This content was originally featured on Amdmb.com and has been converted to PC Perspective’s website. Some color changes and flaws may appear.
These benchmarks are not ideal because of the comparison of Athlon and Duron, with differing chipset, video controller and hard drive. These are far too many variables to infer any indication of platform performance between the product lines. However, the benchmarks do show some interesting points of relative quality of video controllers, and the effect of the differing amount of L2 cache between the Duron and Athlon. Both AMD processors have 128KB L1, but the Athlon has 256KB L2 while the Duron has 64KB L2.
You can plainly see and feel the effects of L2 in running programs or starting applications. For example, in Linux the KDE desktop environment and OpenOffice suite take much longer to startup on Duron than Athlon, but once they are running it is almost the same. This similar slow startup can be observed when comparing Intel Celeron to comparable MHz Pentiums.
These benchmarks are like comparing Apples to Oranges with both the differing amounts of L2 cache and differing clock speeds, so do not use the processor results as any measure of relative quality. We have also added a typical MSI K7NPro value desktop based on the nForce chipset for comparison of relative performance
It is quite evident that both of these laptop video chipsets are not good for 3D gaming. While the Presario had no problems in running these benchmarks (albeit slowly), the Sony Vaio FXA36 completely failed at 1024×768 resolution. We left out the 3DMark2001 benchmarks because the Sony Vaio completely failed to run it.
Within the 128kB and 512kB area you can see an effect of the differing amounts of L2 cache where the 1GHz Athlon is able to overtake the slightly faster 1.1GHz Duron.