Price for performance (when overclocked)

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
K

Kennyshin

Distinguished
Nov 11, 2001
658
0
18,980
Price for performance (when overclocked)

1. Intel Willamette Celeron 1.7GHz (128KB L2, 400FSB, 180nm)
2. Intel Tualatin Celeron 1.3GHz (256KB L2, 100FSB, 130nm)
3. Intel Northwood 1600MHz (512KB L2, 400FSB, 130nm)
4. AMD Palomino Athlon XP 1466MHz (256KB L2, 133FSB, 180nm)
5. AMD Morgan Duron 1000MHz (64KB L2, 100FSB, 180nm)

Well, why doesn't THG provide results and opinions regarding CPU price/performance ratio when overclocked anymore?

<b>Did we come here to laugh or to cry? Are we dying or being reborn?</b>
 
L

labdog

Distinguished
Feb 17, 2001
2,747
0
20,780
you cant use a calculating or maybe a comp?


<i>if <b>you know</b> <font color=white>you don't know<font color=black>, the way could be more easy ...
 
K

Kennyshin

Distinguished
Nov 11, 2001
658
0
18,980
Only inferior people speak that kind of language.

I understand there are too many of unsophisticated and barbarian you in the States but it's meaningless and impolite to post that way in international forums.

<b>Did we come here to laugh or to cry? Are we dying or being reborn?</b>
 
A

AMD_Man

Splendid
Jul 3, 2001
7,376
2
25,780
Anyway, back on topic:

1. Intel Willamette Celeron 1.7GHz (128KB L2, 400FSB, 180nm)
Click to expand...
Will easily overclock to 2.26GHz. At that speed, it should outperform the Duron (even when overclocked), and match the performance of a ~1.8GHz Willy, or a bit faster.

2. Intel Tualatin Celeron 1.3GHz (256KB L2, 100FSB, 130nm)
Click to expand...
Great performance for the price but only medicore overclocking. Unlikely to reach 1.73GHz without significant cooling.

3. Intel Northwood 1600MHz (512KB L2, 400FSB, 130nm)
Click to expand...
Extreme overclocker. I've seen it go as high as 2.9GHz. ~2.4GHz is the average. At that speed, it would rival Intel's flagship 2.53GHz P4 due to the faster 600MHz FSB at 2.4GHz.

4. AMD Palomino Athlon XP 1466MHz (256KB L2, 133FSB, 180nm)
Click to expand...
Excellent default performance for the price. Mid-range overclocking. I've seen it go as high as 1.83GHz. I'd say 1.65GHz is the average but I haven't checked at Overclockers.

5. AMD Morgan Duron 1000MHz (64KB L2, 100FSB, 180nm)
Click to expand...
Decent performance at a low price. I haven't heard much about overclocking it and I wouldn't expect it to go too high (it's aluminum).









:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
 
L

labdog

Distinguished
Feb 17, 2001
2,747
0
20,780
Only inferior people speak that kind of language.
Click to expand...
stop it, pls. im too roflMAO.


I understand there are too many of unsophisticated and barbarian you in the States but it's meaningless and impolite to post that way in international forums.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Yeah. im American from now! roflMAO.

really, study a little Informatics before coming back here.
this is not a philosophical forum but an IT one.

Whatever, Have a Nice Day. LoL


<i>if <b>you know</b> <font color=white>you don't know<font color=black>, the way could be more easy ...
 
P

phsstpok

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
5,600
1
25,780
I never liked the price/performance metric for CPUs. Since a Duron, for example, can't be placed in a P4 socket and vice versa. It doesn't make sense, not to me, to compare a Duron 1300 to a Celeron 1.7 (or any other two processors) based solely on CPU price.

It only makes sense to compare price/performance ratios of complete systems (or at least CPU/HSF/motherboard/memory combinations) because choosing a processor requires you to also choose a platform. This in turn makes it necessary to choose a type of memory, etc. If you use system price/performance as a metric then differences in CPU costs are relatively small compared overall system price.

The CPU price/perfomance ratio tends to put too much emphasis on just a portion of system cost.

Just one opinion.

<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by phsstpok on 06/02/02 10:37 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 
dhlucke

dhlucke

Polypheme
Feb 2, 2001
31,570
0
65,780
I understand there are too many of unsophisticated and barbarian you in the States but it's meaningless and impolite to post that way in international forums.
Click to expand...

I think you owe all the Americans an appology.

<font color=red>I have a computer and it does weird stuff. please help.</font color=red>
 
L

labdog

Distinguished
Feb 17, 2001
2,747
0
20,780
<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=faq&notfound=1&code=1" target="_new">me too</A>. rofl.


<i>if <b>you know</b> <font color=white>you don't know<font color=black>, the way could be more easy ...
 
M

Matisaro

Splendid
Mar 23, 2001
6,737
0
25,780
Cause hes a racist idiot who dosent know his head from his ass, ignore him like I do if you want to maintain sanity.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
 
dhlucke

dhlucke

Polypheme
Feb 2, 2001
31,570
0
65,780
I PM'd Fredi again. I think we gave Kennyshin a very generous second chance. He's a racist jerk.

<font color=red>I have a computer and it does weird stuff. please help.</font color=red>
 
C

cakecake

Distinguished
Apr 29, 2002
741
0
18,980
YOU ARE SO RIGHT!!!!! Do you realize what he's saying? By basing it solely on processor speed we've become as gullible as the sheep who go out and buy pre-built computers from large scale retailers!

Anyway, I think everyone has to admit that Intel systems are still more expensive than AMD systems. Even a 1.6 Ghz overclocked to 2.4 isn't going to yield as good a price/performance ratio compared to an athlon XP 2100+ with PC 2100 CL 2 RAM and a mainboard. It will be faster, sure, but it will still be too expensive for some people. Cost means a lot. Some people would rather OC their processors than pay more for a processor designed to run at that speed. And also there's a reason why those ECS mainboards are flying off the shelves... they're so darn cheap!
 
eden

eden

Champion
Oct 3, 2001
26,549
0
50,780
If you attempted to rank the 1.7GHZ Celly first, I am sorry but its performance even at 2.26GHZ is deplorable. Nope, for the price near it, you can get a Tbred 1800+ soon, and most likely get it much more than the Celly's OCed performance. I would rank first the 1.6A.

--
Meow
 
eden

eden

Champion
Oct 3, 2001
26,549
0
50,780
BTW you are stating Quad Pumped bus for P4s but single data rate for Athlon XP, this is unfair. You should either put the AXP's bus at 266MHZ and Duron's at 200MHZ, OR put the P4's bus at 100MHZ, the REAL bus frequency.

--
Meow
 
A

AMD_Man

Splendid
Jul 3, 2001
7,376
2
25,780
Hehe, getting a little picky? It doesn't really matter, the P4 needs huge amounts of bandwidth while the Athlon XP can perform reasonably well even with just SDRAM.

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
 
L

labdog

Distinguished
Feb 17, 2001
2,747
0
20,780
hmmffff, he already knows everything ... but he is not omniscient ...

just a little quiz.

<i>& yes, that seems like a j/k but it is not one.</i>


add-on: do you know in physics the strange phenomenon

"Every action involves a reaction as strong as the action & with a contrary sense"



<i>if <b>you know</b> <font color=white>you don't know<font color=black>, the way could be more easy ...<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Labdog on 06/03/02 08:35 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
 
L

labdog

Distinguished
Feb 17, 2001
2,747
0
20,780
good afternoon mod. how are you after a 5 hours sleep?


<i>if <b>you know</b> <font color=white>you don't know<font color=black>, the way could be more easy ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom