Printable View
Celeron does run at lower temps and is more stable...:cool: But as you said much more future proof:toast:Quote:
Originally posted by Peen
Please dont tell me u would tell ur mom to build a celeron over the 2500. it may be true it would serve ur mom fine, but the barton is much more future proof and stable
You think the INTEL store man is not going to want to sell a much more expensive CPU????Quote:
Originally posted by Peen
Yes this is partly true, but if someone asks whats 3200 mean and they say that means it runs at 2.2ghz..... u sure thats all they would say? i think not.
ugh how can u say its more stable. Whats more stable then a 2500 never crashing i dont get it lol :p:
Lets just settle that there equally as stable:toast:
But, how is it less hassle?
also, i highly doubt of a customer asked whats 3200 mean the salesman would say that means it runs at 2.2ghz. Hell my mom wouldnt beleive that BS:eek:
i can fire up a few benches but i don't know what proggie to use? It has to be small in size so everyone can run it.
Not quite sure what you are on about but maybe pifast would fit the bill , the hexus version.Quote:
Originally posted by QuadDamage
i can fire up a few benches but i don't know what proggie to use? It has to be small in size so everyone can run it.
Regards
Andy
i was talking abot video encoding benches like someone suggested earlier:stick:
anyways, ok lets see.
Can you do UT2003?;)
nope cos ATI's drivers don't work.
btw, pifast is just over 51s in both cases.
ahhh yeah forgot no one has those 64bit drivers, ill think of something else :)
Oh wow, is there a 64bit F@H client yet? that would be killer!:slobber:
no divx or benching tips here,NDA
Vlad,
yeah i'll check this out. Now the good news i found a Gainward ti4600 and MSI FX5600 and 52.14 64 Bit dets. Not top of the range boards but at least i can bench 3D.
But vlad will that program take advantage of 64-bit at all?
If its still the same 32-bit prog from before nothing is going to change.
my dna is over nda, also my arn, you cant have nada
Quad -- so nvidia's drivers work? If so I might have to slap my 5900U and test out Win64 :)
maybe the codec pcmark2004 uses is already 64bit compatible?
Ive heard the cat 4.1's install on XP-64 has anyone tried? :confused:
I think it's more likely that they lock the multiplier to stop unscrupulous dealers selling remarked chips to be honest.Quote:
Originally posted by Albigger
I don't think anyone would argue with you on that one (hence the lack of multiplier adjustments, etc...)
AMD pretty much started locking the AthlonXP just after the remarked chips started doing the rounds.
Dfinitely waiting for more video encoding benchmarks. :slobber:
here's a comparison between Quad's pic and mine i just ran:
http://www.maxvla.com/host/maxvlapcmark.jpghttp://www.maxvla.com/host/quaddamage.gif
my rig is as it appears in my sig but at 2.3ghz (3000+) to match Quad's clockspeed. i'm using a NF3 150 2.5 3 3 5 timings in regular 32bit windows xp.
Quad is running 2.3ghz (3200+ i think) on a K8V via chipset 2 2 2 6 in 64bit windows xp.
this post was just to show the difference between 32bit windows and 64bit windows. even though its not the same system exactly the results are quite shocking! mid 60fps to 180fps just by changing OS's. :eek:
Not to mention it only takes a Duron 1.6 GHz to beat the crap out of the Celeron 2.6 in gaming! See AnandTech budget CPU shootout, Unreal for example: Anand UT2003Quote:
Originally posted by Peen
2.6celeron 91 bucks
2500 Barton 90 bucks.
Please dont tell me u would tell ur mom to build a celeron over the 2500. it may be true it would serve ur mom fine, but the barton is much more future proof and stable
The AXP 2500+ beats the Celeron 2.6 GHz by 5-100 % in basically every gaming benchmark!
Yea, Celerons are horrible. Real bad. :/
Look at how bad they scale to clock speed. Look at the 2.0GHz model compared to the 2.6GHz model, only like 15 fps more. 600MHz for 15 fps..
Also, looks like Intel is real trouble , especially now that 64bit XP is out for DL. Holy crap those results are badass.
You guys look at all the other numbers though in comparison.....thats nothing to write home about.
And look at the very last score...2436.557fps (32 bit) vs 560.618fps (64 bit)?