What is a 2.6GHZ Celeron equivalent too?

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Statistics.

Your a noob man. You called me a liar, yet the link you gave us shows that the cpus i mentioned are faster, but close nonetheless to the celly 2.6. :roll:

And you're a dumbass who needs to spend more time in English class and brush up on his reading comprehension.

"an Athlon XP 1600, 1700, or a 2ghz p4 would be comparable to a 2.6ghz celeron."

com·pa·ra·ble ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kmpr--bl) adj.
Similar or equivalent: pianists of comparable ability.

The absolute and brutal bitchification - with the except of one victory by the Celeron - laid down by the Athlons in the linked article do not show "comparable" traits any more than my Honda Civic can "compare" to a Porsche Carrera GT. I won't even bother factoring in the price difference.

In conclusion, STFU. :beer:

- M4H

Ever heard of being conservative? I am in no way defending intel, if thats how i sound, i hate intel.

Your processor fanboy affiliation - or lack thereof - has nothing to do with the fact that you just got Flame-Grilled to Perfection. That was brought down simply for being a dumbass, nothing more.

"Performance wise, an Athlon XP 1600, 1700, or a 2ghz p4 would be comparable to a 2.6ghz celeron."
<Insert ownage of those misguided "Facts.">
"Your a noob man. You called me a liar, yet the link you gave us shows that the cpus i mentioned are faster, but close nonetheless to the celly 2.6"
<Insert ownage of you.>
"Ever heard of being conservative? I am in no way defending intel, if thats how i sound, i hate intel."
<Insert this post here. Whoa, temporal flux.>

Nice to see you're rolling back faster than Betty Crocker on a meth-fueled cookie frenzy though.

- M4H

 

[Mik3y]

a duron 1.6 beats a celeron at 2.6ghz, so that's where it's at. i'm talking about the previous generation celerons, not the celeron D's.

 

[Beau]

:Q

pee-double-u-en-ay-gee-ee

 

[Astu222]

arent the celerons just Intels old hardware re released in that name?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Astu222
arent the celerons just Intels old hardware re released in that name?

No, first they castrate it.

edit - except once, when it was actually the 'new' hardware.

But that was more than 3ghz ago.

 

[uOpt]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: MartinCracauer
The Celerons also do very well for media encoding.

No, actually they don't. Did you bother to read the link provided?

Did you bother to read Anandtech or Tom's articles with benchmarks?

Depends on what you are encoding, but for most things Celerons, especially Celeron D's are suprisingly fast.

 

[worthless085]

i dont think id say they do "well" in anything... they might not suck, but i wouldnt use the word "very"+"well"

 

[mrSHEiK124]

Originally posted by: 4fingerwu1
What is a 2.6GHZ Celeron equivalent to?

hmm, if this isn't a Celly D, then i'd have a hard time deciding if it were equivalent to a pile of monkey doodoo or an NES :evil:

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: MartinCracauer

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: MartinCracauer
The Celerons also do very well for media encoding.

No, actually they don't. Did you bother to read the link provided?

Did you bother to read Anandtech or Tom's articles with benchmarks?

Depends on what you are encoding, but for most things Celerons, especially Celeron D's are suprisingly fast.

Wow. I think it's you that needs to read the AT articles. First off, the discussion was not specific to the D's and neither was your statement. Second, AT's article shows that the Celeron can not even beat all of the Athlon XPs in the 2000 series and only comes 6% faster than a lowly 1700+ for DivX encoding. There is nothing surprisingly fast about a 2.6 Celly getting beat by all but the lowliest Athlon XPs.