WorldIndustries
Daemon Poster
- Messages
- 1,246
I don't think the rest of the system matters if it was a true CPU benchmark. I suppose the motherboard MIGHT affect a little, but not much other than that.
Celeron D 315 v. P4
- Thread starter b1gapl
- Start date
- Status
WorldIndustries
Daemon Poster
- Messages
- 1,246
It is biased then 
Jorsoft
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 4,581
- Location
- Oakdale, MN
Like I said they were roughly equivalent. But here are the specs:jolancer said:
Celeron D 3.26ghz
512mb pc3200 ram
12gb 5400rpm hd
Geforce FX 5600 (256mb)
Pentium4 1.5ghz (Northwood core)
512mb pc3200 ram
40gb 5400rpm hd
Radeon 9600 128mb
The 5600/9600 are pretty simliar cards but this is the biggesr variance alone from the procs. What kinda threw me off is that the Celeron is a prescott core and one of the best Cellys available and it was only a few hundred points faster than an old p4 1.5
theres most likely the cause of your discrepency...
..i cant find much of any info about the FX5600, but if its anything like the FX5500, its total garbage.
-----------------------
this is all i know as far as i remember:
Nv FX5700u and FX5900u <-- are OK (anything else FX = garbage)
ATI 9xxx outperfroms all its Nv counterparts, (especially the 96/97/and 9800).
..i cant find much of any info about the FX5600, but if its anything like the FX5500, its total garbage.
-----------------------
this is all i know as far as i remember:
Nv FX5700u and FX5900u <-- are OK (anything else FX = garbage)
ATI 9xxx outperfroms all its Nv counterparts, (especially the 96/97/and 9800).
Jorsoft
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 4,581
- Location
- Oakdale, MN
It was definitely better than the 5500 that thing was ****. It was a midrange card when it first came out, benchmarks for it are what I'd expect if you look on Toms Hardware or any place like that. But the 9600 was a faster card over all. Still, the Celeron with the slower gpu ended up being faster than the p4 system, that's what I'm saying...
- Status
