I'm got a mix felling with Duron 850 vs. Celeron 800 review.
I really like that Tom put the duron 600 to Athlon 1.1 GHz for comparion with the new chip.
It's good to know how much different the new chip got. (I hate the Duron 800 review that
only compare it to Celeron 766).
But I hate Tom for this review too.
I believe he should use Celeron 700 - Celeron 800 + Pentium III 700 - PentiumIII 1GHz for
comparion instead of using Athlon & Duron for comparion.
Because little celery just got a new FSB!!!!!
I want to know if the new FSB really contribute a good speed compare to the older celery.
And how it's stuck up against P-III in general with 100FSB. how it's compare to P-III 700,750,800 (100FSB)
OK, I know that AMD zealot may kill Tom if they don't use AMD for comparison,
but the Duron 850 is about the same as predecessor, so I believe using Celery & P-III as comparion is a better choice.
Since tom said in the very end of the article that he feel anoyed by the price of Duron 850 & Athlon 850 is the same.
I want to say that I feel more than anoyed that P-III 800 is cheaper than celeron 800 and nobody mention this.
And P-III 650 is about the same price as Celeron 766, but I don't know which one faster because there were no
article about this.
More about :mix felling duron 850 celeron 800 review
January 9, 2001 1:08:12 PM
I agree with you where you say it would be interesting to see the difference between the Celeron800 and the older PIII and Celeron(FSB66) family members. As the Celeron and also the Duron are targeted for people who won't spend $500 on a CPU+mobo, such a review would be great for people considering upgrading their PII or early Celeron system.
>I agree with you where you say it would be interesting to see the difference between the Celeron800
>and the older PIII and Celeron(FSB66) family members. As the Celeron and also the Duron are targeted
>for people who won't spend $500 on a CPU+mobo, such a review would be great for people considering
>upgrading their PII or early Celeron system.
I did asked THG a few time about comparing with older stuff.
I beg to THG with many e-mails asking them to include a RivaTNT/TNT2/Voodoo/Voodoo2/Rage/etc...
in their new video card review. Because if I want to upgrade my video card I wanted to know
how much the different with my current system. Is it worth the price....
And for new motherboard like the SIS for Athlon Duron I want to know is it better than the
TNT M64. Because this is one of the cheapest video card in the market that were macth
in cheap gamming platform.
Please don't use your GeForce all of the time....
Use the chepaest of ATi/NVidia/S3/whatever that available in the market now...
This is a difficult matter for Tom's HG: If one wants to demonstrate the awesome power of the newest CPU like a 1.2Ghz DDR Athlon or a P4 1.5Ghz, then one cannot have an older TNT videocard hold back the FPS in Q3 or UT. All FPS will be the same no matter what 800+ CPU one uses, as the videocard will be the bottleneck.
BUT, it would be GREAT to see the performance differences between the different upgrade possibilities in the videocard section (all TNT2's, Voodoo3/4, Matrox, S3). THG did such a review some time ago, finding out what had the most impact when upgrading, more RAM, better CPU, better video, etc..... But there are so many variables in that equation, that just sticking to the videocards could also be very interesting. I personally would like to see the noticable difference between a Duron, Celeron 600 or PII350, 64 or 128MB ram with TNT2 M64 versus GTS2 MX...... a couple of frames? I wonder.
Maybe Tom has to introduce the performance/price ratio chart also for videocards? I find it great material for the CPU's.
Keep it cool!
January 11, 2001 5:04:50 PM
>This is a difficult matter for Tom's HG: If one wants to demonstrate the awesome power
>of the newest CPU like a 1.2Ghz DDR Athlon or a P4 1.5Ghz, then one cannot have an
>older TNT videocard hold back the FPS in Q3 or UT. All FPS will be the same no
>matter what 800+ CPU one uses, as the videocard will be the bottleneck.
Sorry if I'm not make my statement as clear as cristal before.
I'm talking about the lower market.
I'm talking about the Sis motherboard that supposed to be used with budget desktop would
be great if the integretad chipset were benchmark with integrated VGA, low-cost VGA, and also
GeForce2GTS. Although I prefer ATi Radeon instead of GeForce because nVidia turn evil
after playing the ______ game with M$.
>Maybe Tom has to introduce the performance/price ratio chart also for videocards?
>I find it great material for the CPU's.