|
pc
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AMD2600, Celeron 2.66 or P4 2.9?
I've almost given up trying to fix my last one. Can someone recommend which I should go for: AMD2600 (£210), Celeron 2.66 (£250) or P4 2.9 (£345)? Each of the above costs slightly more than its previous in the list, starting with the AMD. How much faster is each model over the other? Given the prices, which is the best value for money? (All are standard and basic models with 256MB RAM and 40GB hard disks.) Thanks. OM OM wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > I want to buy a new PC. Depends on your needs. Personally I'd go with the AMD (Athlon) 2600, but > I've almost given up trying to fix my last one. > > Can someone recommend which I should go for: > > AMD2600 (£210), Celeron 2.66 (£250) or P4 2.9 (£345)? > > Each of the above costs slightly more than its previous in the list, > starting with the AMD. > > How much faster is each model over the other? > > Given the prices, which is the best value for money? > (All are standard and basic models with 256MB RAM and 40GB hard disks.) > > Thanks. > > > OM > I guess the P4 2.9 MHz would be OK except for the fact it's more expensive for (IMHO) not much gain. Stay away from the Celery at all costs. I'll certanly take your advice in that case...
But... what's up with Celery? It can't be THAT bad!? : ) Let me know. Thanks. In article <1108519020.304495.324***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
om.newsgr***@gmail.com says... > I'll certanly take your advice in that case... Yes, it's that bad.> But... what's up with Celery? > It can't be THAT bad!? : ) > Let me know. > Thanks. > > theyak wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > In article <1108519020.304495.324***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Celery can be a useful ingredient in cooking, but this kind of celery's > om.newsgr***@gmail.com says... > >>I'll certanly take your advice in that case... >>But... what's up with Celery? >>It can't be THAT bad!? : ) >>Let me know. >>Thanks. >> >> > > > > Yes, it's that bad. > only good as a keyring. I was recently given a Celeron PC. It is pretty much crippled by its small level 2 cache and on motherboard video chipset. This 433 Mhz Celeron performs about as well as my old 266 Mhz Pentium 2.
OM wrote: > > I'll certanly take your advice in that case... > But... what's up with Celery? > It can't be THAT bad!? : ) > Let me know. > Thanks. -- Mike Walsh West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S.A.
Show quote
Hide quote
"Mike Walsh" <mikew***@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message Lol yeah I tend to agree, pretty much if I hear it has a celeron processor, news:4212CF61.6E42BAD2@sbcglobal.net... > > I was recently given a Celeron PC. It is pretty much crippled by its small > level 2 cache and on motherboard video chipset. This 433 Mhz Celeron > performs about as well as my old 266 Mhz Pentium 2. > > OM wrote: >> >> I'll certanly take your advice in that case... >> But... what's up with Celery? >> It can't be THAT bad!? : ) >> Let me know. >> Thanks. > > -- > Mike Walsh > West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S.A. I tell them it actually probably runs at about 1/2 the reported Mhz.. Thats been my experience anyway thanks for all the replies.
i've made my mind up and will go for the amd with boosted memory, graphics card and other things. : ) On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 04:43:16 GMT, Mike Walsh <mikew***@sbcglobal.net>
wrote: > What type of tests did you run to get that comparison?>I was recently given a Celeron PC. It is pretty much crippled by its small level 2 cache and on motherboard video chipset. This 433 Mhz Celeron performs >about as well as my old 266 Mhz Pentium 2. http://arstechnica.com/cpu/3q99/smp/smp-1.html I have heard the newer Celerons may be more crippled than the oplder ones. Don't know for sure though. Steve On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 04:43:16 GMT, Mike Walsh
<mikew***@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Untrue.>I was recently given a Celeron PC. It is pretty much crippled by its small level 2 cache and on motherboard video chipset. This 433 Mhz Celeron performs about as well as my old 266 Mhz Pentium 2. > 433MHz Celeron was as fast as a 400MHz P2 at most tasks because of it's on-die cache. Fast on-die cache beats larger cache on a backside bus at most tasks, save something like Seti that just runs same code continuously. The crippling effect was most likely due to the onboard video, especially if it used shared system memory architecture, which on a Celery 433 would be 66MHz SDR memory. 
Other interesting topics
solving a custom build computer problem
FSB questions ATX2.0 or not? detecting Processor Performance gain with Windows XP x64? Dynamic vs Basic Shuttle SB51G repeately crashes and will not post until tilting the box older pc & newer card... Pulling my hair out trying to install XP. whats a bloody sone? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
