neat to try.. - Page 3 - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > Monitors, Printers and Peripherals
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 02-12-2006, 03:36 PM   #21 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 8,013
Send a message via AIM to DJ-CHRIS
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by FghtinIrshNvrDi
Well, that's precisely why celerons suck completely. They have terrible bandwidth to the ram, so intel pumps up the cache to compensate. Well, when you take away thier one single high-point, it's a lame horse. It has no memory capabilities.

Ryan
This was only for origional celeron's. And back than, the celeron's started outpeforming the celeron's. (Actually upon remebering, they had less cache, but the cache was full speed instead of half)

After that, celeron's just have half the cache.
__________________

DJ-CHRIS is offline  
Old 02-12-2006, 03:59 PM   #22 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,915
Send a message via Yahoo to talldude123
Default

okay, well if a celeron is bad for gaming, how about pentium 3, 1.2 ghz?

Has 512 KB cache, 1.2 Ghz is okay, would it run better than a celeron d?
__________________

talldude123 is offline  
Old 02-12-2006, 04:18 PM   #23 (permalink)
Master Techie
 
Shumway's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London - Ontario - Canada
Posts: 2,729
Default

If you want a cheap gaming rig do up a sempron,They beat the crap out of Celeron D's at just about every single thing
Shumway is offline  
Old 02-12-2006, 04:19 PM   #24 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,915
Send a message via Yahoo to talldude123
Default

arent semprons the exact same as celerons, just basic processors for basic computing?

i know that athlon is the direct competitor for pentium 4.
talldude123 is offline  
Old 02-12-2006, 04:21 PM   #25 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,915
Send a message via Yahoo to talldude123
Default

sempron 2600:
1.6 GHz <- kinda low eh?
256 Kb cache

celeron D 330:
2.6 Ghz
256 Kb cache
talldude123 is offline  
Old 02-12-2006, 04:31 PM   #26 (permalink)
Master Techie
 
Shumway's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London - Ontario - Canada
Posts: 2,729
Default

You better go read up on this in the AMD vs Intel thread,Ghz don't mean nothing anymore The only thing the celeron's are better at is encoding and the like's.
Shumway is offline  
Old 02-12-2006, 04:56 PM   #27 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,453
Send a message via AIM to FghtinIrshNvrDi Send a message via Yahoo to FghtinIrshNvrDi
Default

You see, back to my theory about the Celerons being L2 cache dependant... The Semprons didn't have this problem, because they rely more heavily on system memory. Therefore, when you cut half of the cache from under THEM, it's not nearly as drastic. Here's a terrible metaphor:

An AMD Sempron is like plucking all of the down feathers off a a bird and releasing him into the wild. A Celeron is like is like plucking every last feather out of his wing. Which bird would you rather be?

Ryan
__________________

<b>I'm an unhyphenated American.</b>
System Specs:
Intel Q6600 @ 3200 1.4v
Abit IP35 Pro "The Snake"
2x2gb A-Data @ 800
Diamond HD 3870 512mb


Great FORD TRUCK resource: http://www.fordtruckfanatics.com
FghtinIrshNvrDi is offline  
Old 02-12-2006, 06:33 PM   #28 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
Nitestick's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: смерти для спаме
Posts: 8,473
Default

face it sempron>celeron. the celeron has lost one of the keypoints of the intel series and has not been designed to compensate. cache isn't that important to any of the AMD's but once again this is the main thing lost in the Semprons. as suggested before if you want a cheap gaming rig go with a sempron. you mentioned having "all performance parts, except the processor". if you are prepared to buy performance parts then why not spend an extra couple of hundred to get a decent processor
Nitestick is offline  
Old 02-12-2006, 08:20 PM   #29 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,327
Send a message via AIM to Flanker
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by talldude123
okay, well if a celeron is bad for gaming, how about pentium 3, 1.2 ghz?

Has 512 KB cache, 1.2 Ghz is okay, would it run better than a celeron d?
A Pentium III would be even worse. I've spent 3 years on a Pentium III 1.0GHz, I should know.

A Sempron 64 is MUCH MUCH MUCH (like...times infinity) better than a Celeron. A Sempron 64 is actually a direct competitor to the Pentium 4s, in some ways.

And just wait for the Socket AM2 Sempron 64s...ownage to the extreme.

If you want to make a budget PC (like, $600-minus, then go with a Sempron 64 2800+ or 3000+. They overclock like !-!ell..
Flanker is offline  
Old 02-12-2006, 10:36 PM   #30 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,915
Send a message via Yahoo to talldude123
Default

well sempron 64 is 64-bit, right?

anything 64-bit is obviously gonna be good!

is there going to be a celeron 64-bit coming out? or will it be pointless to create?
__________________

talldude123 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 11:40 AM.


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