Celeron D 315 v. P4 - Page 2 - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > System Upgrades
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 10-12-2006, 08:46 PM   #11 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,246
Default

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.
__________________

WorldIndustries is offline  
Old 10-12-2006, 09:00 PM   #12 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,349
Default

he didnt use a CPU bench...
Quote:
Originally posted by jorsoft03
I didn't use a cpu benchmark, though. Just 3dmark01se
__________________

jolancer is offline  
Old 10-12-2006, 09:03 PM   #13 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,246
Default

It is biased then
WorldIndustries is offline  
Old 10-12-2006, 11:33 PM   #14 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Jorsoft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oakdale, MN
Posts: 4,581
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jolancer
ok... but what about all the rest of the hardware? was it the same or different?
Like I said they were roughly equivalent. But here are the specs:

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
__________________
Jorsoft is offline  
Old 10-12-2006, 11:49 PM   #15 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,349
Default

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).
jolancer is offline  
Old 10-12-2006, 11:53 PM   #16 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Jorsoft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oakdale, MN
Posts: 4,581
Default

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...
__________________

__________________
Jorsoft is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.