advice

[computerhakk]

i have 2 computers now.. one is a ..

celeron 2.3ghz running on 512mb of ram..

the other is

am athlon(tm) 1.05 ghz running on 512 mb also..(which i just got it bakk up running cuz it wasn't working)

so.. i have no clue about amd.. n i heard good things bout it... can u guys tell me which one would perform better.. i dont use it for extensive gaming or anything.. jus movies.. songs.. programs(experiments)..

 

[GhostEye]

a old amd 1ghz to a celeron 2.3 ghz. commen sense man

 

[computerhakk]

a old amd 1ghz to a celeron 2.3 ghz. commen sense man

u sound real smart... but u didn't solve anything.. read my post again..

well ya.. like i said.. i dont know amd.. the difference between intel.. jus heard good things bout it.. so thats why i asked for advice

 

[dragon2309]

you cant just say which woyuld be better, you are comparing 2 differnt brands, what will you be doing with them both. In most cases the higher spec intel chip will probably come out on top though, sheerly because it has a higher clock speed, if you had a 1Ghz celeron and a 1Ghz AMD then it would probably be the AMD chip that prevailed.

 

[1337cshacker]

a old amd 1ghz to a celeron 2.3 ghz. commen sense man

not as it would seem. the AMD would probly be a TAD slower, but not by much. since the celleron core, archetecture, and fsb SUCKS, i wouldnt be supprised if that 1.0 AMD were just slightly behind in gamming. in 2d application, video and audio, the celleron is much faster. here is a little chart of AMD vs intel and there equals, in this chart (and in reality) the faster processors are AMD, but these are the processors who competed.

AMD64 2800+ 1.5ghrz venice - intel celleron 2.2ghrz
AMD64 3200+ 1.7ghrz venice - intel P4 2.8ghrz presscott
AMD64 3400+ 2.2ghrz clawhammer - intel P4 3.2ghrz presscott
AMD64 3700+ 2.2ghrz or 2.4 san deigo - intel P4 3.4 presscott
AMD64 FX 53 clawhammer - intel P4 extreme edition
AMD64 FX 55 - intel P4 extreme edition
AMD64 FX 57 - unmatched
AMD64x2 4000+ to 4800+ - unmatched

in many many recorded benchmarks iv seen these are the processors compared, in most, on avarage, intel only takes 3 of the 21 test they performed. but if your going to say, a P4 is faster than a AMD 200 megahertz, go ahead, your right, diffrent technology.

intel chip will probably come out on top though, sheerly because it has a higher clock speed, if you had a 1Ghz celeron and a 1Ghz AMD then it would probably be the AMD chip that prevailed.

clock speed makes LITTLE diffrence in processor real-time speed (as we like to think of it) what really makes it move is fsb, core wiring scheme, L2 size, and archetecture. all of AMD's processors surpass in those areas, which is why gamers like myself continue to buy them, which is why my 2.2 is faster than an intel 3.2. faster, often cheaper. my 3400+ is still only 200 bucks, better yet 3700+'s and 4000+ x2 are pretty cheap compared.

 

[apj101]

where to start....

In most cases the higher spec intel chip will probably come out on top though, sheerly because it has a higher clock speed

Are we still on this dragon, you must have learnt better than to compare thing of core speed by now

u sound real smart... but u didn't solve anything.. read my post again..

dont get hostile, he was being tactically vague

since the celleron core, archetecture, and fsb SUCKS,

Many celerons run on the same fsb as latest p4's

here is a little chart of AMD vs intel and there equals, in this chart (and in reality) the faster processors are AMD, but these are the processors who competed.

Which orifice did you pull this load of crap from.

clock speed makes LITTLE diffrence in processor real-time speed

Well it makes quite a bit of difference really buddy? Its just not the be all and end all of performance indicators.

what really makes it move is fsb, core wiring scheme, L2 size, and archetecture.

Another victim of the fsb marketing ploy
core wiring scheme ???
L2 size, well for some tasks maybe. But a larger L2 is paid for with looser timings, so size is not all that counts.
archetecture - well 1 out of 4 ain't bad

all of AMD's processors surpass in those areas

All generalisations are false (including that one).
but just to play your game
Intel have more models at 2mb L2 (again not that it matters all that much)
Latest AMD dont even use FSB!, why would they need to?
core wiring scheme, not that i know what the hell you mean by this (because it doesnt exist in the form you mean) but i doubt you can say one if better
and finally archetecture (which really encompases all the others), well both amd and intel have great archetectures aimed at different markets. For example tell me what great about the turion processor when stacked upto p-m.

which is why gamers like myself continue to buy them

Agreed amd have a good lead in the gaming market, but only since the k8 which i doubt we are talking about in this thread!
The main reason why amd is better at gaming in the onboard memory controller, not mentioned in you post once!
And it remains at the moment that intel is much better at most multithreaded apps.

which is why my 2.2 is faster than an intel 3.2. faster

faster at what, have you even bothered to benchmark them. And stop refering to the amd by its clock speed, it's model is based on the PR numbers, they make much more sence (relatively), amd have several cpus that operate at 2.2

Your see to have a grasp of the basic pal, you just need to read up a bit more. Check out cpu101 for starts
http://www.computerforum.com/showthread.php?t=13239

 

[DanLatimer]

that was a big burn took me like 10 mins to read it all

 

[Cromewell]

since the celleron core, archetecture

Celerons use the P4 arcitecture & core minus some L2 cache. The FSB is usually lower but not always (no celeron currently uses 200MHz, but most of the current P4s do).

the faster processors are AMD

Well, not between the chips you have listed, the Intel chips are all faster, but they aren't necessarily the better performing one. And just to add to your chart, I have seen a P-M @2.2GHz or something trounce all over an Athlon FX55.

Going back to the first post. An Athlon 1GHz vs a Celeron 2.3GHz will have the Celeron being the better performer. The original Athlon was a competitor for the PIII not the P4 derivative Celeron.

 

[apj101]

Well, not between the chips you have listed, the Intel chips are all faster, but they aren't necessarily the better performing one.

Too add, nor are they necessarily not the better performing

 

[GhostEye]

computerhakk, sry if i seemed rude, this was not my intention. But a newer celeron operating at more than twice the clock speed will surely outperform a olddd amd.

and to 1337cshacker, how many more areas of these forums will u make urself look like a fool in?

 

[apj101]

computerhakk, sry if i seemed rude, this was not my intention. But a newer celeron operating at more than twice the clock speed will surely outperform a olddd amd.

It will outperform it in this case, but remember clock speed comparisions do not shed light on performance comparisons. (well unless they're in the same family )

 

[GhostEye]

yes i understand that. But clock speeds drastically change the performace at those low lvls. like a 2.2 ghx to a 3 ghz i agree wouldnt be that muhc of a difference, but 1 ghz to 2.3 ghz is a big difference.

 

[apj101]

yes i understand that. But clock speeds drastically change the performace at those low lvls. like a 2.2 ghx to a 3 ghz i agree wouldnt be that muhc of a difference, but 1 ghz to 2.3 ghz is a big difference.

like i said, in this case your correct, but just want to point out that its not the sole method of comparison

 

[Archangel]

yes i understand that. But clock speeds drastically change the performace at those low lvls. like a 2.2 ghx to a 3 ghz i agree wouldnt be that muhc of a difference, but 1 ghz to 2.3 ghz is a big difference.

well. id call a difference of 800MHz still pretty big
i mean.. go back to the 486 and you know what i mean

 

[Cromewell]

id call a difference of 800MHz still pretty big
i mean.. go back to the 486 and you know what i mean

you have to remember with those old CPUs a few MHz is a large % increase compared to current CPUs.

 

[computerhakk]

Going back to the first post. An Athlon 1GHz vs a Celeron 2.3GHz will have the Celeron being the better performer. The original Athlon was a competitor for the PIII not the P4 derivative Celeron.

thankyou.. thats what i wanted to know..

i didn't mean to start a fued in here .. n ghost.. apology accepted.. just that u came on strong when i said i knew nothing about amd and heard good things about it thats why i wanted to know...

so to cromewell.. u said.. "The original Athlon was a competitor for the PIII not the P4 derivative Celeron" .. so does that mean the celeron would kinda lets say.. equal that of a P4? .. faster than a P3?

 

[gamerman4]

okay assuming by your given clock speeds:
The 2.3Ghz Celeron I found has a 400Mhz FSB
In my searches I found that the 1Ghz Athlon could be a T-Bird.
The T-Bird I saw has a 266Mhz FSB.
The Celeron has the advantage in FSB and Clock speed. Looks to me that the Celeron would be faster but I'm just judging by stats. Also, the Celeron has 128K L2 Cache and the T-bird has 256K L2 cache. This poses a threat to the Celeron but I'm not sure by how much. It would be easier to tell exactly what your CPUs are if you download CPU-Z and get the socket type and more specific info.

 

[Cromewell]

so does that mean the celeron would kinda lets say.. equal that of a P4? .. faster than a P3?

Equal to a P4, no. Better than a P3...at those speeds it would perform on par or better than a P3 of equal clock speed.

 

[Praetor]

not as it would seem. the AMD would probly be a TAD slower, but not by much. since the celleron core, archetecture, and fsb SUCKS, i wouldnt be supprised if that 1.0 AMD were just slightly behind in gamming. in 2d application, video and audio, the celleron is much faster. here is a little chart of AMD vs intel and there equals, in this chart (and in reality) the faster processors are AMD, but these are the processors who competed.

AMD64 2800+ 1.5ghrz venice - intel celleron 2.2ghrz
AMD64 3200+ 1.7ghrz venice - intel P4 2.8ghrz presscott
AMD64 3400+ 2.2ghrz clawhammer - intel P4 3.2ghrz presscott
AMD64 3700+ 2.2ghrz or 2.4 san deigo - intel P4 3.4 presscott
AMD64 FX 53 clawhammer - intel P4 extreme edition
AMD64 FX 55 - intel P4 extreme edition
AMD64 FX 57 - unmatched
AMD64x2 4000+ to 4800+ - unmatched

1. Obviously the Celeron is faster since speed is measured in Hz and the Celeron has more of them
2. Even in terms of performance, the Celeron has quite a chance
3. Athlon64 2800s came in Clawhammer and Newcastle cores and they ran at 1.8Ghz
4. Athlon64 3200s came in Clawhammer, Newcastle, Winchester and Venice cores and they ran at 2.0 and 2.2 Ghz
5. Athlon64 3400s came in Clawhammer and Newcastle cores and they ran at 2.4Ghz
Ok i give up ... id reccomend you do some research into your chips before commenting further (and adding to confusion)

clock speed makes LITTLE diffrence in processor real-time speed (as we like to think of it) what really makes it move is fsb, core wiring scheme, L2 size, and archetecture

Whoa. Jargon is neat but it's gotta be correct. If clock speed dont matter then why does FSB (which dictates clock speed) matter .... and core wiring scheme????

all of AMD's processors surpass in those areas

Except FSB speed....

which is why gamers like myself continue to buy them,

Actually its not. Its because K8s and K9s have integrated memory controllers.

better yet 3700+'s and 4000+ x2 are pretty cheap compared.

Funny, neither the 3700 or 4000 come as X2s.

and to 1337cshacker, how many more areas of these forums will u make urself look like a fool in?

He lucky apj101 got to him before i did

The 2.3Ghz Celeron I found has a 400Mhz FSB

To be technically accurate it has a 100MHz FSB and 400Mhz BUS

In my searches I found that the 1Ghz Athlon could be a T-Bird.
The T-Bird I saw has a 266Mhz FSB.

There are three options for AMD processors with "1000"
Athlon 1000
Core Name = Palomino
FSB = 133
BUS = 266
Multiplier = 7.5
NetClock = 1033Mhz
L2 = 256K
Vcore = 1.75
Socket = S462/SocketA

Athlon Thunderbird 1000
Core Name = Thunderbird
FSB = 100
BUS = 200
Multiplier = 6.5
NetClock = 650Mhz
L2 = 256K
Vcore = 1.75 and 1.6
Socket = S462/SocketA and SlotA

Athlon Thunderbird 1000B
Core Name = ThunderbirdB
FSB = 133
BUS = 266
Multiplier = 7.5
NetClock = 1033Mhz
L2 = 256K
Vcore = 1.75
Socket = S462/SocketA

 

[gamerman4]

Praetor, I didn't want to confuse him with 2 different clock speeds so I put down the "effective" clock of both of them. Though, at the time, I forgot that the pentium cores are quad-pumped and AMD cores are double-pumped. I have much more experience with AMD CPUs and had forgot that.

computerhakk, if you have a "socket A" T-bird, you can spend $100 and get a nice Barton 2800+ to replace it. This will be a excellent performance boost and will most likely surpass the Celeron easily.