right on shudder! bring back PCXL! That mag rocked! Now I'm stuck with a PC Lamer subscription and it sucks bad.
PCXL was good for only like a year than it became horrible. After a while they just concentrated on babes (dont get me wrong, I like girls, but if I want to see pics of them, I go on porn sites), and not on the content.
For one, when people are comparing two CPU's they should make the rest of the system as overkill as possible. That way you know that your video card, or memory, or hard drive performance isn't what is limiting your CPU. So they should put that review with all SCSI and a Cheetah X15, 512MB of PC133 222, and Use a GeForce2 Ultra. That way you know that nothing else is ever limiting the speed. That is how you do reviews (Like Anand when possible)_
no one read pcxl for quality content, quite the opposite.... but it was my kind of computer mag... if i want news or reviews i'll get it online in real time. PCXL was funny as hell, where else do models in bikinis hold video cards
real world is that no one will even notice a difference between a 700 duron and a 700 celeron unless they pay really close attention to their computer or they are a bunch of dorks and base everything on synthetic benchmarks as the article said.
The duron may be a better performer than the celeron, and they may have used a crappy vid card-but really do you all care? are you all so proud of your amd setups that it offends you a magazine says the intel chip is almost as good, or that most won't notice the performance difference? if so that is pretty sad.
And to support their argument take a visit to the hot deals forums and looks at how many people are picking up 633 celeron 2's that are doing 950mhz easily with stock cooling and a crappy intel fan setup at default voltage? if that isnt easy overclocking on outdated bx boards then I don't know what is
most average people would never know or be able to tell the difference between a c2 and duron at the same or equivalent speeds-they only use their systems for inet surfing or home finance, hate to break it but you dont need a 700mhz cpu for home finance
The duron may be a better performer than the celeron, and they may have used a crappy vid card-but really do you all care? are you all so proud of your amd setups that it offends you a magazine says the intel chip is almost as good, or that most won't notice the performance difference? if so that is pretty sad.
And to support their argument take a visit to the hot deals forums and looks at how many people are picking up 633 celeron 2's that are doing 950mhz easily with stock cooling and a crappy intel fan setup at default voltage? if that isnt easy overclocking on outdated bx boards then I don't know what is
most average people would never know or be able to tell the difference between a c2 and duron at the same or equivalent speeds-they only use their systems for inet surfing or home finance, hate to break it but you dont need a 700mhz cpu for home finance
um, obviously you have never read Maximum PC, because if you did you would see that its readers are not yout average finacne, pc user. That is why this kind of thing would matter.
Hello? Did anybody read sciencewhiz's post? If so, why are you people still discussing the Vanta M64?
Russ, NCNE
Russ, NCNE
Thanks Russ, (I think I used to many big words)
In reality, there are two ways to benchmark a specific component.
First, You can stick it into the fastest goddamn system that you can find and compare it to the other components. This means that you can really tell which video cardo gives you that extra frame per second. What this doesn't tell you is whether this card will do any better in your system.
The second way is to stick the component into a normal system and see how it performs compared to similar components. For example, I have a PIII 500 (katmai). Will I see any difference in quake 3 if I get a Tbird 1 ghz. Not a single bit, because I have a TNT2 M64 video card.
Maximum PC choose to stick the duron and the celeron into typical systems and proved that most users won't see much of a difference.
In reality, there are two ways to benchmark a specific component.
First, You can stick it into the fastest goddamn system that you can find and compare it to the other components. This means that you can really tell which video cardo gives you that extra frame per second. What this doesn't tell you is whether this card will do any better in your system.
The second way is to stick the component into a normal system and see how it performs compared to similar components. For example, I have a PIII 500 (katmai). Will I see any difference in quake 3 if I get a Tbird 1 ghz. Not a single bit, because I have a TNT2 M64 video card.
Maximum PC choose to stick the duron and the celeron into typical systems and proved that most users won't see much of a difference.
Common People get real...
No Matter How Much AMD Kicks the Sh!t Out of Intel Everyone is going to kiss intel's Rear Untill They Bow down publicaly to the AMD superiority... Itel Has a name than every moron who ever so much put a aol 3.0 cd in there 486 to get those whopping 50 free hours knows. Intel Has Been top dawg for too long.
Its Obvious for the most part that most of the readers here are AMD fans, But there has still got to be like 3 intel fans for every 1 amd fan. I mean think about it how many little amd stuffed charictors have you seen or amd commercials on TV... I think Not
AMD is doing what they are by making a quality, affordible product. Not by mass marketing.
Even with the recent events with intel recalling the fastest processor on the market, Leaving the next 2 fastest being AMD, & that thing about releasing a processor that wasnt available to the masses in any kind of noticeable quanity.
What I am saying is that It doesnt matter how much better an amd is than an intel. Anyone Making money off of what they are wrighting is going to back intel because thay have the money to pay.
No Matter How Much AMD Kicks the Sh!t Out of Intel Everyone is going to kiss intel's Rear Untill They Bow down publicaly to the AMD superiority... Itel Has a name than every moron who ever so much put a aol 3.0 cd in there 486 to get those whopping 50 free hours knows. Intel Has Been top dawg for too long.
Its Obvious for the most part that most of the readers here are AMD fans, But there has still got to be like 3 intel fans for every 1 amd fan. I mean think about it how many little amd stuffed charictors have you seen or amd commercials on TV... I think Not
AMD is doing what they are by making a quality, affordible product. Not by mass marketing.
Even with the recent events with intel recalling the fastest processor on the market, Leaving the next 2 fastest being AMD, & that thing about releasing a processor that wasnt available to the masses in any kind of noticeable quanity.
What I am saying is that It doesnt matter how much better an amd is than an intel. Anyone Making money off of what they are wrighting is going to back intel because thay have the money to pay.
Those benchmarks are just that synthetic programs that don't show much real world performance. The fact is aside from fps in a few games we have found no synthetic benchmarks that have any degree of accuracy with the latest generation of CPU's and video cards. Sisoft is a joke along with the others we've tried. If you have a bm program that shows a good degree of accuracy please let me know. I don't read Maximum,own a CII or a Duron but if you feel this review is so bad then by all means put up or shut up.
I had a celeron 533A @ 937mhz on bx master(rock solid)
now have a duron 600 @ 950mhz on abit kt7(rock solid)
Clock for clock durons are faster in windows applications. When multi tasking I feel like durons have edge over the celerons. In games they are about the same because some games work better on the duron and some work better on celeron.
Right now my memory speed is @ 174mhz beating out p3 on rimms. This is what Sandra reports.
Personally I've never owned AMD processors but now I finally tried it and loving it.
P3 and Thunderbirds are different story though. For some odd reason p3 are faster than thunderbirds.
now have a duron 600 @ 950mhz on abit kt7(rock solid)
Clock for clock durons are faster in windows applications. When multi tasking I feel like durons have edge over the celerons. In games they are about the same because some games work better on the duron and some work better on celeron.
Right now my memory speed is @ 174mhz beating out p3 on rimms. This is what Sandra reports.
Personally I've never owned AMD processors but now I finally tried it and loving it.
P3 and Thunderbirds are different story though. For some odd reason p3 are faster than thunderbirds.
I agree that Maximum PC has really gone down the sh!tter. After Imagine grabbed "Home PC", that's all the Maximum PC has become. All their editors are really a bunch of pansies. They used to have one good guy, Andrew Sanchez, but he passed on. After he left, that's when things really went downhill. They've put ALOT more ads, and alot more software reviews than hardware reviews than ever before. After they decided to drop boot, I was pissed. boot was what made interested in hardware, instead of just games. All the stuff that made boot good, Maximum PC dropped or just fu(ked up. I say Dream Machine 2000 was worse of an article than this Celeron/Duron one. I am not buying MaxPC anymore, because, really, it is sh!t. All the same stuff is on the 'net, and alot better done, too. boot was an excellent magazine, and I wish it was still around, but that's never gonna happen. I hope Maximum PC goes the way of PCXL (great mag BTW, very funny) and Incite.
Russell "Mr.Bios" Sampson
Russell "Mr.Bios" Sampson
bozack:
To start things off, Im going to tell you that I own an Intel system, a P3-600@800, and Im very satisfied and it's definitely the best Intel product I ever bought. Ok, lets get to it.
<<real world is that no one will even notice a difference between a 700 duron and a 700 celeron unless they pay really close attention to their computer or they are a bunch of dorks and base everything on synthetic benchmarks as the article said.
True, synthetic numbers dont mean anything, but where have you been the past two months? Almost every Duron review on the internet experienced a great advantage over the Celeron in real world situations. What Maximum PC is trying to tell us is not linear with whatever a majority of the people are experiencing, that is very odd.
<<The duron may be a better performer than the celeron, and they may have used a crappy vid card-but really do you all care? are you all so proud of your amd setups that it offends you a magazine says the intel chip is almost as good, or that most won't notice the performance difference? if so that is pretty sad.>>
Haha... that is funny my friend. Like I said I own Intel, and Im saying they're BSing because they ARE. I never owned an AMD so Im not proud of it, Im just very unhappy about they way they handle situations like this, Maximum PC just dont have the capacity to admitting Intel has lost the low-end battle. Are you are going to deny the Duron being a faster and better CPU "because people most likely wont notice it?", oh lord, that is some bullsh1t. Are you trying to tell me that the ass-kicked Celeron costing twice as much as a Duron can be "almost as good"? Oh my, that is sad.
<<And to support their argument take a visit to the hot deals forums and looks at how many people are picking up 633 celeron 2's that are doing 950mhz easily with stock cooling and a crappy intel fan setup at default voltage? if that isnt easy overclocking on outdated bx boards then I don't know what is>>
And to support my argument I want you to see this, SharkyExtreme Weekly CPU Prices - Intel and AMD Prices. What a big mess, I cant afford to see it anymore. How sad, that huge disaster there at the low end. If you think using a KT7-RAID which can adjust the Duron multiplierand hit 900-1000MHz with little or no effort is not easy, then I dont know what is. Not to mention when a Duron is overclocked to 900-1000MHz, it actually performs like a real 900-1000MHz(Tbird). Unlike those Celerons, even overclocked to 850-900 they only perform like a 650MHz(P3).
<<most average people would never know or be able to tell the difference between a c2 and duron at the same or equivalent speeds-they only use their systems for inet surfing or home finance, hate to break it but you dont need a 700mhz cpu for home finance >>
Again, that is just what you think, I do believe many people will be able to feel a noticable different from using a Duron to a Celeron, most noticable in games. Think about it, a 700MHz non overclocked Duron can still beat the highly overclocked Celeron, costing 30-50% less, and its also highly overclockable. This argument is meaningless as you can use all your impractical reasons against AMD. I do agree however, that if somebody with BX looking for an upgrade, Celeron will be their best bet. And true enough, no casual users will need a 700MHz, but can we say that AMD still has the lowest price despite being so much faster? A Celeron 366 is $63(cheapest Intel CPU), and a Duron 600 is $51. You get the point, people dont need 700MHz, but a 600MHz with a price tag of $51 isn't too bad either now is it? Now can an Intel CPU do that? Didn't think so. The fact is Durons have some unbeatable prices for those who looks to build a value system. The Duron is the price/performance king at the low end and Maximum PC missed the point by a mile.
To start things off, Im going to tell you that I own an Intel system, a P3-600@800, and Im very satisfied and it's definitely the best Intel product I ever bought. Ok, lets get to it.
<<real world is that no one will even notice a difference between a 700 duron and a 700 celeron unless they pay really close attention to their computer or they are a bunch of dorks and base everything on synthetic benchmarks as the article said.
True, synthetic numbers dont mean anything, but where have you been the past two months? Almost every Duron review on the internet experienced a great advantage over the Celeron in real world situations. What Maximum PC is trying to tell us is not linear with whatever a majority of the people are experiencing, that is very odd.
<<The duron may be a better performer than the celeron, and they may have used a crappy vid card-but really do you all care? are you all so proud of your amd setups that it offends you a magazine says the intel chip is almost as good, or that most won't notice the performance difference? if so that is pretty sad.>>
Haha... that is funny my friend. Like I said I own Intel, and Im saying they're BSing because they ARE. I never owned an AMD so Im not proud of it, Im just very unhappy about they way they handle situations like this, Maximum PC just dont have the capacity to admitting Intel has lost the low-end battle. Are you are going to deny the Duron being a faster and better CPU "because people most likely wont notice it?", oh lord, that is some bullsh1t. Are you trying to tell me that the ass-kicked Celeron costing twice as much as a Duron can be "almost as good"? Oh my, that is sad.
<<And to support their argument take a visit to the hot deals forums and looks at how many people are picking up 633 celeron 2's that are doing 950mhz easily with stock cooling and a crappy intel fan setup at default voltage? if that isnt easy overclocking on outdated bx boards then I don't know what is>>
And to support my argument I want you to see this, SharkyExtreme Weekly CPU Prices - Intel and AMD Prices. What a big mess, I cant afford to see it anymore. How sad, that huge disaster there at the low end. If you think using a KT7-RAID which can adjust the Duron multiplierand hit 900-1000MHz with little or no effort is not easy, then I dont know what is. Not to mention when a Duron is overclocked to 900-1000MHz, it actually performs like a real 900-1000MHz(Tbird). Unlike those Celerons, even overclocked to 850-900 they only perform like a 650MHz(P3).
<<most average people would never know or be able to tell the difference between a c2 and duron at the same or equivalent speeds-they only use their systems for inet surfing or home finance, hate to break it but you dont need a 700mhz cpu for home finance >>
Again, that is just what you think, I do believe many people will be able to feel a noticable different from using a Duron to a Celeron, most noticable in games. Think about it, a 700MHz non overclocked Duron can still beat the highly overclocked Celeron, costing 30-50% less, and its also highly overclockable. This argument is meaningless as you can use all your impractical reasons against AMD. I do agree however, that if somebody with BX looking for an upgrade, Celeron will be their best bet. And true enough, no casual users will need a 700MHz, but can we say that AMD still has the lowest price despite being so much faster? A Celeron 366 is $63(cheapest Intel CPU), and a Duron 600 is $51. You get the point, people dont need 700MHz, but a 600MHz with a price tag of $51 isn't too bad either now is it? Now can an Intel CPU do that? Didn't think so. The fact is Durons have some unbeatable prices for those who looks to build a value system. The Duron is the price/performance king at the low end and Maximum PC missed the point by a mile.
formulav8
Diamond Member
- Sep 18, 2000
- 7,004
- 523
- 126
The thing is that you can notice a difference between the 700 duron and celeron. My grandfather even knew a difference with just windows loading and moving about through windows. The duron is much better than the celeron. Anyone who disagrees are just bias. In real benchmarks like what this site and many others do compare the two cpu's celeron just can't touch. Not even with a 100mhz fsb. Intel has crippled the celeron to much which includes the L2 cache and fsb. They need to do more besides just raising the fsb. This PC mag. just shows how stupid and bias they are.
Hmm lxi where have I been for the last two months? let me think,
Probabily at my job as a PC/Mac Field technician at NASA headquarters? that sounds about right.
As I said before most users will not notice the differnece between a 700 duron and a 500mhz p3 I work with people who run 700mhz p3's in the office and those that work with 550's and below and there alone you cannot tell the difference, and that is multitasking with highend and custom office applications, the only time you notice a difference is when the cpu is below the 450mhz mark.
And for most users a Duron upgrade might not be a viable option because they have allready invested so much in a bx setup where they can just spend money on a p3 or a celeron instead of wasting more on a high end high priced mainboard.
I will tell you one think though , as I said before I work for NASA and we are in the midst of a tech refresh(all the pc's and such are being upgraded) this is being done by nine other techs and myself and I will tell you that none, not one of the systms we are installing is an amd based system, so as far as NASA is concerened intel has won them over, why I don't know but they did, either that says alot for their marketing or it says alot for their quality/reputation. And I have yet to replace a processor on any of the intel based systems at work, even if the cpu fan goes the processor still works like a champ, and this is in a total of 2200 machines.
Probabily at my job as a PC/Mac Field technician at NASA headquarters? that sounds about right.
As I said before most users will not notice the differnece between a 700 duron and a 500mhz p3 I work with people who run 700mhz p3's in the office and those that work with 550's and below and there alone you cannot tell the difference, and that is multitasking with highend and custom office applications, the only time you notice a difference is when the cpu is below the 450mhz mark.
And for most users a Duron upgrade might not be a viable option because they have allready invested so much in a bx setup where they can just spend money on a p3 or a celeron instead of wasting more on a high end high priced mainboard.
I will tell you one think though , as I said before I work for NASA and we are in the midst of a tech refresh(all the pc's and such are being upgraded) this is being done by nine other techs and myself and I will tell you that none, not one of the systms we are installing is an amd based system, so as far as NASA is concerened intel has won them over, why I don't know but they did, either that says alot for their marketing or it says alot for their quality/reputation. And I have yet to replace a processor on any of the intel based systems at work, even if the cpu fan goes the processor still works like a champ, and this is in a total of 2200 machines.
bozak: You really want to know why NASA goes only with Intel?
Simple. the same reason all the big companies go with Intel. They don't care about price -- and they don't really care about performance. No, the most important thing is having a brand that the tech/IT people are familiar with. Actually Sharky is right in his comment (even though totally wrong in his application of it) a bit ago, about how no one ever got fired for recommending Intel. They're the big dogs of the pack, so its a safe bet. A very large percentage of the business/gov world has their heads shoved in the sand, or, better say, are extremely cautious about any new technology.
AMD has to change this mindset, but its an uphill battle against bias. This is why the enthusiant market is so great -- sure we're small, but people like those at anandtech actually care about the price/performance of their purchases. If AMD offers a better deal (which they do), people go to AMD, and vice versa. This kind of unbiased-decision is what should make capitalism work.
Simple. the same reason all the big companies go with Intel. They don't care about price -- and they don't really care about performance. No, the most important thing is having a brand that the tech/IT people are familiar with. Actually Sharky is right in his comment (even though totally wrong in his application of it) a bit ago, about how no one ever got fired for recommending Intel. They're the big dogs of the pack, so its a safe bet. A very large percentage of the business/gov world has their heads shoved in the sand, or, better say, are extremely cautious about any new technology.
AMD has to change this mindset, but its an uphill battle against bias. This is why the enthusiant market is so great -- sure we're small, but people like those at anandtech actually care about the price/performance of their purchases. If AMD offers a better deal (which they do), people go to AMD, and vice versa. This kind of unbiased-decision is what should make capitalism work.
Red Dawn
Thay Have slokets for durons to go to slot 1. the only problem is that they are crap in most cases.
As Far as the issue of cost for a value system goes I look at it like this Locally you can get an a7v w/ dipswitches & a duron 600 for less than 200 dollars. If you over clock it (Like anyone wouldnt assumeing they have more brains than a toaster) you can get a 900 mhz setup for less than 200. & Just to make it clear YOU DONT HAVE TO RUN pc133 IN THEM. You can run pc100 wich is ralther cheap.
Performance between a duron & celeron will be argued forever However Bang for your buck a Duron will all the goodies would still be a better deal than a comperable celeron Just because of the extra processing punch.
Thay Have slokets for durons to go to slot 1. the only problem is that they are crap in most cases.
As Far as the issue of cost for a value system goes I look at it like this Locally you can get an a7v w/ dipswitches & a duron 600 for less than 200 dollars. If you over clock it (Like anyone wouldnt assumeing they have more brains than a toaster) you can get a 900 mhz setup for less than 200. & Just to make it clear YOU DONT HAVE TO RUN pc133 IN THEM. You can run pc100 wich is ralther cheap.
Performance between a duron & celeron will be argued forever However Bang for your buck a Duron will all the goodies would still be a better deal than a comperable celeron Just because of the extra processing punch.
"The thing is that you can notice a difference between the 700 duron and celeron"
Probably not under office apps and win98. As I've stated numerous times, hard drive speed is more important. You will notice a huge differnce in games though...
Probably not under office apps and win98. As I've stated numerous times, hard drive speed is more important. You will notice a huge differnce in games though...
bozack: We can care less about NASA. Like Remnant2 said, every big company and organization is going with Intel because of the name. We consumers do have brains and we do think more about whats the best to get and not to get.
Like I said, I agree BX boards will be best paired with Celeron. But its so sad that AMD has won on both price and performance department that make little to no sense going with a Celeron setup if you were to build a new system.
And to counter your statements about not noticing a difference, I recommend you to try that again with something other than your NASA apps. Prefferrably a Quake3 game or a UT match.
Like I said, I agree BX boards will be best paired with Celeron. But its so sad that AMD has won on both price and performance department that make little to no sense going with a Celeron setup if you were to build a new system.
And to counter your statements about not noticing a difference, I recommend you to try that again with something other than your NASA apps. Prefferrably a Quake3 game or a UT match.
What a load of crap. We should get everyone on all the techie boards to email them and tell them how incredibly stupid they were for publishing such nonsense. Well, you know what I mean. I'm sure the scores are real, but was it fair? I don't think so. Anybody with a brain will realize that the Duron beat the Celeron while severely crippled, and therefor realize that the Duron is a much better processor.
It just makes me sick.
DIE Intel and all your assbuddies!
It just makes me sick.
DIE Intel and all your assbuddies!
MadRat
Lifer
- Oct 14, 1999
- 12,014
- 321
- 126
bozak: You really want to know why NASA goes only with Intel?
Not if you meant the ones used in satellites. The Intel chips are specialized to run in a space-environment without error. Cosmic rays and gamma radiation can cause random errors. The last cpu certified for space use was a "hardened" P133. NASA pays about $6,000 apiece for each one.
Not if you meant the ones used in satellites. The Intel chips are specialized to run in a space-environment without error. Cosmic rays and gamma radiation can cause random errors. The last cpu certified for space use was a "hardened" P133. NASA pays about $6,000 apiece for each one.
no magazines are good anymore.....i get pc world, and it sucks! it used to be good, but now theres just old news and more ads.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter