Our test systems were configured like so:

Notice that the Duron gets a DDR platform here in the form of VIA's KT266A chipset, while the Celeron kicks it old school with PC100 SDRAM. Intel has been slow to embrace DDR memory, so the playing field isn't exactly level. Still, this is what both AMD and Intel specify for their value processor platforms; I'm just following instructions.

Intel, it would appear, has no plans to move the Celeron officially to a DDR platform any time soon.

Why haven't we included Intel's Celeron 1.3GHz in our tests? It's simple, really. Intel doesn't send out review samples of its value chips. Without review samples, we're forced to acquire Celerons like everyone else, and Pricewatch had no listings for the Celeron 1.3GHz. (Just before publication, we finally found one listing for the Celeron 1.3GHz at a hefty $143.) Though the odd review has popped up on the web, the chips themselves don't seem to be readily available to the public. AMD, on the other hand, provided us with a sample Duron 1.3GHz. Pricewatch also lists two online retailers taking orders for AMD's newest chip.

The test systems' Windows desktops were set at 1024x768 in 32-bit color at a 75Hz screen refresh rate. Vertical refresh sync (vsync) was disabled for all tests.

We used the following versions of our test applications:

• SiSoft Sandra Standard 2001.3.7.50
• Compiled binary of C Linpack port from Ace's Hardware
• ZD Media Business Winstone 2001 1.0.2
• ZD Media Content Creation Winstone 2001 1.0.2
• POV-Ray for Windows version 3.1g (multiple compiles)
• Sphinx 3.3
• ScienceMark 1.0
• SPECviewperf 6.1.2
• MadOnion 3DMark 2001 Build 200
• Quake III Arena 1.30 Final Release
• Serious Sam v1.02

All the tests and methods we employed are publicly available and reproducible. If you have questions about our methods, hit our forums to talk with us about them.