in some way that's correct. So 3dMark
2000 came into play.
3dMark:
I could have run a bunch of Q3 and MDK2 benches for the 3D
performance, but I figured they would all be relatively close. The PIII won
the 3Dmark 2000, but by less than 40 points - not a hell of a lot.
All thing considered, I 'd have to say the Duron system is a
little faster overall. As I'm writing this, I'm surfing Pricewatch and I see
the P3 700e selling for twice the price of a Duron 800, and still $50us more
than the T-bird700. Seeing how The KK266 is currently $40us more than the
VD133lite, which makes the PIII a little more attractive. The Duron is still
the better value.
This is definitely not the "holy grail" of PIII vs Duron
shoot-outs, but I believe it clearly shows the slipping performance of
the Intel line and the power of AMD's new "budget" processor. Other factors
to take into account though is of course the Duron being hotter, but having
multiplier adjustment for high FSB on KT133A chipsets.
Many people complained that in this review I used a Via chipset
on the PIII and the PIII would win if using an Intel Chipset. But if you read
this review here by
Spode it basically compares the Via and Intel Chipsets and shows there not
to be a huge difference.
Dr. Surlyjoe
