Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Battling brothers article

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 3, 2002 12:21:52 PM

I don't see the reason for this article. We already know that new Celeron was a bad overclocker and more L2 cache was what it needs.

Obviously P4 are far better, if not Intel would be quite stupid, isn't it? The reason of the article was to see the distance between both in every benchmark's graphic?

Also, some questins arises: the results are with DDR or RAMBUS, which chipset, maybe they made an average of all, ... ¿?

I have seen much more interesting articles than this.

DIY: read, buy, test, learn, reward yourself!
September 3, 2002 1:44:08 PM

I know, its sad, just filler really.

:wink: Heatsinks, if you dont overclock, use the <b>STOCK!</b> :wink:
September 3, 2002 2:57:02 PM

I find it interesting in the fact that several people here cried out to THG to do exactly this earlier when the Wilty (Celeron 4) came out. I'm suprised it doesn't suck more than it ended up doing.

However, I think that the Athlon XP is still a better budget chipset.

If ignorance is bliss, then why is everyone so miserable?
Related resources
September 3, 2002 8:09:45 PM

Maybe it's for people that are in a toss up between which to buy? To see if there's a HUGE difference in performance, or if it's marginal? I didn't learn anything from the article.....but someone might've. Like mat said....filler. Probably old Bench #'s too.

This sig runs too hot.
September 3, 2002 8:43:28 PM

They didn't even put the most influencal benching of all which would truly show how sucky the Celeron is, OFFICE!
For crying out loud where are the Internet, Office content tests!

What we DO need:
P4 1.8 Wilamette
P4 1.8 NW
P4 1.8 Celeron
P4 1.8 NW B 533 bus and PC1066 RAM
AthlonXP 2200+ 1.8GHZ

Now this would show which is most budget for money, as well as how much have P4s evolved since, per clock.

--
When buying an AthlonXP, please make sure the bus is at 133MHZ, or you will get a lower speed!<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 09/03/02 04:45 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
September 5, 2002 2:26:11 PM

When I first read the report, it ended with some inaccurate info on the current state of the Athlon XP, something about AMD falling way behind with the fastest XP being the 2200+. I hate when reports on Tom's are sloppy. Like two CPU reports within a week (the latest XP release and then the P4 release) quoting P4 prices differing by 200 per unit.

_______________________________________________________________________
TeeCee
<A HREF="http://www.digitalfreaks.net/" target="_new">Digital Freaks </A>
September 5, 2002 4:17:51 PM

Next week Tom's is doing a comparisson between the P4 2.8 vs. the P2 233 MMX.

The watercooler gossip says the P4's gonna blow it away!!!

P.S. I would like to meet someone who would actually purchase a Celeron chip, because in today's market I honestly couldn't fathom it myself. Even newegg.com is selling XP1600's for 53$ WITH SHIPPING!!! Just my perspective.

<font color=purple><i>Smokey McPot - Your Baby's Daddy</i></font color=purple>
September 5, 2002 4:58:37 PM

Quote:
What we DO need:
P4 1.8 Wilamette
P4 1.8 NW
P4 1.8 Celeron
P4 1.8 NW B 533 bus and PC1066 RAM
AthlonXP 2200+ 1.8GHZ

I agree, the article <b>definately</b> needed more. However, I have to disagree with your intent of comparing for purely clock-to-clock purposes.

The article should compare the P4 cores to one another from a purely philosphical standpoint. IE Wilty 1.8 vs. Willie 1.8 vs. NW 1.8. And <b>each</b> of these systems should be run first at a 100MHz FSB, and then OCed (except for the NW) to a 133MHz FSB, and run first on RDRAM, second on DDR, and third on PC133.

This way we can compare the effects of the cache seperately from the effects of the FSB increase and see how much of an impact either/both have upon both general performance and the specific memory in use. (My theory is that the slower the memory, such as PC133, the more drastic the affect of the reduced cache because you will need to access the memory more often.)

A completely seperate article (which I believe was run and was another half-arsed run at that) should compare the Wilties vs. the P3 Celerons vs. the Durons vs. the AXPs vs. the C3s to determine the truely 'superior' budget CPU.

The two articles however should not be intermingled.

And in any event, THG's editing prowess and even ability to put out a decent article was once again rather pathetic.

<pre><A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/comic/186.htm" target="_new"><font color=red>It's all relative...</font color=red></A></pre><p>
September 5, 2002 5:00:37 PM

Quote:
I know, its sad, just filler really.

And just like filler, it tasted pretty bad and had no nutritional content.

<pre><A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/comic/186.htm" target="_new"><font color=red>It's all relative...</font color=red></A></pre><p>
September 5, 2002 9:04:37 PM

Yes but that is why I added the NW A and B. The idea of my suggestion is to see how far have P4s progressed per clock against similar clocked Athlons, and since 1.8GHZ is not obsolete at all, and in fact still a good purchase, it helps as well.

Your suggestion is to see effects based on cache and mem, mine is about clock per clock comparison which was not in fact in relation to the current topic or article, but a new seperate one. It'd be complex to make a mem and cache one, but yeah it'd be nice as well, just to see how crappy those Dell 1.7 Celeron with PC133 suck ass!

--
When buying an AthlonXP, please make sure the bus is at 133MHZ, or you will get a lower speed!
!