Hi, i just want to buy a new proc. I have a 366 Cel, o/c in 550, rock stable. In tests, it performs better than Cel2 600. The question is: should I buy a Cel 600 and o/c it to 900, or buy a new mb with Duron600? How far do they go? Which is more overclockable? I want to get the powerfull sistem for my money. Please answer with your results in o/c.
More about :celeron 600 duron 600
November 13, 2000 6:19:40 PM
I am not quite sure what you are really trying to accomplish. If you want a performance chip than a Duron is the way to go. A Duron can also be overclocked but why try so hard when you can purchase a Duron 800 for pennies compaired to the market months ago. I am not a great Cellyouron fan and really dislike the marketing strategy from Intel on that slow bus no cache piece of sh!t CPU. Take it from me a Austinite (some one who lives in Austin Texas) who is living back door to AMD and has connections into AMD a Duron is the way to go.
There are several things:
1) duron WAY cheaper
2) 100mhz dbl pumped frontside bus(200mhz effective)
this is 3 times the celerons 66mhz, not to be confused with
memory speed, the frontside bus is how fast the cpu talks to the mainboard.
3) yes the duron wastes the celeron REALLY bad because the duron uses the athlon core and is not cripples just has less cache, ohh and the celeron has 64k of l1 and 128 of L2
cache but they are not exclusive so the same data is duplicated in both(hence its really only 128k)
the duron also has 128k L2 and 64k L1 but they are exclusive so it really has 192 and it works as 192
i hope this isnt to tech-e if anyone has questions i can post answers.
Bored, Certified Tech
November 14, 2000 5:05:47 PM
Wize Wizard Raistlin speaks the truth. (Fav cahracter of mine BTW, Great name there! )
The Duron is hands down far suprior to the Celeron at equal clock speed and in some cases a grade lower.
How is the overclockability? I've never heard of a 650 getting less than 900MHz. If you have a pretty heatsink/cooling system 1GHz is easy to hit. A socket A would also offer more flexibility, epecially if you went the new DDR boards route. That way even the new TBirds could be used.
A 66MHz FSB just doesn't cut it anymore. I believe the current plots put it as thusly: To reach the same gaming potential as a Duron 800, the Celeron would have to be clocked in excess of 1GHz.
I don't have those numbers myself, but it's easy to believe. Duron, without a doubt, is the way to go.
The Jolly Wizened Oaf!
November 15, 2000 2:12:03 AM
They're missing the point.
A Cel600/900 is running on a 100fsb not a 66fsb. This is why your 366/550 beats a C600, bwt. A Dur600/900 runs(still faster) on a 100(DDR)FSB.
If you go with a duron you will have to buy a new mobo (130usd for an a7v)plus 40usd for the duron(naked). If your board is coppermine compatible the cellery will run you 80usd(naked)
The new kt133mobos have at most 1 isa slot (do you need them?)
Does your current settup include a decent powersupply (250w or better)?
Are you using old suckass pc100/cas3/10ns memory (or worse)?
The duron is faster in professional apps (closer to an equivalent clocked PIII than a Celeron)and the new mobos provide upward scaleability in spades (1.66GHz@133/266) for when those 133/1.2TBirds get cheap or go u13. It overclocks with appreciable porformance gains thanks to its ddrfsb and is stable because you're using clock multiplier settings and not f'n with your AGP/PCI frequency. VC-SDRAM support is current as well
The celeron might cost you less if you're trying to scavenge your older system. Your mobo might max at
800(bios-find out!) and old s-a memory will rob you of performance. You might even save enough to pony up for a Radion32DDR (more would be something of a waste w/ 2xAGP).
Overclockability: Durons common at 900 and regularly hit 1GHz. Mine is "stable" at 1050 (quake runs) and very stable at 1000 (has yet to show ANY instability in any program since mid september when i last changed settings).
BTW my Duron6@10 with a GF2MX(200/200) runs Q3A(10x7,full32,allon)averaging 66-68fps in demo1&2. Pretty kickass for a sub 600usd system.
More Durons hit 1GHz than Celerons hit 900MHz in my experience. just something else to consider.
November 16, 2000 12:18:10 PM
All celerons are still 66FSB.
Depends on how much you want to spend. Personally, I am waiting a few months for DDR. Then you could buy a Duron (or whatever they are calling the chip the works w/ DDR) to go with it.
I currently have a PII-400 and I am thinking of getting a Celery 566 and OCing it to 850 to tide me over until I can afford to build a new TBird DDR system.
AGP 2x or 4x won't make a huge difference, the bottleneck of graphics cards is the RAM.
November 16, 2000 1:50:58 PM
I think the feedback from everyone points to the Duron as a better solution. If you want some overpriced, lousy performance CPU, then the Celeron is definatly for you. Pick a Duron, and you pick a winner. Nuff said.