Why even consider anything but the Duron for a new system?

[Modus]

In about a month, we should start to see decent quantities of Socket A motherboards shipping. At the same time, the Athlon (Thunderbird) and Duron should be distributing in volume. Any new computer system built or bought after that time will be a candidate for the AMD Duron. And, thinking about the various alternatives, I can't see a compelling reason to use anything else.

Here are the pros as I see them:

1) At roughly half the price of a P3, the Duron performs about 90% as fast as a Thunderbird -- meaning that any intelligent person using price/performance ratios will have their decision made for them.

2) Low voltage/powerrequirements (1.5v) mean a big upside to overclocking. Even initial Durons can do 700 > 950 MHz with ease; with further yield improvements, 1+ GHz should be common.

3) Fairly well documented upgrade path. The Thunderbird at 1.1 GHz and above will be very tempting, and it looks like Socket A will be around for at least the next year.

4) Supporting the underdog. As a consumer, it's your duty to give your business to the smaller company when its products are as good as, or better, than the larger company's (measured by price/performance.) This acts to hurt the larger and help the smaller, bringing them closer to parity and forcing them to compete more viciously, resulting in better value for everyone.

Here are the cons:

1) It might be smarter to wait for the DDR Athlon chipsets to hit the streets. Still, we're assuming the person needs a system now.

2) "Duron -- is that a Pentium?" Enough said.

3) Some people might think they need more than 700 MHz. Actually, they don't. The only real reason for any of these modern, fast CPU's is added processing power for 3D graphics. Nothing else is a strain. And we've seen that, even with a GeForce 2 GTS, the video card is still the limitting factor at normal resolutions (1024 or higher). So anything more than 700 MHz quickly becomes pointless. Better to wait for video cards to catch up and then upgrade.

So can anyone think of a valid reson not to use the Duron in a new system?

Modus

 

[Toxin]

don't feel like buying a new mobo

no.. it's NOT my duty to support the other company.. remember.. it's MY choice on what to by.. not a duty

 

[Master Yoda]

umm... how do you overclock them? the A7V used in tom's article does not ship with the multiplier adjustment ability.

 

[Modus]

Toxin,

<<don't feel like buying a new mobo>>

Then you're not buying a new system, which was the whole point of this thread.

<<no.. it's NOT my duty to support the other company.. remember.. it's MY choice on what to by.. not a duty>>

If you're in the market for a product and two companies offer roughly equivalent products in terms of price, performance, and service, then it's your duty to give your business to the smaller company, for the purpose of acting in some small way to bring both companies into closer parity and sharper competition. That is the goal of every consumer, not just to buy what they want, but to buy in such a way as to make future buying easier. It may not be your duty by law, but it's your duty as an intelligent person. Sorry to preach to you, but it's a pretty sound principle.

Master Yoda,

Tom's article showed that multiplier overclocking through software is a reality. All we need is for motherboard manufacturers to allow it. QDI has publicly stated they will, and we now have confirmation that is is possible. At the very least, Tom could document the &quot;other, more difficult method&quot; me mentioned.

Modus

 

[Toxin]

i would buy a AMD though.. personal preference..

 

[Mikewarrior2]

No reason to consider anythign else... other than I really want to wait for ddr chipsets to see how they perform..


Mike

 

[Tominator]

Modus


<< If you're in the market for a product and two companies offer roughly equivalent products in terms of price, performance, and service, then it's your duty to give your business to the smaller company, for the purpose of acting in some small way to bring both companies into closer parity and sharper competition. That is the goal of every consumer, not just to buy what they want, but to buy in such a way as to make future buying easier. It may not be your duty by law, but it's your duty as an intelligent person. Sorry to preach to you, but it's a pretty sound principle. >>


What a crock! There will never be any parity! Many differences will always exist! It is these small differences that are weighed very carefully by the consumer that allow him to make a buying decision. What he wants is the most important decision! What, after careful consideration of all the plusses and minuses of a product a consumer buys, he ultimately has to live with!
It is up to the smaller company to prove his product is better than the larger competition and transfer that opinion via media, 3rd party testing, price, and customer service. He must prove he is Better, not just equal.
That is what drives Capitalism! Not some 'duty!'

 

[Relf Lauren]

<< Some people might think they need more than 700 MHz. Actually, they don't. The only real reason for any of these modern, fast CPU's is added processing power for 3D graphics. Nothing else is a strain. And we've seen that, even with a GeForce 2 GTS, the video card is still the limitting factor at normal resolutions (1024 or higher). So anything more than 700 MHz quickly becomes pointless. Better to wait for video cards to catch up and then upgrade. >>



I totally agree with that statement...Mainly because I cant afford such a pricey cpu/video card


Relf Lauren

 

[Muerto]

Modus,

I'm with you on this one. I'm not sure I agree that it's our duty to buy from the smaller company, a year ago buying from AMD would have meant a pretty slow machine, but I do agree that the Duron is probably the best CPU for the majority of users today. I'm definately buying one ASAP. I only hope that QDI comes through or that software overclocking becomes a reallity because I do a lot of CAD work and I want a high performance computer.

 

[Modus]

Tominator,

<<What a crock! There will never be any parity! Many differences will always exist!>>

Profit parity is what I meant, not product parity. Obviously no two companies will ever have exactly the same profits. But that is the ideal situation for a consumer -- companies so deadlocked in terms of profit and market share that they must compete relentlessly for customers in all aspects of their business: price, performance, and service.

<<What he wants is the most important decision. . . It is up to the smaller company to prove his product is better than the larger competition and transfer that opinion via media, 3rd party testing, price, and customer service. He must prove he is Better, not just equal.>>

False. Equal is equal is equal. If two products are truly equal in all respects (price, performance, reliability, etc) the imperative of the consumer body is to buy the product from the smaller company, so as to act in such a way to bring both companies closer to profit parity and more serious competition. Acting in this manner never hurts the consumer, because he always buys the best product. It's just that when products are very closely matched, he buys from the smaller company, exerting a positive influence on the industry.

Now, in the case of the Duron, they aren't even close. The Duron's price/performance ratio (the only sound measure of a product) completely blows away its competition, including the Thunderbird.

Modus

 

[Tominator]

I've NEVER seen two 'equal' products! Even in simple automotive parts manufacturers make parts using the exact set of specifications and find differences.

You name me 2 'equal' products in the Computer field. They do not exist!



<< Profit parity is what I meant, not product parity >>



One means nothing without the other!
You got it backasswards!

 

[randomlinh]

i will wait for ddr hehe, then i will do a big upgrade. For now, my celeron 2 760 does fine for me. Probably for a while too..

 

[NaughtyusMaximus]

I agree completely with Modus on this one. Tominator, while you are correct that there never are andy completetly equal products, clearly that doesn't even matter inthis situation. The Duron simply blows away its intended competition, price/performance wise. That being said, why would you not want to buy one? (Though, I suppose most of us have already agreed upon this point).

If a (relatively) small company has innovated, and come out with a product that is just as good, or better than its competition's product, it seems to me that it should be the intention of everyone to support this smaller company. Especially if you want to see this small company still alive in the future; innovating still, and pushing the competition. Without any support, this small company will most inevitably go down, taking with it the reason for its competiton to have low prices, and innovative products. The best situation for the consumer is to have as many equal companies offering the same product. Without competition, one company will dominate, and monopolise on the industry (high prices, less innovation). That being said, if a competing company comes out with a pruduct that is able to compete with the current dominating company, why on earth would you not want to help even the playing ground, and support more competion in the future?

 

[Modus]

Tominator,

<<I've NEVER seen two 'equal' products! Even in simple automotive parts manufacturers make parts using the exact set of specifications and find differences.>>

Equal does not mean identical. To illustrate:

A yellow straw is, for all intents and purposes, equal to a white straw, simply because no sane person cares about the color of their straw. So if Joe's Burgers wants to buy 5000 straws this summer and his restaurant has no outstanding color scheme, and Company X is a huge, greedy, multinational straw corporation offering yellow straws while Company Y is a much smaller competitor offering white straws and trying to sip up some of the market, and Joe is a thoughtful individual, he will buy the white straws from Company Y and encourage his fellow burgentrepenuers to do the same.

Agreed?

Now, if AMD is selling a Duron 700 for $130 and Intel comes out with a Celeron 700 with a 133FSB for $130 that happens to perform roughly equal to the Duron, overclock as nicely, and work as reliably, it your duty as a smart person to ignore it, just as Joe ignored the perfectly good yellow straws from Company X.

Still, this whole discussion has become speculative. The current situation is much easier to grasp. AMD is better. Everywhere.

Period.

NaughtyusMaximus,

Bingo! That's exactly what I was trying to say. Thanks.

Modus

 

[AL77]

Modus, you make it seem like the only consideration is the cpu, i.e., AMD or Intel, this is being overly simplistic IMO. What about stability/reliability of the platform - for example: motherboards, chipsets?

I remember a lot of people having problems with early AMD 750 and KX133 motherboards (yes I know about the i820 &amp; MTH issue, but with Intel you have several platform/motherboard choices). Some people just can't be bothered with trying to diagnose system crashes because maybe that high-power consuming Geforce card or fully loaded system is just not working 100% reliably with their power-hungry Athlon. This seemed to be a problem with earlier .25 micron Athlons. Now, I don't mean to be using this as the main point of my argument, I'm just pointing out an example (as it was depicted in many trade and gaming magazines) and how it could be perceived by the average consumer.

Let's be honest, AMD is just as greedy as Intel, if they could charge
more for their chips and sell them, I'm sure they would, just like any other company. I was not impressed with AMD's K5, K6, K6-2 and K6-3. IMO, they always trailed the comparable Intel product (except maybe K6 for a very short time around the Pentium Pro era) in FPU performance and were not really suited for serious gamers. They're price/performance, as you put it, was not good, unless you were only running office-type applications (fine for business, but not for home users). Again, there were some issues with the Super 7 platform.

Don't get me wrong, I like the Athlon (especially Thunderbird) and would seriously consider it as an option (along with PIII) if I were buying a system today. However, I would like to point out that the lower-end PIII's aren't astronomically priced over the Duron's. Given the generally higher prices of Athlon motherboards (expected also with the KT133), the PIII's aren't that much more in the low end, say a PIII 733 compared to the Duron 700. Based on Anand's Duron review, the 733 on the Via 133a platform outperforms the Duron in Quake 3 and UT. It seems logical to assume that in these type of games, the PIII 733 beats the Duron 700.



<< The Duron's price/performance ratio (the only sound measure of a product) completely blows away its competition, including the Thunderbird. >>



Are you including reliability/stability (of the platform as a whole) in the above ratio? If so, I would have to agree, otherwise, I disagree that price/performance is the only sound measure of a product. For example, a Chevrolet Cavalier might have better price/performance than a Honda Civic, but that doesn't mean this should be the only criteria you judge when purchasing a product (I'll leave you to decide what car I would buy)

Regards,
Al

 

[Modus]

AL77,

<<Modus, you make it seem like the only consideration is the cpu, i.e., AMD or Intel, this is being overly simplistic IMO. What about stability/reliability of the platform - for example: motherboards, chipsets? . . . Are you including reliability/stability (of the platform as a whole) in the above ratio? If so, I would have to agree, otherwise, I disagree that price/performance is the only sound measure of a product.>>

Performance does not necessarily mean speed. Ideally, performance would refer to the entire experience of owning a product: how well it performs its job.

<<I remember a lot of people having problems with early AMD 750 and KX133 motherboards (yes I know about the i820 &amp; MTH issue, but with Intel you have several platform/motherboard choices). Some people just can't be bothered with trying to diagnose system crashes because maybe that high-power consuming Geforce card or fully loaded system is just not working 100% reliably with their power-hungry Athlon.>>

Not a single unresolved issue with the Athlon platform has ever been found to stem from anything but sub-par power supplies or RAM. As long as people follow AMD's recommended guidelines, the Athlon platform is not any more unstable than its contemporaries.

And if we're comparing AMD's issues with Intel's, it's not hard to make a case against either. Intel has their own long list of dirty laundry dating back some time: the infamous Pentium FDIV bug that forced thousands of recalls, LX motherboards not providing enough power to the AGP slot, the sneak-implementation of the processor serial number, the entire i820/MTH fiasco, the current problems plaguing the i815 (it can't use its third memory slot reliably). AMD starts to look pretty good by comparison.

<<Let's be honest, AMD is just as greedy as Intel, if they could charge more for their chips and sell them, I'm sure they would, just like any other company.>>

Obviously, but that's not the point. AMD as its exists now is a relatively weak business. Their products may be much better than Intel's, but as far as profitability, they're light-years behind. Our duty as consumers is to try to reward their good products by propping them up and making them a better challenger. To illustrate:

You're playing Risk against two experienced players. One (Intel) is so strong that he has taken all of Asia, Europe , and Africa, while the other (AMD) is confined to the Americas. You yourself (the consumers) are relatively weak and have only Australia. Who do you attack? (whose products do you ignore when the offerings are similar?) If you're smart, you'll attack (ignore) Intel to help (buy from) AMD. This will weaken Intel and give AMD an opportunity to expand and jockey with them. If you did the opposite, you would easily crush AMD as they are already hard pressed by Intel. But your victory would be meaningless because now you would be Intel's only remaining pushover (Intel would have a monopoly). Eventually if you play well enough, AMD may overtake Intel. At that point, it's your duty to turn traitor and attack (ignore) AMD, to strengthen Intel. Ideally, the game will gravitate toward an environment where you are a nation of assasins, constantly shifting loyalties for your own benefit (many strong but equal companies competing for your dollar and lowering prices.)

<<I was not impressed with AMD's K5, K6, K6-2 and K6-3. IMO, they always trailed the comparable Intel product>>

Actually, for those not overclocking their processors, the K6-2 continues to offer an extremely high value, even in 3D gaming. They may have trailed in performance (only in FPU), but their highly competitive pricing made up for it.

<<It seems logical to assume that in these type of games, the PIII 733 beats the Duron 700.>>

So what if it costs twice as much? In fact, even the P3/650 beats a Duron 700 -- big deal. All are fast enough for the forseeable future, but only the Duron is cheap.

Modus

 

[Tominator]

NaughtyusMaximus I've no problem admitting that the Duron kicks Intel ass!
However, the CPU is never the sole part in a computer! It is a compilation of parts. All contributing to the overall result.

I could never belive in Modus's hypothesis!

AMD is proving it has what it takes! First, the K6 series that was faster, but not better. The the -2 series that was a cost leader, but did not measure up in performance. Lately, AMD has been at an even run for acceptability and speed in the market.

I challenge you to show me ANYONE in marketing, that includes AMD, that will give credience to your proposal! You will not find any, IMHO!

I, personally, will give the nod to a smaller company. BUT! They should be better in their service to the customer! They should have an equal or better product. They should advertise, promote and prove they are better! If they fail in this, they are not ready for Prime Time.



<< A yellow straw is, for all intents and purposes, equal to a white straw, simply because no sane person cares about the color of their straw. So if Joe's Burgers wants to buy 5000 straws this summer and his restaurant has no outstanding color scheme, and Company X is a huge, greedy, multinational straw corporation offering yellow straws while Company Y is a much smaller competitor offering white straws and trying to sip up some of the market, and Joe is a thoughtful individual, he will buy the white straws from Company Y and encourage his fellow burgentrepenuers to do the same. >>


It is obvious you've never been in the marketing business! McDonalds controls the straw size, the paper sleeve and the ease of extraction, the length, the color and thickness. Many thousands were and still are spent in these mundane areas. It is a careful evaluation of what the Consumer wants!
I could go on, but it's obvious you've never worked in marketing.

Yes! AMD has a better product! Do you think Intel is asleep? The best processor in existence isn't any better than the motherboard, etc, that it goes on.

 

[Modus]

Tominator,

<<I could never belive in Modus's hypothesis! . . . I, personally, will give the nod to a smaller company. BUT! They should be better in their service to the customer! They should have an equal or better product.>>

Funny, you just did -- that's more or less what I've been trying to drill into you. You're only wrong in thinking the smaller company's service must be better, rather than just equal. Again, equal is equal is equal. When all else is equal, you must buy from the smaller company.

<<It is obvious you've never been in the marketing business! McDonalds controls the straw size, the paper sleeve and the ease of extraction, the length, the color and thickness. Many thousands were and still are spent in these mundane areas. It is a careful evaluation of what the Consumer wants!>>

And it's obvious by your fondness for exclamation points that you need to switch to decaf. Regardless, the point of the straw analogy was that, to Joe, the only difference between the straws was their irrelevant color. As such, he made a concious decision to buy from the weaker company. He lost nothing, but he acted in a small way to improve the industry for any future purchases he makes.

Modus

 

[cdrakejr]

I don't need any straws, but...

I have to agree with the question of support for the CPU being just as important as the CPU. AMD needs to pay attention to this, soon.
At the same time I look at the fact that the classic Athlon is not even a year old and now we are onto the next generation with socket vs. slot and new chipset support. Progress in this case comes with a price. Support!
The mb manufacturers must lie awake at night trying to figure out how to keep up.

I haven't been involved with computers nearly as long as most of you, so I'm not sure what the early history of Intel and their mbs was. Same teething problems? They still seem to be having some now.
Part of the problem is the race to be first which leaves the support in the dust - for both Intel and AMD it seems since from what I hear you saying is that Intel has one really good tried and true chipset to fall back on.

 

[Mikewarrior2]

As a former Intel Fan, i have ot admit that AMD has done great work over the last year. The athlons are nice, and the duron's/t-birds are even better...


Mike

 

[apoppin]

I need to wait a bit more until DDR is available. I will probably go with the T-bird over the Duron.

 

[SSP]

He lost nothing, but he acted in a small way to improve the industry for any future purchases he makes.

That I would agree with, but we all know it?s not always equal (performance/price).

And I don?t think anyone have a duty as a &quot;person&quot; to support the small company. Its up to the individual.

Unfortunately, a big company can sell crap products and still make Billions. Just look at Rambus.

I will definitely upgrade my classic Athlon to a Duron. Just waiting for better mobo support.

 

[prontospyder]

<< At roughly half the price of a P3... >>



Well, I just checked Pricewatch and the lowest priced Duron 700 is $161.95 shipped (OEM packaged).

On the other hand, Onvia has the PIII 700E (many are CB0 stepping PIII's) for $215 shipped (retail boxed with 3 year warranty).

Yes, the Duron is still cheaper but not at half the price as you described.

 

[SSP]

prontospyder, Duron's price will go down when more chips are available.

 

[prontospyder]

SSP:

Maybe the PIII's price will go down as well.