Pabst [tomshardware] is pretty mean to Intel....

[Blastman]

<< ?they aren't people, since they don't play at resolutions that &quot;people&quot; actually play at. >>



LOL ? ? Good one EdipisReks. Good to see someone has a sense of humor tonight.

 

[Blastman]

<< ?the fact that the duron is about 20-25% faster then the celeron not matter. >>



You can believe the Duron is that much faster than the Celeron, that?s the exaggeration I?m talking about. The benchmarks posted in this thread show otherwise. Less than 15% clock for clock in gaming and less than 10% in applications. If anyone?s statements show bias it?s yours.

 

[Dulanic]

<< Tom is opinionated, but as other people have said, he always distinguishes the fact from opinion.

I don't mind that. I kinda like the fact that the review has an opinion on a product one way or another -- so long as he also shows me the facts that caused that opinion to be created.

Tom does it the right way. For an example of the wrong way, look at some of the articles that Sharkey's old place used to put out. Biases that &quot;change&quot; facts, I have problems with. >>



I agree 100%... Is Tom opinionated? Absolutely and thats why I enjoy his articles. I think alot of people agree Intel is just putting out the P4 with PC133 for marketing... same CPU speed, lower price! Hey it must be just as good! Oh my Tom actually said something alot of us are thinking! How bias! I would bet a grand if AMD screwed up that Tom would be ripping AMD just as hard. Tom speaks his opinion and he speaks it loudly, that hardly means hes biased. I much prefer opinionated reviews, it gives me different looks at things, would you rather have 10 sites all say the same thing?

 

[Dulanic]

<<

<< ?the fact that the duron is about 20-25% faster then the celeron not matter. >>



You can believe the Duron is that much faster than the Celeron, that?s the exaggeration I?m talking about. The benchmarks posted in this thread show otherwise. Less than 15% clock for clock in gaming and less than 10% in applications. If anyone?s statements show bias it?s yours. >>



Oh my I havent read the reviews for these in months I was a bit off, its slightly less than what I said... about 5% less. Being wrong on a # cause I havent read the reviews on 800Mhz CPUs in months isnt being biased, only looking at high res where the video card is the bottleneck, to show a CPU in better light is biased. If I wanted to compare video card bottlenecks Id check video card reviews.

 

[Priit]

Blastman: why even compare Duron and Celeron Mhz vs. Mhz -wize, I think price vs. price would be more realistic. Looking the price list of the nearest local computer shop I see that Cel800 is just as expensive as Duron 900 and Cel850 should go against T-bird 900. Also, Duron 800 costs less than Cel633 and you can get Duron850 about the price of Cel667.How big would be performance delta between those processors, what do you think? Also, you can castrate Celeron's performance putting it into crappy mobo, too (just like Duron), but what's that has to do processor's performance? BTW, on hi-res gaming where v-card will be limiting factor, all processors that can push v-card to it's fill-rate limit, perform about the same: then Duron's, Celeron's and P4's are all about same...

 

[jaydee]

Mabey it's not one way.

Tom:

<< The P4/DDR issue is only one of many examples. AMD is not free from sin either. How long did we have to wait for a thermal protection for Athlon/Duron to avoid accidental meltdown of those processors? How many of us complained about chipped Athlon and Duron silicon dies? Did AMD do anything about it? The problems were played down and nothing else happened. While we at least have some kind of idea what's next at Intel, AMD doesn't seem to know it itself. Its roadmaps are short and very generalized and often things happen that haven't got anything to do with the roadmaps we know. However, AMD doesn't have Intel's evil image. Looking at the last five years of AMD, we may want to congratulate them for today's great success, but at the same time I can spot that AMD's arrogance is growing on a daily basis as well. For me, dealing with AMD was a lot more pleasant in the days of K6. Today it's sometimes close to a nightmare. I often think that AMD would also like to make those bold and evil moves we know from Intel, but they just don't seem to be up for it. So let's please realize that AMD is certainly not our savior as well. The best and safest thing you can do in the PC-business is to buy NOTHING. Believe me, if you ain't wasting any money for PCs, nobody ain't bullshitting you either. It's the only safe way! >>

 

[Pabster]

Blastman wrote:

&quot;Those are gaming benchmarks, I was only referring to applications. And yes the Duron pulls out a bigger advantage over the Celeron in gaming ? about 15% average (14.5% in your 4 examples)? than it does on applications. But that is likely because of the much faster bus that the Duron has over the Celeron. Bandwidth oriented applications should show better comparatively better on the Duron also. The P4 does well in gaming too largely because of its high bandwidth. Just as an aside, the Celeron beat the K6-2 by a much larger margin in gaming ?30-40%.&quot;

Why is this argument still going? Duron is superior to Celeron, hands down. It's been proven time and time again. You can pick up a Duron for $20-$25 now that offers more performance than many home users will ever utilize. Intel's budget Celery is already dead, IMHO. Duron offers a superior (and upgradeable) architecture and more horsepower to boot, for less.

We could argue about benchmarks and percentages forever, but the fact still remains: Duron is superior to Celery.

 

[Pabster]

Blastman wrote:

&quot;You can believe the Duron is that much faster than the Celeron, that?s the exaggeration I?m talking about. The benchmarks posted in this thread show otherwise. Less than 15% clock for clock in gaming and less than 10% in applications. If anyone?s statements show bias it?s yours.&quot;

Jeez, this is getting ridiculous. Let's look at it this way: regardless of whether the performance advantage of Duron is 5% or 15% (actually somewhere in between on most anything), a cheap OEM Celery 800 FCPGA will run you ~$65. A Duron 800 only ~$34. Add to that the fact that you have an upgradeable Socket-A architecture, and you've got a hell of a deal. You can throw in a cheap Bird when the Duron doesn't cut it anymore. Did I mention the overclocking potential of the Duron core? And the DDR FSB advantage? There's just no reason to choose Celeries anymore. Duron has 'em beaten hands down, with room for future growth.

 

[EdipisReks]

<< << ?they aren't people, since they don't play at resolutions that &quot;people&quot; actually play at. >>



LOL ? ? Good one EdipisReks. Good to see someone has a sense of humor tonight >>



i was making fun of you, dumbass. way to take what i said out of context and intelligence.

--jacob