amd mobile duron 1.2Ghz or intel celeron 1.2Ghz

If you're a big battery user I'd go with the Celeron since it uses slightly less power. Othewise the duron w/o a doubt will outperform the celeron and wil cost less.

"Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one"<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by nja469 on 07/19/02 05:10 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

Celeron since its the same price unless their supplier sucks and jack it up. Also the cpu has less power consumption and is cooler running. Talking no heatsink nessary type cool. Plus you have the confidence of a relyable and dependable solution provider such as Intel to assure you your purchase has been the right purchase for your needs and requirements.

-Jeremy

<font color=blue>Just some advice from your friendly neighborhood blue man </font color=blue>

I did mention which CPU is better per clock. Clock for clock the celeron uses less electricity and clock for clock the celeron produces less heat. Also being Intel is a relyable solution provider that insures the product will meet his requirements and needs is the iceing on the cake. So when you honestly take into account all the variables nesessary to make a informed purchase youll find the less than spectactular "enhanced" performance of the duron vs. the celeron is out-weighed by the basis of the mobile device and its purposes.

-Jeremy

<font color=blue>Just some advice from your friendly neighborhood blue man </font color=blue>

Are you sure? I recall benches around, unless those were Athlons...
Durons should be using DDR bus and 196K L2, so I don't see where they can lose. If someone has benches from a REPUTABLE website, please provide.

--
Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G!

AMD is hampered on notebooks by the chipsets/motherboards available. While VIA and SiS both have mobile DDR supporting chipsets, manufacturers haven't been making use of them...until the new ATI chipset, which uses DDR and is being used in notebooks from several tier1 providers.

Because of the SDRam only support from manufacturers in the past, the mobile Duron has barely outperformed the mobile celeron in the past if memory serves. What has helped AMD recently is the higher clocking celerons have been performing worse, clock for clock, than the P3 based celerons. Again this is from memory and it could be faulty.

Mark-

<font color=blue>When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!</font color=blue>

yes I think u are right...the P3 Celerons were based on the Tualatin P3, which was closer to the Athlon clock for clock.

Mark-

<font color=blue>When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!</font color=blue>

Leave it upto the salesperson, we always make the correct choices for our victims....er.... customers. customers making decisions, not where i work, thats my job.

When a boy reaches puberty, he says goodbye to childhood and looks forward to his adultery.

Matisaro,

That is for desktop systems. Its not the chip that is at fualt in laptops, but the chipset. Intel laptops are just plain better right now. Nobody has made a good laptop mbd yet. ATI has produced a fairly good one, but still not good enough to fully make use of the athlon or duron cores.

Eden,

Ok hopefully for the last time. We are comparing laptops here! It is not the AMD chips which suck but the motherboards. In most cases if you were to compare an athlon/duron laptop with a pentium/celeron laptop, the a/d would have sdr and the p/c would have ddr. Its not just the ddr over the sdr either. Nobody has produced a good chipset yet for AMD laptops. Its like laptops are still using kt-133. And pentiums are using current technology. AMD won't stand a chance of making a performance laptop till a good chipset comes out for their chip.