Time for new CPU benchmarks?

[ozmol]

Now that Athlon 64 and FX are here to fight the high end P4's (i.e. re-badged Xeons), isn't it time we finally saw the Athlon XP pitted against Celeron in some serious benchmark tests? Lets face it, the lower-end Athlons XP pricing is aimed at fighting off Celeron (and has been for a while), so why not show everyone how they compare?

I already know the results, but how many of you would like to see this on THG for the world to see?

 

[slvr_phoenix]

**shrug** Eh. In the past THG has done price/performance comparisons and AMD <i>always</i> wins the low end. Sure an article like that could be done again now. Who honestly would even consider that useful though? I mean we all already know the asnwer. **ROFL**

<pre><A HREF="http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030905" target="_new"><font color=black>People don't understand how hard being a dark god can be. - Hastur</font color=black></A></pre><p>

 

[Snorkius]

WE know, the avrg joe does'nt. AMD should really try to win some of the 'joe' market.

<font color=blue>
I will not add another word.
Horace </font color=blue>

 

[ozmol]

People considering buying Celeron need to see the facts in Black and White.

 

[slvr_phoenix]

WE know, the avrg joe does'nt. AMD should really try to win some of the 'joe' market.

Sure, but that's AMD's job to market their advantages, not THG's job. And how many of the 'joe' market actually read THG?

If anything they pick up a recent copy of something like Wired magazine or far more often just walk into CompUSA and let themselves be led by the nose of the salesperson. <i>That's</i> where AMD needs to aim their marketing budget on to catch the 'joe' market. THG isn't even a part of that.

<pre><A HREF="http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030905" target="_new"><font color=black>People don't understand how hard being a dark god can be. - Hastur</font color=black></A></pre><p>

 

[Snorkius]

THG is a site that most people visit first when researching a comp. I think there should be a big link that says "DO NOT BUY CELERON" or something like that.

<font color=blue>
I will not add another word.
Horace </font color=blue>

 

[TKS]

Dude...the Celerons would be tromped in every single test. You might as well not even attempt this one. Celerons have no bandwidth compared to the XP class....it isn't even a contest. Take a look at <A HREF="http://www.overclockers.com/articles494/" target="_new">this article</A> on a Celeron at 1.6Ghz and a XP1600 (1.4Ghz). Now if that is to antiquated for you, try <A HREF="http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20021016/celeron-09.html" target="_new">Tom's review of a Celeron</A> and subsequent comparison of it and some XP's.

As far as the XP being 'geared toward' competing with the Celerons...that has never been. It never will be. It never had the potential to be. If you search the web, you will find many Celeron VS Athlon XP benchmarks out there and the XP hand's the Celeron it's own arse in every single one.

Bottom line is that with the price comparison between the two (currently Celeron 2.0 is 77 bucks, XP2000 is 55 bucks) why would anyone go for something that is outperformed hands down? You'd have to be nuts.

You say you already know the results...but from your post it looks as if you feel the Celerons will clean house. I guarantee you that this isn't the case...just look at those two url's I posted. Most of the reviews are older (as in a few years) mainly because no one cares to compare the two because the XP wipes the floor with the Celeron. But there you go. Don't compare apples and oranges...you'll only confuse yourself and mislead others. The Duron's or maybe the Cyrix III's could be compared to the Celeron...but not the XP's.

If you don't trust those two urls I posted...try Anands <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1622&p=1" target="_new">here</A>.

----------
<b>I'm not normally a religious man, but if you're up there, save me, Superman! </b> <i>Homer Simpson</i>

 

[justaguy]

You're obviously optimistic about the intelligence of your fellow man. I believe that the average Joe researching buying a computer walks into a retail store and buys the fastest processor in his price range. HP/Dell/Gateway will attest that this assertion is at least mostly true. Anybody reading THG has a somewhat more advanced knowledge of computers and already knows that the Athlon XP destroys Celeron at the same price. When my father-in-law recently had a rig failure, he asked me to rebuild one based on a Celeron. I promptly built him a whole new rig (except cd/floppy/zip) based on an XP for under $230. He was more than pleased. I wish it were the way you say, but I think your glasses are a bit rosey...

Beside the point, what you ask is that people become more aware of the price/performance ratio. If everyone knew about the performance of AXP for the price, demand would rise. That would ruin our little secret and drive up prices. For now, I'm content with my $50 AXP running at 2.3 GHz - beating Bartons 4-5x the price and at least hanging in with medium range P4 systems.

 

[Snorkius]

I bet a new Duron would still wipe the floor with the Celeron. + they are great overclockers + you can, in most cases, activate the cache.
Cyrix is still in business???????

<font color=blue>
I will not add another word.
Horace </font color=blue>

 

[slvr_phoenix]

I couldn't have said it better myself, justaguy.

<pre><A HREF="http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030905" target="_new"><font color=black>People don't understand how hard being a dark god can be. - Hastur</font color=black></A></pre><p>

 

[ozmol]

What on earth are you one about!?! What did I say to make you think I'm pro Celeron? Nothing from what I can see. Celerons are an absolute piece of sh#t which is why I want a new modern comparison done so that all my n00b customers can be shown something they would call "proof".

As for Athlon XP not being competition against Celeron, your completely wrong. Since Duron has been mostly fazed out, the low end Athlon XP's have been AMD's main competitor against Celeron in the low-end price sector.

 

[ozmol]

...or far more often just walk into CompUSA and let themselves be led by the nose of the salesperson.

Exactly, and it is these semi-educated types of sales people that DO read THG and often do NOT get enough information about the low-end price sector that most customers end up buying.

 

[ozmol]

Anybody reading THG has a somewhat more advanced knowledge of computers and already knows that the Athlon XP destroys Celeron at the same price

Yeah, they know this because of previous THG low-end benchmark test showing Duron vs Celeron, not because of some great higher power or sixth sense. It's time for new, CURRENT low-end benchmarks.

 

[TKS]

If your customers don't trust you and the benchmarks that were done 2 years ago, then dredging up new benches would only imply that doubt has risen yet again. Hence why I thought you were flocking to the Celeron banner. I run an XP and I'd never dream of even trying to compare the two...yet another reason why I thought you'd be pro Celeron...cuz if you had an XP you woulda said more benchies against the P4

Also, Duron is back...don't count it down and out yet...keep up on your hardware a bit more. Low end Athlons (such as the 1600 vs 1.6 in the previous post) still wax the Celerons like they was a petrified turd plugged into a Slot A. You cannot compare the two.

----------
<b>I'm not normally a religious man, but if you're up there, save me, Superman! </b> <i>Homer Simpson</i>

 

[justaguy]

You and I know that XP's would obliterate Celerons, right? Then why write an entire article and devote serious man hours to quantify just how much of a slaughter this would be. If you want that niche information do it yourself. Get on your mom's Celeron rig (kick her out of the chatroom first) and check it out. Then do the same with an XP running machine. My *guess* is you'll find that the slowest XP competes with even the fastest Celeron and the battle becomes more one-sided as you go.

Have we seen a Mike Tyson v. Lennox Lewis rematch? No. You know why?-----

(Mike Tyceleron) "I'm just lucky he didn't kill me in there tonight."

(LennoXP) "I think I taught him a lesson that he won't soon forget."

Where there's a will, there's a way-even when it comes to screwing up.

 

[addiarmadar]

The Athlon XP will smoke the sh!t out of the Celerons. Durons were the market against the Celerons but that will soo change with the release of the A64. Would not doubt that the Athlon XP will replace the Durons. Really 64k of cache is so frickin old school now and doing that with the next OS will be a joke.

F-DISK-Format-Reinstal DO DA!! DO DA!!

 

[addiarmadar]

Really the Athlon XPs are in a field of their own. If Amd ever decided to release a 3ghz version that would be a mad puppy.

F-DISK-Format-Reinstal DO DA!! DO DA!!

 

[TTZX]

People are looking for a reliable and stable computer and that's why they choose a Celeron over AMD when on a budget. For general tasks (non gaming) you will not notice the speed difference.

<b>P4 2.4C @ 3.0GHz 1.525V Stock HSF * Abit IS7 BIOS v1.3 * Corsair XMS 2x256MB PC3200 2-3-3-6 * GeForce4 Ti4200 AGP8X 128MB * SB Audigy 2 ZS * Logitech Z-680 THX 5.1 * Seagate Barracuda 80GB SATA</b>

 

[Snorkius]

How is an Athlon less stable and/or reliable?

<font color=blue>
I will not add another word.
Horace </font color=blue>