| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 40129 | 2003-11-28 22:00:00 | PC System (no flame please) | ~~~~~ s y ~~~~~ (2054) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 195536 | 2003-11-28 22:00:00 | This is not intended to be a flame thread, PLEASE do not make it one. I would only like HONEST opinions and experience, please Well, most of you would have probably guessed it, Intel vs. AMD. But NO! :p... I already know P4 would be my perferred. However, I personally haven't used Athlon XP or Celeron. I will be looking to buying components for a new computer if I go overseas into Asia. However, my budget is limited... can be stretched if need be... but I don't want to go over. I've seen that the Intel Celeron and the AMD Athlon XP is similar in price, however, I'd like some opinion as to the quality of not only it's main CPU, but also the motherboard, for which I will be using it's onboard graphic, sound, etc. My uses are mainly office type.... i.e. schoolwork, websurfing (most of the time), alot of multitasking. Although there is no games, my families do use the Windows card games very often :D... and my brother will play games every once a while. Let's say... once a month, but they're not very hardcore The thing I must say again, is multitasking, I do that alot. But I cannot stretch into P4. As for the motherboard, I want them (P4 or AMD mobos) to have reasonably good graphic and sound quality. Remember, not a flame thread, honest opinions and experiences please, Many, many thanks Sorry, I know I've asked about getting a computer for years now.... but never got round to it... :( |
~~~~~ s y ~~~~~ (2054) | ||
| 195537 | 2003-11-28 22:29:00 | If you look at technical specifications instead of biased opinions, you may get the outcome that the AMD Athlon specifications seem better . Although hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil . I truly despise the Celerons, although they may have improved? It's been a while, is it now Celeron III? |
Kame (312) | ||
| 195538 | 2003-11-28 22:34:00 | Ok, so will a AMD Athlon XP 2000+ (1.67Ghz) be faster or Intel Celeron 2.0Ghz? But doesn't the Celeron have a 400Mhz FSB compared to 266Mhz FSB of the Athlon... doesn't this mean the Celeron should be faster? ?:| | ~~~~~ s y ~~~~~ (2054) | ||
| 195539 | 2003-11-28 22:45:00 | When it is a choice between an Athlon and a Celeron the Athlon wins hands down. | mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 195540 | 2003-11-28 23:42:00 | sure amd is faster, but if you will only be doing ofice work then i would be inclined to say celeron. as i type the laptop i am typing on has a celeron processor with 128 mb of ram for windows 98se, running word, excel, powerpoint, frontpage (all office 2000) and internet x2 (hotmail and pf1) and is doing it happily. also it is cheaper than p4 and amd. we also have a celeron desktop, 128 ram, 1.2 ghz, xp home. we mainly use it for the programs above and games like ned for speed, age of empires. we don't multitask as much on it. the oly game it really has trouble with is the sims, but it came with skimp ram. ultimatly i would say celeron as it is cheap and designed for the uses you are planning. | Megaman (344) | ||
| 195541 | 2003-11-29 00:34:00 | No it doesn't mean the Celeron faster, AMD use a different architecture so direct comparisom of figures aren't relevant at face value, from what I have read . If you're looking for value for money go with the XP over the Celeron, you'll get much more bang for your buck, easily more IMO . The XP will give a P4 a decent run with each excelling in diferent areas . Go with an nForce chipset motherboard to get the best out of the AMD . It will give you acceptable onboard grahics and sound . Cheers Murray P |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 195542 | 2003-11-29 01:09:00 | anything a Celeron can do a Athlon can do better, the Athlon has more lvl2 cache 256/512k compared to 128k(i think thats right could be 96k). The only real benefit from a Celeron is that it can use the same mobo as a P4 so if you do your shopping right you could at a later date stick in a P4. Personally i think you would be better off with a nice athlon system such as a 2100+(throughbred core, nice and cool) or possiably a 2500+(barton core, extra lvl2 cache), 2x256mb DDR333(enables dual channel which is a must when using onboard video, DDR333 will be fast enough for either CPU no need for DDR400), and a nForce2 based borad using the IGP such as the Soltek SL-75MRN-L. |
Pete O'Neil (250) | ||
| 195543 | 2003-11-29 04:05:00 | Not an Athlon XP 2100+ I heard there was something dodgy about them. Either get a 2000+, 2200+ or a Barton |
mejobloggs (264) | ||
| 195544 | 2003-11-29 04:11:00 | Many thanks guys, how about 2400+? | ~~~~~ s y ~~~~~ (2054) | ||
| 195545 | 2003-11-29 04:20:00 | The Athlon Thunderbird series offers a great price to performance ratio and would be the better choice in my opinion. Thunderbird Proccessors can be over-clocked to 200+ MHz more than their factory-defined ratings, with little more than a minor change in the system's user-configurable BIOS configuration setup or motherboard jumper settings. Saying this, the Celeron can be also over-clocked to match the level of the upper-range processor - Pentium 4. Just to prove that I'm not being biased in saying go the Athlon, I myself have a P4 which I have not complaints about. So basically, go for a lower rating Athlon, spend sometime maximising it's performance. | Craig (448) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 | |||||