Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The last CPU post until next fall - intel wins the THG $300 - Page 2

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 19, 2007 10:24:12 PM

How about this... why don't one of you guys or a group of you do your own little "$300 Shootout". That way we can kill this article and the subject.
February 19, 2007 10:45:06 PM

Quote:
OK true AMTI lovers time slam me again!


*slam*...

I prefer to be called an "AMDTi" lover...

Advanced Micro Technologies Incorporated ?? no thank you...

Advanced Micro Devices Technologies Incorporated 4 Lyphe, plz :) 

hmmm i see a new topic coming on... *posting new topic* :thumbsup:
February 19, 2007 10:57:17 PM

Yes, but I'd comfortably do it on $200. In fact, prices have dramatically dropped and $300 is not that ultra low budget any more; like many people appropriately pointed out, you could save $10 anywhere on this setup and end up with a PentiumD 805 for the Intel and A64 3500+ for the AMD build. On the other hand, a very low budget build implies using the cheapest hardware available ad then get me something to beat this (and yet run 64bit Vista) :
S754 Sempron2600+ $27:
http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=SDA26BX_64

Cheap board for $39:
http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=MB-K8M8MV2

512MB of DDR for $33
http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=D512M400EL

80GB SATA2 HDD $42
http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=HD-STM80S

DVD-ROM for $18
http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=DVD-8164BB

Nice case with 375W PSU for $26
http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=CA-ST3324B

Total: $185
That's what I would advice for a real budget build; about half of the $300+ they were paying and to budget users such setup may live for much more than the mentioned 18 months.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
February 19, 2007 11:11:36 PM

Sounds good. Anyone have $400 to spare to do this review? Be proactive here.
February 19, 2007 11:18:25 PM

Wow showdown at the OK computer center!

well i got x2 am2 4200+, am2 semrpon 3500+ - a crosshairs/fx-62 under construction(customers). and a spare fx-60 939 with a low end board

vs my 3.0c suputer from 2003, i also have x6800 in a striker, e6300 with d5w-dh, 560j from 2004 -- o ya and a qx6700/p5n32-e/gtx to start next week

so whos house should we meet at? lets get this testing underway - either that or brings some parts
February 20, 2007 12:52:51 AM

It's not the first time, to my knowledge the first time AMD took the lead was when they released the 386DX 40. From what I can remember it was the first fully 32bit CPU. (I think the Intel 386 33 used 32Bit/16bit.0

Even the Intel 486sx was not as good, so the leads been changing back and forth for a long time. :) 
February 20, 2007 1:48:56 AM

damn you kinda got an attitude didnt you fatman.
February 20, 2007 1:56:43 AM

hey sir, remember me! 100 posts for an image! ya my posts are so popular are they not? :twisted:
February 20, 2007 2:00:54 AM

ANIMAL!!
February 20, 2007 2:10:05 AM

Quote:
Yes, but I'd comfortably do it on $200. In fact, prices have dramatically dropped and $300 is not that ultra low budget any more; like many people appropriately pointed out, you could save $10 anywhere on this setup and end up with a PentiumD 805 for the Intel and A64 3500+ for the AMD build. On the other hand, a very low budget build implies using the cheapest hardware available ad then get me something to beat this (and yet run 64bit Vista) :
S754 Sempron2600+ $27:
http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=SDA26BX_64

Cheap board for $39:
http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=MB-K8M8MV2

512MB of DDR for $33
http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=D512M400EL

80GB SATA2 HDD $42
http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=HD-STM80S

DVD-ROM for $18
http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=DVD-8164BB

Nice case with 375W PSU for $26
http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=CA-ST3324B

Total: $185
That's what I would advice for a real budget build; about half of the $300+ they were paying and to budget users such setup may live for much more than the mentioned 18 months.

For an Intel route:

Take your build, sub in the Asrock 775i65G for $44.29:
http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=MB-7I65G

and sub the Celeron D 326 for the same price as that Sempron 2600:
http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=CELE-326

Total: $190

The Celeron D 326 is oem, meaning no hsf, but so was your Sempron 2600, so I didn't feel the need to budget in a cheap hsf if you didn't either.

The Socket 754 AMD rig wins cheapest to build, but the Intel unit comes within 3% of the AMD rig's price, enough to be seriously considered by anyone building a cheap ass rig.

While it's certainly debatable, I find the Intel rig to be superior, and a better buy than your AMD rig. With the Intel rig, you have a slightly better IGP with Intel's extreme graphics 2, meaning better gaming (of course, if we add video cards to remove the IGP bottle neck, I'm sure the AMD rig would best the Intel system in gaming), and a slightly weaker CPU. All in all I call that a wash between the Intel and AMD rigs. However, the Asrock motherboard has AGP/PCI locks, meaning an easy overclock to 3+GHz. I'm not aware of the overclocking prowess of your AMD board. Also, the Asrock board has a dual channel memory controller, while the AMD rig, like all socket 754s is single channel (really not a big matter, especially since we're only using one stick, but it should at least be noted). Overall though, the Intel build is the better buy for $5 more, because of this: the mobo supports every CPU ever made for LGA 775, including Kentsfield. With the AMD rig, you're stuck to single core cpus of the K8 variety. That may not matter to some people, but at least the Intel build allows for more flexible upgradeability.

If I were to really build a rig like this though, I would seriously look at the Cedar Mill Celeron Ds. The Celeron D 326 is an okay budget CPU, but a Ceder Mill Celeron is only $15 more ($20 for retail- Celeron D 347 also on Ewiz), I feel it might be a justifiable cost due to the performance enhancement it provides. I would also splurge for a DVD-RW drive over the DVD-rom for $12 more. I feel it's extra money well spent. So, $222 would really be my recommended Intel build. For the additional $32, you get a stronger Celeron D with great overclocking potential (along with hsf), and a DVD burner to handle all your multimedia needs.
February 26, 2007 7:04:41 PM

Nice post! The problem with celeron d is the same as athlon 64 - poor multitaskers.

(athlon 64 is over rated due to all the singel task - background programs off testing in the past)

Generally I build gaming computers for multi use this means antvirus, antispyware plus you add im etc - the celeron will bog down.

If you can not swing an oc e4300 go with the 805.
February 26, 2007 10:41:18 PM

Quote:
Nice post! The problem with celeron d is the same as athlon 64 - poor multitaskers.
(athlon 64 is over rated due to all the singel task - background programs off testing in the past)

Please, I am teling you this for the N-th time; DON'T post BS. If you are an intel fanboy (as you have yourself admitted) and want to talk well about Intel, then talk about Core2 but don't put the A64 in the same sh!tty pot of the Celeron D please. The Athlon64 is still the best singlethreaded multitasker; no Pentium4/CeleronD can touch it.
February 26, 2007 10:58:39 PM

Yes, the prices are there but the 'problem' is that the Sempron 2600+ just kills the CeleronD326; The 325 is identical (just in the 65nm flavored Prescot: Cedar Mill). Take a look at how it mostly lags between 15 and 25% compared to the Sempron2600+ :wink: :
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron-26...
February 26, 2007 10:59:19 PM

Quote:
The Athlon64 is still the best singlethreaded multitasker


this is true.
and if you figure in the s939 3700+ and up they are the fastest
single core cpu,s period.

oh i forgot the opty,s :wink:
February 27, 2007 2:45:31 AM

It possible you do not understand - single core athlons glory was based on many pc magazines gaming tests - and biased reporting - there is no good multitasking data. You run amti - right? - i run both.

what a joke - funny thing is you got no data - because there is no data - nobody runs proper multitaking tests! That is my point.

If you like me to stop posting this truth then show me some data!

Its like al gore and is fictional movie - 90% of experts agree - what do they agree on? that there is more co2? yes that is true!

But does co2 make the atmosphere warmer or is co2 a by product of a warmer atmosphere - its a by product when it warms the perm frost releases co2 in amounts greater then man could ever!

Yes its getting warmer - yes it will get colder! Yes semprons are dogs! and Athlons are over rated from single task comparisons!

show me the data!

IFB (amti is always #2)
February 27, 2007 3:18:41 AM

Quote:
Yes, the prices are there but the 'problem' is that the Sempron 2600+ just kills the CeleronD326; The 325 is identical (just in the 65nm flavored Prescot: Cedar Mill). Take a look at how it mostly lags between 15 and 25% compared to the Sempron2600+ :wink: :
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron-26...


This is a half truth. Look at the media enoding benchmarks and you will see the Celeron D 326 performs much better overall in media encoding than the Sempron 2600. Each CPU has it's own strengths and weaknesses.

As I already conceded, the Sempron 2600 is a better gaming CPU, but as I ALSO mentioned, using the crappy IGPs found on these mobos, THE CELERON BEATS THE SEMPRON IN GAMING. If we add in an aftermarket GPU to remove the IGP bottleneck you'd be right about the Sempron's gaming prowess.

However, you miss the main point: The Intel rig I purposed is a more future proof option, for only $5 more. Also, I myself even recommended a few upgrades over the base $190 system. If I were building that rig, I would use the Celeron D 347, overclock it to ~5GHz, and kiss goodbye any Sempron system that can't overclock to around 3GHz. I have a question for you: How well does that AMD board overclock?
February 27, 2007 3:56:18 AM

...
February 27, 2007 4:42:02 AM

Quote:
Yes, the prices are there but the 'problem' is that the Sempron 2600+ just kills the CeleronD326; The 325 is identical (just in the 65nm flavored Prescot: Cedar Mill). Take a look at how it mostly lags between 15 and 25% compared to the Sempron2600+ :wink: :
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron-26...


This is a half truth. Look at the media enoding benchmarks and you will see the Celeron D 326 performs much better overall in media encoding than the Sempron 2600. Each CPU has it's own strengths and weaknesses.

As I already conceded, the Sempron 2600 is a better gaming CPU, but as I ALSO mentioned, using the crappy IGPs found on these mobos, THE CELERON BEATS THE SEMPRON IN GAMING. If we add in an aftermarket GPU to remove the IGP bottleneck you'd be right about the Sempron's gaming prowess.

However, you miss the main point: The Intel rig I purposed is a more future proof option, for only $5 more. Also, I myself even recommended a few upgrades over the base $190 system. If I were building that rig, I would use the Celeron D 347, overclock it to ~5GHz, and kiss goodbye any Sempron system that can't overclock to around 3GHz. I have a question for you: How well does that AMD board overclock?

Each CPU does indeed have its strength, and weakness. but OCing? we are talking about the most budget of budget PCs here, and as such they arnt going to be OCed are they? these sort of PCs are owned by people who dont know HOW to OC ;p
And if you are going to OC to ~5Ghz then youd better factor in the cost of a high end heatsink, and at that point you could probably build a AMD dual core system that would beat the ~5Ghz celeron ;p

EDIT: my shocking spelling
February 27, 2007 6:00:52 AM

Me graps popcorn

My ENIAC is better than your PCs

Posting in a legendary thread.
February 27, 2007 6:32:14 AM

You seem to have it asss backwards.
You see, the reason they did single threaded apps was to make the Intel chips look good. The P4c was great @ single threaded app because it finally had enough band width. Unfortunetly, if you threw multiple tasks @ it it would use hyperthreading. Not only lack of band width, but HT would get the os to designate 2 primary tasks. The second most important task would do fine, but the primary task would be way down, while tertiary tasks barely had enough bandwidth to stay running. With an HT enabled chip, you better make sure all other tasks are shut down, if you need your primary task completed asap.
And yes, I own multiple systems, bothe AMD and Intel.
February 27, 2007 7:31:15 AM

Both parties in this topic are arguing over a moot point. -_-

Both systems suck nuts and they're both useless for gaming, Vista, multitasking and overclocking.

Unless you were to buy either one of these systems for your grandparents, why argue over it?

Also just a few notes:
- The Celeron was cheaper than the Sempron
- The Intel mobo was a lot more expensive then the AMD mobo, because of the 945G chipset (in which case the Intel system would win in 'gaming').

Also, why would you bother overclocking any of these two systems? You'd just make them suck faster.
February 27, 2007 7:45:08 AM

Right, each one has strengths and weaknesses but have you tried the overall feel on both of them; the CeleronD is such a lagging multitasker that you are really p!ssed if tou want to open 2 light apps at the same time; the overall reaction is much better on a celeron and that can be shown with a multitasking benchmark.
February 27, 2007 7:51:17 AM

OH oh, mistake.
February 27, 2007 8:22:58 AM

Heads will roll for that kind of error!
get the executioner!

Also how cool am i!!!! finally 100 posts!!!!
February 27, 2007 10:50:43 AM

Quote:
Lets take a 3500+ am2 at ~$80 and compare it to 805 @ 4ghz winner intel


just wondering.;....

why would somebody who probably has no budget, probably noob w/ oc'ing, and probably not a gamer would oc their rig? and most likely they would just use this rig for simple word processing apps?
February 27, 2007 11:00:34 AM

It's been a see-saw battle and it will continue as long as both companies are in business.
All the Intel vs AMD posts are pure BS, created by people who's mother told them they were grounded, so they come on here and start this mess up.
Moronic at best, if you don't know how it works by now you never will.
February 27, 2007 11:54:20 AM

thats the best post i have read in the whole of this crappy thread

yes until now its been a see saw with Intel being on top the last 8 months and Amd on top for the 2 years before that with there A64 line

Now intel has up'd the Ante with 45nm promises.
The question is how good is Barcelona? I hope for AMDs (and our) sake it is as much of a jump above C2d as C2D was above the X2 range. at both stock and OC'd, because as i see it if barcelona has a good 20% improvement but doesnt OC one iota then intel is still in the lead.

Now inregards to the article about cheap systems this infuriated me if i had the money to spare i would shell out $600 and buy two systems on budget and judge them on all their merits for what they are intended (i.e. if i where to spend $300 to game i would get a Wii)
For the past few months there has been a massive intel swing in the articls that has lead me to read articles on other sites. Whomever the main editor is at toms i would seriously consider re writing the article mentioned above(or maybe DaClan could)
February 27, 2007 12:46:24 PM

The problem with this crappy thread is that most of the people posting, have never seen a Sempron or a Celeron D.
February 27, 2007 1:30:27 PM

I for own a Celeron D based computer, and it plain fricken SUCKS.

Which is why I say; "It's a tie--they both lose!"
February 27, 2007 1:58:57 PM

Quote:
The problem with this crappy thread is that most of the people posting, have never seen a Sempron or a Celeron D.


A truer statement has never been made.

These are the ones we refer to as "Armchair Technicians".

___________________
”No matter where you go or what you do, you live your entire life within the confines of your head”. ~Terry Josephson
February 27, 2007 3:09:12 PM

Wow, look at you geeks fighting. 8O You would think that their was a Blue light special on pocket protectors at K-Mart or something. :lol: 

Let it goooooooooooo. :cry: 
February 27, 2007 4:10:49 PM

Actually, for $299 I can get an Xbox 360...

Checkmate! :wink:
February 27, 2007 4:21:59 PM

Quote:
Actually, for $299 I can get an Xbox 360...

Checkmate! :wink:


How do you get Office on an Xbox 360????
February 27, 2007 4:36:37 PM

Sounds like your biased, since you own an Intel processor. Intel does not own the extremely low end market.

YOU

-cm
February 27, 2007 4:48:13 PM

Quote:
Actually, for $299 I can get an Xbox 360...

Checkmate! :wink:


How do you get Office on an Xbox 360????

I was just kidding... but I guess you could use an OS hack.
February 27, 2007 5:13:53 PM

I dunno, Gears of War is a great word processor. At least, that's what he'll tell his Mom so she lets him get one.
-cm
February 27, 2007 5:17:23 PM

Quote:
damn you kinda got an attitude didnt you fatman.


ya! i guess! I am really just looking for real would test data. My point is its never been done.

thank you to: m25 he actually took the time to get some data:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron-26...

But its all single tasking: as i stated no real would multitasking tests - synthetic bench marks and gaming tests with background programs off.

We can all agree amd chips run many single applications as good or better then intel!

It seems to me from sempron to athlon to even an fx-60 when i program and test them they are slower when doing/running real world mutltasking.

the fx-60 is great chip until down load multiple programs - the difference is slight.

still no data of a real world computing - that is: with anti virus and anti spyware running, how about adding im and gaming at the same time - this is what people do with computers. sitting next to me is 2 systems with dual monitors - one monitor is im the other guild wars spydoctor, avg running on a 560j single core chip - no lag (try that on an athlon)- the guy on the system is playing some music too. bench mark this!


well i started the post to see if i could find some data - if any existed of true multitasking on low end single core chips - still none! I really do not think its ever been done.

I am typing on a 3.0c - avg is on (spysweeper is off it bogs it down) i have about 10-20 browsers open - media player is rolling. This is system built in 2003 - next to me is core 2 next to that am2 4200+ this single core northwood antique still works - semprons do not! Do you think any amd chip from 2003 can do that? I am not sure - so show me some data!

I am looking for the truth not to piss off the amti fanatics
February 27, 2007 5:34:17 PM

Quote:
If they are going to make comperable systems they should spend the same amount of money on each. They chose not to spend an extra $10 to get an Athlon 64 because it would have made their system exceed the $300 mark by $40 instead of $30. The Intel system however exceed the $300 by $60 so they seemed to have proven that if you give Intel a headstart they win. What a genius review for 10% more money even a noob could make Intel a winner.

The pitty is that even with the actual setup, the Sempron system is overall more responsive, more game capable, better multitasker than the CeleronD. I have assembled and tested mysel various Sempron and CeleronD systems but reviews speak themselves; just take a look to the firs article I was able to google, the other (THE REAL) side of the coin :
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron-34...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron-34...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron-34...
P.S: For the CeleronD, most often check the last 2 lines of each table :lol: 

Not to piss in someone's Cheerios, but my Celeron D 360 easily overclocks to 4.63 from 3.46, without voltage changes, and its scores are equivalent to a FX-57 in SiSandra using cheapo Kingston DDR2-533 memory AND onboard graphics.

Don't go making the Celeron look like a POS without factual data :roll:
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 27, 2007 7:38:27 PM

QUICK! Hide this topic from Baron :!: :!: :!:
February 27, 2007 7:55:46 PM

Quote:
Not to piss in someone's Cheerios, but my Celeron D 360 easily overclocks to 4.63 from 3.46, without voltage changes, and its scores are equivalent to a FX-57 in SiSandra using cheapo Kingston DDR2-533 memory AND onboard graphics.

Don't go making the Celeron look like a POS without factual data Rolling Eyes

You're not pissing anything but don't forget the Sempron can get to 2.8GHz too and one thing we all should forget is ALL KIND OF SYNTHETIC BENCHMARKS because they are either biased or stupidly put together; How is it possible that in this review:
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/404
The Sempron lags by 17% in the crappy 3DMark but soundly beats the Celeron D in ALL games :?: :!: Is pretty easy; all Intel CPUs have excelled in 3DMark but got systematically beaten by Athlons till the arrival of Core2, so why do we use this benchmark :?: :!:
February 27, 2007 8:47:37 PM

Quote:
Right, each one has strengths and weaknesses but have you tried the overall feel on both of them; the CeleronD is such a lagging multitasker that you are really p!ssed if tou want to open 2 light apps at the same time; the overall reaction is much better on a celeron and that can be shown with a multitasking benchmark.


Yes, I have. I owned a Celeron D 310 @ 3.6GHz/900fsb stock vcore, and a Sempron 2800 @ 2.5GHz and 1.55 vcore on a Biostar T-force. Both used 1 gig Patriot Signature series ram, and were housed in a black Xaser III case. They were both great little rigs at the time (about 2 years ago). Since I primarily do encoding work, the two cpus actually performed on par with each other. I built the Sempron rig after the Intel rig, b/c I wanted a PCIe slot, and I wanted to use the then-new 6100 IGP (the IGP could play call of Duty maxed out at 1024x768, the max res. of my 15" flat panel). It was a nice AMD rig, but unfortunately either the motherboard's video drivers were buggy, or my Winfast capture software is poorly coded for AMD. Either way, I experienced too many video capture related problems, got tired of constant tweaking, and after a couple months sold the AMD rig to a gaming friend of mine at cost. Then I preceded to sell my Celeron D 310 and mobo to another friend to replace his aging Abit NF7-s/Athlon XP 2000 combo. Since that time I used my Dell Dimension 4500, 2.4B Norhtwood, 512MB PC2100, and GF3Ti200 for all my video capture and media encoding needs (and just a tiny bit of Call of Duty). Last summer I of course upgraded the Dell with the Asrock 775i65G and D805, reusing everything else. If you want brutal honesty, both the Celeron D and Sempron suck balls at multitasking. I have a foxconn Ebot with a 2.4C Northwood, and that thing will out multitask either one of those cpus, but even the 2.4C is not even close to the robustness of the D805, where you can actually run two demanding tasks at the same time. If you want smooth feel and great multitasking, get a dual core CPU, not a sempron.
February 27, 2007 9:15:00 PM



proof of sempron going to almost 3ghz

take note this is an 86% oc
February 27, 2007 9:16:18 PM

Multitasking? please. It won't make a difference on single core Celerons. Competing Semprons are faster than the old Prescott Celeron Ds. I would only recommed Prescott Celerons if the person wanted an Intel rig and coudln't afford anything more expensive than a $30 CPU for the time being, or if the person just wanted to go on the internet, maybe play a DVD, sync their iPOD, and use word...you know, what most non-computer geek people do. And for the latter case, I'd just as soon build AMD. It doesn't matter what brand you have, or how much performance when it comes to the tasks a non-gaming, non-encoding, average computer user will do, because the CPU is not the bottleneck. Generally, it's the amount of ram that's most important for a rig like this. You just need enough ram to prevent the computer from getting dragged down, and all will be well in Noobie Land.
February 27, 2007 9:24:11 PM

Your first post and subsequent posts lost you a lot of creditability as far as I am concerned. Its more like bickering then a real debate.


We all know that the article from THG was the most bias and unreasonable display of technical jacka55ism on behalf of Intel. I dont care if your pro intel or amd, anyone quoting that article as proof of superiority is a moron.


It has been discussed much on the forums and there has been many alternative builds to the "$300" ones.


Since your attitude suggests you will not heed this statement, please continue to argue.... go on...
February 27, 2007 9:25:13 PM

Of course; we're uselessly talking about "budget CPUs" when a CeleronD is $60 and a Pentium D 805 is ~$70. I've lately noticed a lot of people saying "Hey, I'm building a budget PC with an E6300" or "X2 4200+" 8O , so the concept of budget build has a lot changed the last 6-7 months. Looks kile yesterday when full of joy I put together my 939 3000+ budget and then the price drops and nothing was the same anymore.
Even Intel and AMD got caught in this wave; otherwise how would you explain CeleronDs and P4s being more expensive than PentiumDs or a Sempron 3600+ equally priced with a X2 3600+ :?: :!:
At the end, they'd better drop their value line names; a single core nowadays is more than enough to to cripple and to classify a CPU as a budget one, especially in the light of these nonsense prices.
February 27, 2007 9:26:23 PM

And that is atypical. From my own observations, a socket 754 Sempron will land anywhere from 2.4 to 2.6, sometimes 2.7 GHz on stock air cooling. There are screenies from xtreme systems are people getting 4.2+ GHz on a Celeron D 326 with stock hsf and 5.5GHz on Cedar Mill Celeron Ds using stock air cooling, but I also call those atypical. It seems most Celeron Ds based on the Prescott core hit 3.2 to 3.8 GHz on stock cooler, and Cedar Mill Celerons run around 4.6 to 5GHz with the Intel hsf. On average the Cedar Mill Celeron beats the Sempron with shear clock speed advantage.

If you will, can you tell me the cooling used, and the motherboard it was overclocked in? My feeling is that it wasn't the stock cooler, and it definately wasn't a $40 ECS mobo.
February 27, 2007 9:30:21 PM

I know what you mean. Some people really don't get the term "budget"; either that, or you and I are really cheap bastards....
February 27, 2007 9:32:49 PM

If that is atypica, 4.63GHz on stock voltage by RJ is totally outlandish; With a CeleronD you have to sweat to go beyond 4.2GHz even by bumping the voltage, typically. Maybe he is the luckiest overclocker in the world, or (most probably) it's just that mobo supplies a good 0.05-0.1V more than the required Vcore.
February 27, 2007 9:37:11 PM

No, RJ has a Cedar Mill Celeron D. His results are right in line with what is expected.

As far as people asking me "Why would anyone overclock these rigs?", as I stated, if I were to build the Intel rig, which is certainly more specific than anyone. I would overclock the Intel rig b/c I like having Athlon FX-57 performance from a $50 CPU, and because I can.
February 27, 2007 10:24:42 PM

Quote:
If that is atypica, 4.63GHz on stock voltage by RJ is totally outlandish; With a CeleronD you have to sweat to go beyond 4.2GHz even by bumping the voltage, typically. Maybe he is the luckiest overclocker in the world, or (most probably) it's just that mobo supplies a good 0.05-0.1V more than the required Vcore.


Outlandish?...no
Lucky?....definitely not.
Good Mobo?....up for debate.

The only reason I haven't gone higher is because the mobo has NO voltage settings. I'd love to crank the snot out of this CPU to see where it lands. I'm tempted to put the Celeron into my Abit rig with the peltier cooler and see what it clocks. I wouldn't even need the Patriot memory I'm getting tomorrow that's capable of over 600 mhz.
!