(2)cel533 vs (1)duron800 - overall gaming

[rcf84]

well i have been at it again shoting of my mouth my friend jeff again and this time upgraded even so in you upon what is better (i think my pc is still)

me:
2x cel 533MHz @ 600 (100fsb) 2.2v (2 celerons now)
ABIT BP6 (440bx - my weapon of choice)
386mb pc150
12x DVD (SCSI)
2x 18gb 10k 133mb burst scsi3(new adapter w/ !!!raid!!!)
ATI radeon 32mb ddr
CL soundblaster MP3+ w/ PC WORKS SPEAKERS

JEFF
Duron 800 @ 850
ABIT KT7 raid
256mb pc100
3x 30gb 5400rpm ata66 (raid)
CL Annihilator 2 MX(pci)
MagicKit 44X (44x cdrom (ide) / 2piece speaker / 16bit sound card (isa))

 

[Guest]

The Radeon is better than the MX. Strike one.
386MB of RAM is better than 256. Strike two.
Not gaming, but fun related... DVD is better than regular CD. Strike three.

Yep, your machine is better. Tell him to get a real 3D accelerator, then you can compare.

 

[Guest]

bunk on the 368ram is better on window 98, you can add all the ram past 256 and you won't get any real benifit, true the radon is a better viedo card, but if I was to build a econo box game sytem today it would be around a 800duron, which if you go to overclockers.com you'll see it more easily overclock to 1.0gig with out over exotic cooling solutions , try that with any celron, good luck without a pelter cooler or more.

 

[SoulReaper]

Do you guys feel like "Bad a$s's?" cause u "think" u have hot systems. Just to bust your bubble, I have:

AMD 1ghz
ABIT KT7-RAID mobo
768mb PC150 RAM ( mushkin )
2 Ultra 160 cheetah 36.4gb hard drive running raid
19 inch LCD
GeForce 2 GTS
10x6x32 SCSI burner

I beat all of your computers. Do i feel bigger than u now cause i have a better computer? no. This is just my work PC. You should see my home PC. Btw...tell ur bro Radeon's suck. When he gets a real graphics card, then u guys can compete. I'd take urs over his anyways, cuase u got AMD. Celeron's suck.

"upgrading is no longer an option...it's a necessity"
Visit www.elitehunters.com
--SoulReaper =)

 

[rcf84]

you better watch out i got a ABIT VP6 coming and dual 1ghz p3's will whip your A$$.

 

[Guest]

Have you guys readed latest revieuws on Tom's site?

A duron 700 is basicly 1.5 times faster than a cel 700.
So a duron 800 is at least 2 times faster than a 533.
Plus I don't now any game yet that uses more than 256 mb of ram. I have 192 Mb and in most games (Unreal, half life) my HDD's go in idle mode.
The radeon DDR of course is far better than the MX when talking about performance.

A good tip, if that celeron is based on the coppermine core, don't be affraid to overclok it, it will become much faster! I have clocked my PIII650 to 985 without any problem

Godim

 

[Guest]

Unfortunatly, in this case the Radeon does beat the MX... only in 32 bit color. Id upgrade the mx to 32 MB DDR and that would kill the Radeon.

Sorry to burst your bubles on the RAM, but unless your running 2000, or Linux.... over 256 MB is useless.

Also, 2 celrons = 1.5 celeron processing power... not 2. My guess that they may be performing about the same.

 

[Ncogneto]

who's is better? All depends. you both have more than enough ram so that is not an issue. Dual CPU's only help if you have software that supports it which games do not. His CPU has a better floating point unit clocked at a higher speed ( FPU is very MHZ dependent) he has you there. Disk access and CD-rom speed are more than effecient on both systems that is a draw again. You got him on the video card although. His system will out bench yours on all office apps for sure. You however might ( and probably do) have an edge in video intensive apps (ie games) not do to superior processor but do to a better video card. Watch out if he gets a better video card he kicks you butt.....sorry.

 

[Guest]

if they are celeron twos then your system is better fukcing overcloack em

 

[Guest]

The Duron is a much stronger processor than the Celeron. However, I'm curious. If you're using a 533Celeron that is normally based on a 66MHz FSB, that would be about an 8x multiplier. If you actually clocked up to 100MHz FSB, you should be at 800MHz by now, not 600.

Charles

 

[Guest]

Never thought about that before. Nice catch.

 

[Grizely1]

Ok so you have a <i>nice</i> system....... This is what I will have in 2 months:

AMD Thunderbird 1.2GHz
DDR Mobo (haven't decided which one, probably ASUS)
1024MB PC2100
75GB IBM Deskstar 7400 ata100
NVidia NV20 128MB Video

 

[Guest]

I would still take my NES over either.

 

[Guest]

One more thing - Quake 3 is the only game I know of that benefits from dual CPU's (although not that much). You also need to be running NT4, Win 2000 or Linux to use both CPUs.
The Duron 800 would beat any Celery out there.
I plan on getting a 1G TBird in a few months after they fix any initial bugs in DDR chipsets.

 

[Guest]

In a few months, won't we be talking about AMD's Palomino?

 

[Guest]

You've got a fortune invested in RAM and SCSI Drives you should have spent a little more on your processor (TB 1.2 Ghz) and vidio card (GTS 2 Ultra) put in an IDE Raid and 256Meg of Cas 2 PC133 memory your system would have been much faster and cheaper. I run a P3 600 265Megs of PC 100 and a GTS 2 32Meg card much cheaper and probably as fast and it started as a P2 350 with a TNT and 64Megs.

 

[TknD]

All right! My turn to show off!

My SERVER has...

-233Mhz (woo hoo, I'm cookin!)
-AMD K6 powered (yeah, eat my no 3D-now! cpu)
-64MB of whoppin generic 60ns EDO DRAM!!!
-WD 850MB IDE disk along with WD 1.2GB ENHANCED IDE (get that! enhanced...)
-and finally...a whole 4MB on a Trident 9850 video card (ooh 16 bit color....)

On top of that, it is running win2k pro! It is so blazing... bet you can't beat the 24x CDROM it has also!

It is soo fast...serves up pages to my 3 computer LAN in under 10ms ping!!! Thats even with ASP code!

Yeah, now I got an extra 2000 bucks to waste on food...



TknD

 

[Guest]

They can't Be CeleronII's as they can't do SMP so they would be Mendicinos! Anyway 1 duron 800 would kick 2 cellerys anywayz. The MX could be better in 16bit, so the Duron is better!!!!!

 

[garia666]

It depends on what you running..
Win 90x or Win ME doesnt support dual proscessing..
Only win NT or linux, Unix, Win 2000... Will have the advantage of two Cpu`s...

Why dont you try to run some benchmarks and compare both of them....

Than post your results...

Good luck

Garia666