View Full Version : Duron 1.6 vs. Celeron 2.0

05-22-04, 02:37 PM
Which one is faster?

05-22-04, 03:49 PM
The Duron. Where is that Anandtech article...


The results are hilarious.

05-22-04, 07:20 PM
Durons are discontinued, an athlon xp 1900 is a much better choice and costs about the same as a celeron.

Xbitlabs has a comparison between Athlon xp and celerons.

Daneel Olivaw
05-22-04, 10:19 PM
The only Celerons that could put up a fight (in their price range, at their time) were the Tualatin Celerons 1100 to 1400, if overclocked, and the old Katmai and Coppermine Celerons, to a lesser degree, at their time and in their price range of course.

Willamette Celerons and Northwood Celerons (P4) have the worst bang/buck ratio.

05-22-04, 11:13 PM
I think the new applebred core (ones in that review) are still available in 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8GHz flavours and are names as such.

For around half the price of the celerons they outperform them.. for around the same price, the XP's mop the floor with them.

No one should be buying celerons, but they do.. i don't care if 'they only use email', they could still be paying less for more, or the same for way more, so it's just wrong.

05-23-04, 11:21 AM
The only reason I ask is because we have 2 low end systems at work. One is a Celeron 2.0, and one is a Duron 1.6. The Celeron 2.0 systems is $399, the Duron system is $379. Funny thing is the Celeron system out sells the Duron by a huge margin. Funny how people will buy something just because it says intel on it.

Thanx for the links man. I had a feeling the Duron was faster by the Celeron, but not by that margin! Now I know what to recommend if somebody is really stingy with money but wants a cheap gaming system ;)