Introduction

Just a year ago AMD was touting the release of the first 700MHz x86 CPU, this being the second time that year that they had beat Intel to the punch with a new CPU release.  First it was with the Athlon at 650MHz in September of 1999, and then the 50MHz boost to 700MHz gave us the first hints of what was soon to come from the underdog of the industry. 

This year has been nothing but amplified from 1999.  Intel’s losses pushed them even further back and AMD’s gains gave them even more credibility in the eyes of the public.  While there is still quite a large following that respects the “no one ever got fired for buying Intel” ideal, there is a growing population that respects AMD’s gains and has no problem adopting their Socket-A platform.  For these users, they have very good reason to go with AMD. 

While we were afraid at the end of 1999 that Intel would begin to compete with the Athlon in a price war, something which AMD, being a smaller company than Intel would have some serious problems with.  However the tables have most definitely turned, as AMD has been announcing price cut after price cut and the Athlon is now much cheaper than the Pentium III. 

Finding reliable platforms to run the AMD CPUs on was our biggest worry at the introduction of the Athlon, however after the initial problems with manufacturers adopting the AMD 750 chipset, we have seen incredible support for the Athlon. 

Relying on VIA to supply AMD users with chipsets was a worry as well since VIA has not historically had the best track record in terms of reliability.  However, VIA platforms have matured quite a bit since the days of the MVP3 and Apollo Pro Plus chipsets, all for the better. 

Not able to compete with AMD based on price or availability, Intel was left with two  options, compete based on performance and/or clock speed.  Performance-wise, the Pentium III has been fairly competitive with the Athlon, the only degrading factor here has been that clock for clock, the Pentium III has been more expensive than the Athlon.  Intel has, until recently, been able to compete with AMD based on clock speed, however the failed introduction of the 1.13GHz Pentium III is a clear indication of the limits of the Pentium III architecture on the 0.18-micron process.  It will be a while before we see the Pentium III able to compete with the Athlon on a clock speed basis. 

No longer holding onto a clock speed advantage, AMD’s release of an Athlon clocked at 1.2GHz will most likely be the last Thunderbird introduction we see this year.  But with a 200MHz clock speed advantage over the fastest Pentium III available, and still boasting a lower price than the lower clocked Pentium III, it has definitely been a good four months for the Thunderbird and an even better year for the Athlon platform as a whole. 

On the Duron side of things, AMD has already been enjoying a clock speed advantage over the competing Celeron for quite some time now. With the introduction of the Duron 750, AMD was finally able to not only beat the Celeron in terms of performance, but also in terms of clock speed, the latter being a very important factor to retail sales. If AMD can get the clock speed of the Durons high enough, while keeping the price low, it will most definitely gain some serious ground in the retail market.

Alongside the 1.2GHz Thunderbird, AMD is also bringing the Duron up to 800MHz in preparation for Intel's 733/766MHz Celerons that are on the way as well.

The Chips

The 1.2GHz Athlon is based on the same 0.18-micron Thunderbird core that was introduced back in June.  Its basic specs, outside of power and voltage requirements, have not changed since its introduction.  For more information on the Thunderbird core take a look at our AMD Athlon “Thunderbird” Review.

· 37 million transistor 0.18-micron Thunderbird core with Copper interconnects
· 1.2GHz (1200MHz) clock speed - 12.0x clock multiplier
· 128KB on-die L1 cache running at core speed
· 64-bit exclusive 256KB on-die L2 cache running at clock speed
· 462-pin Socket A EV6 CPU interface running at 100MHz DDR (effectively 200MHz)
· 1.75v core voltage

The 800MHz Duron also remains unchanged from the introductory Duron we saw back in June. For more information on that CPU, take a look at our full AMD Duron Review.

· 25 million transistor 0.18-micron Duron core with Aluminum interconnects
· 800MHz clock speed - 8.0x clock multiplier
· 128KB on-die L1 cache running at core speed
· 64-bit exclusive 64KB on-die L2 cache running at clock speed
· 462-pin Socket A EV6 CPU interface running at 100MHz DDR (effectively 200MHz)
· 1.60v core voltage

The 1.2GHz Athlon, just like its 1.1GHz predecessor will be manufactured exclusively in AMD’s Fab30 plant in Dresden.  The only CPUs coming out of the Dresden plant are using Copper interconnects, and as we’ve mentioned before, AMD happens to be using a blue polishing die at their Dresden plant which gives these CPUs a blueish tint to them.

In contrast, the Durons as well as some lower clocked Athlons are still using Aluminum interconnects and are thus manufactured out of AMD’s Fab25 plant in Austin, TX.  Currently these CPUs coming out of Fab25 exhibit a greenish tint to them, once again due to the polisher, however we have seen cases where the tint appeared to be more of a red, as was the case with our Duron 800. AMD has assured us, however, that the Durons are still only being produced at Fab25 in Austin and are thus still using Aluminum interconnects.

For a better illustration of the subtle differences in the die tints, take a look at our brief comparison here.

Cooling the Chip

As the original K7 Athlons ramped up in speed AMD ran into two issues with bringing them to market:

1)      They started to draw incredible amounts of current and produce quite a bit of heat, the Athlon (K7) 650 dissipated up to 54W of heat.  This was more then the first 0.35-micron Pentium IIs.

2)      Finding high speed L2 cache chips that could operate at 1/2 the core frequency became increasingly difficult as the Athlon hit 700MHz. 

AMD’s solution there was the K75, which remedied the first issue by moving to a cooler 0.18-micron process and took care of the second by decreasing the L2 cache multiplier so that the L2 cache only ran at 2/5 of the CPU clock. 

As the K75 began to ramp up in speed, the L2 cache frequency began to drop as AMD eventually went to a 1/3 divider.  This brought up another issue, the diminishing returns on performance with every increase in clock speed as the L2 cache was still hovering in the 300 – 350MHz range. 

AMD once again remedied this situation with the introduction of the Thunderbird core, which integrated the cache onto the processor’s die running at full speed.  However the Thunderbird that has carried us for the past four months is running into a problem of its own, heat.

The 1.1GHz Athlon that was released just under two months ago has already surpassed the first 0.25-micron in terms of heat dissipation as well as power being drawn.  And as you can guess, the 1.2GHz produces even more heat and draws even more power.

The 1.2GHz Athlon was cooled using the same Tai Sol heatsink/fan combo we used on the 1.1GHz processor.  This particular heatsink places quite a bit of pressure on the CPU itself and does demand a decent amount of effort to mount because of the little room for tolerance in the heatsink clamp.

Click to Enlarge

Click to Enlarge

The Duron is still operating within a very reasonable limit, since it is quite a ways behind the Athlon in terms of operating frequency. However when the Duron does hit the 1.2GHz and beyond speeds of the current Athlon it will most definitely run into the same issues of being one hot little chip.

If history repeats itself, which it most definitely will, expect to see a new, low power, revision of the Athlon core from AMD; and since the Duron is very closely based upon the Athlon, you can expect to see this translated down to the Duron line as well. Necessity has proven itself to be the mother of invention time and time again, and if AMD continues their string of success expect this to hold true yet again.

The Price is Right

As we mentioned at the start of this article, AMD has been beating Intel quite a bit in the price arena.  The 1.2GHz Athlon announced today is already priced, in individual quantities, approximately $200 less than a 1GHz Pentium III that was announced back in March.

As far as specific prices are concerned, the 1.2GHz Athlon is priced around $500 from the vendors we’ve seen on Pricewatch, and obviously as time goes on the CPU will drop in price as well as increase in quantity.  In comparison, the Pentium III 1GHz priced is in the $650 - $700 range. 

The 1.1GHz Athlon that was released at the end of August is now just a tad under $400, and AMD has brought the 1GHz Athlon down to around $300.  For the first time you can have a very powerful CPU that isn’t the most expensive component in your box, leaving the recent trend in graphics adapters to take up that role. 

What about the older K75 Athlons that we have seemingly forgotten about?  With no real demand for them, as well as the fact that they are based on an almost dead Slot-A interface, vendors are charging the same price if not more for them than they are doing for their Socket-A, Thunderbird counterparts. 

For example, the 1GHz Athlon based on the K75 core seems to carry a $50 - $100 premium over its faster Socket-A counterpart.  However, the 700MHz K75 Athlon and the 700MHz Thunderbird carry a similar price of $100 - $120. 

Slot-A Thunderbirds are still available, although not nearly in the same quantities as their Socket-A counterparts.  The 700MHz Slot-A Thunderbird parts are being offered generally at a small premium over the Socket-A parts.

AMD has proven to be able to turn themselves around from a company that couldn’t be counted on after blunders such as a 9 month delay in shipping the K5, to a company that lives and breathes by the ideal that availability is king; all at a reasonable price. 

Motherboards are also much more affordable than they once were, while the ASUS A7V and the ABIT KT7 are still in the $150 - $160 range, equally solid boards such as the Microstar K7T Pro are selling for under $130.

While $130 for a motherboard may be reasonable for someone who is already spending $300 on a CPU, for the Duron, there is a clear need for even cheaper motherboards. The Duron has been cut in price dramatically, down to the point where the 700MHz Duron can be had for as low as $60, and on average found in the $70 - $80 range. This is even cheaper than an equivalently clocked Celeron which is still crippled by its 66MHz FSB.

There is still a great demand, at least from the OEM/system integrator market, for a cost effective integrated Duron platform. And although the VIA KM133 chipset does provide just that, it has yet to be seen in use and there is still quite a bit of skepticism regarding the reliability and quality of the drivers for the chipset's integrated Savage4 core. SiS' 730S solution is another potential savior for the Duron, however we have yet to see it in action either.

Overclocking

Both the Athlon and the Duron are still able to be overclocked through the manipulation of their clock multipliers as well as FSB frequencies, the easiest being the former. For information on how to "unlock" your CPUs read our quick one page tutorial on it.

Basically you need to check the status of the L1 "bridges" on your CPU, if the points on the left are connected to their counterparts on the right then your CPU is unlocked, all you need is a motherboard to adjust the multiplier and you'll be set. If these points aren't connected, then you need to connect them, preferably with a very careful application of some conductive ink or epoxy. Doing so will unlock your CPU, leaving the rest up to the motherboard to handle.

The 1.2GHz Athlon is in a bit of a situation from an overclocking standpoint, with the highest multiplier defined on the CPU being 12.5x, the highest you can get the CPU to go at its default 100MHz DDR FSB is 1.25GHz, not too impressive. Obviously when combined with a higher FSB setting you'll be able to push it even higher, but this CPU won't be the best for those interesting in overclocking.

The Duron 800 is also not the best overclocking candidate as it is still using Aluminum interconnects. From what we've seen, only the Copper based cores from Dresden are really able to hit 1GHz and beyond reliably and on a large enough scale. While there may be some Aluminum cores to hit 1GHz, for the most part it seems like it'll take a Fab30 produced Duron to be a truly solid overclocker beyond what the current Durons are capable of reaching.

So as far as the Duron is concerned, chances are that the 800MHz parts won't get any higher than the 700MHz parts we've had around for the past couple of months. Meaning that 900 - 950MHz is the realistic max without getting into some more powerful cooling methods.

The Test

 

Without the 1.13GHz Pentium III to compete against, the 1.2GHz Athlon is left all alone to dominate the SYSMark 2000 benchmark.

To start things off, the Athlon boasts a 14% performance improvement at 1.2GHz over 1GHz under SYSMark 2000.

The Duron 800 is just 1% faster than an overclocked Celeron 850, however considering that the Celeron 850 (100MHz FSB) won't be available until sometime next year it's pretty certain that the most competition the Duron will have in terms of performance will be the Pentium III and its own brother, the Athlon.

Under SYSMark 2000 you can see that the Duron is around 10% slower than an equivalently clocked Athlon, and while not shown above, it is approximately 3% slower than an equivalently clocked K75 Athlon. This is just as we discovered in our original Duron review.

The Pentium III has historically held an advantage over the Athlon under Quake III Arena, and while we see that trend continue with the Athlon 1GHz and the Pentium III 1GHz, the 1.2GHz Athlon still manages to pull away to offer the highest x86 gaming performance available.

The Celeron's 4-way set associative L2 cache is holding it back under Quake III Arena as even the overclocked 850MHz Celeron is still 14% slower than the Duron 800. All of the regularly clocked 66MHz FSB Celerons, as you can imagine, are much, much lower in performance than the overclocked 850 and are much lower in performance than the Duron 800.

At 1024 x 768 x 32 the test bed's GeForce2 GTS is memory bandwidth limited and thus the performance numbers all come out looking the same. The only thing that would help you here is a faster video card.

Once again we see a slight lead offered by the Pentium III over the Athlon on a clock for clock basis, however the 1.2GHz offering manages to pull away from everything else with ease.

At 640 x 480 x 16 we can truly see how well the Thunderbird core scales as the 20% increase in clock speed over its 1GHz predecessor resulted in no less than a 17% increase in performance. That's dangerously close to a 1% performance increase per MHz boost. Moving the L2 cache on-die has truly helped keep the Athlon scaling well.

Once again we have the Duron 800 offering greater performance than the overclocked Celeron 850, but the Duron is still around 10% shy of its bigger brother with four times as much L2 cache. A Duron with a 128KB L2 cache (which may not be too far away) could definitely help cut down that performance difference, but then we'd most likely see a more powerful Athlon as well...

UnrealTournament still scales fairly well with CPU speed at 1024 x 768 x 32, and the 1.2GHz Athlon continues to command a healthy lead. Limited somewhat by the video card, the 20% increase in clock speed for the 1.2GHz Athlon yields a 10% increase in performance.

Expendable has always appreciated fast L2 caches and thus fast memory buses. This helps explain its slight bias towards the large, low-latency L1 cache of the Athlon. The 1.2GHz Athlon continues to provide a 10% lead over the 1GHz Athlon as well as the 1GHz Pentium III; although not listed, its performance improvement offered over the 1.1GHz Athlon is around 5% as well.

The Duron continues to show a performance advantage over the overclocked Celeron 850 while remaining a good 11% behind an equivalently clocked Athlon.

Content Creation 2000 shows much less of a performance improvement than what we've seen in the previous tests, the 1.2GHz Athlon offers only a 9% boost in spite of its 20% clock increase.

You can only do certain things so fast before you start running into principles of diminishing returns, the tests exemplified by Content Creation Winstone 2000 (Office applications, image editing/creation, HTML editing/viewing, etc...) are obviously not stressing the CPUs the most.

Here the Duron is able to play quite a bit of catch-up to its bigger brother, as the Duron 800 is no more than 3% slower than an 800MHz Athlon. This is where the Duron truly shines, as a cost effective home computing solution able to offer Pentium III and Athlon class performance, at a very reduced price.

Even High End Winstone 99 isn't able to gain more than an 8% increase in performance over the 1GHz Athlon.

For the first time we are implementing the latest version of SPECviewperf in our CPU reviews, v6.1.2. This version of the benchmark includes updated versions of all of the viewsets as well as adds the MedMCAD-01 viewset benchmark. For information on all of these tests and what they do, visit the SPECviewperf information site.

Conclusion

And there we have it, another readily available, higher clock speed, slap in the face to Intel. This time, both on the high end with the 1.2GHz Athlon and on the low end with the 800MHz Duron.

The 1.2GHz Athlon is another example of how well the Thunderbird core scales, the performance improvement over a 1GHz Thunderbird ranges from 10% almost up to 20% which is pretty impressive considering that we're talking about a 20% boost in clock speed.

Unfortunately the only problem here is that the Thunderbird core is getting a bit too hot, it's time for AMD to stop focusing on clock speed increases as its obvious that they have Intel beat there, at least for now, and start concentrating on tweaking the core. However we don't have to tell AMD this as they most definitely realize it and it would be quite shocking not to see a cooler running Athlon core in the future (how else will it make the transition to notebooks?).

The Duron is yet again giving the Celeron a very hard time, not only outperforming it, but once again out-clocking it. The unfortunate problem here is that there is still far from enough market acceptance of the Duron. This will hopefully change as lower cost platforms become available for the CPU and AMD's ability to ramp up production of very high speed parts will also help combat this issue. However as far as the informed community goes, we all know that the Duron is a very powerful gem.

While we probably won't see any higher clock speed Athlons or Durons this year in their current form, don't expect this to be the last you hear from AMD. Remember that preview we brought you all a few weeks ago? A final review is coming up very shortly....