Celeron vs duron

G

Guest

Guest
I just read the Celeron vs Duron smackdown. I couldn't view any of the charts but I could read the analysis and the conclusion which quite clearly states that the Duron kicks the celeron's butt and that there would be no reason to buy a Celeron 2 today. Well.. If I am not miss informed the Duron is actually selling quite poorly while the celeron is selling fine. The Duron is clearly the faster cpu, there is little doubt about that BUT.. we are talking budget cpu's here and a Celeron 2 is a VERY cheap upgrade for ppl who have a bx based system. For most ppl a biosupgrade is enough to make it work. And overall that is a MUCH cheaper upgrade than getting a Duron because then they will have to get a new mainboard too and they might also need new memory and even a new powersupply. Considering that the Duron isn't at all as attractive an upgrade.
I think Tomshardware is getting out of line here. It is pretty obvious that you are very AMD friendly and that you seem to hate Intel. Ofcourse Intel may deserve to be hated but I think you need to maintain the objectivity that you have been known for.

/patrik
 
G

Guest

Guest
clock for clock, duron perform much better, i knew this all along.

last month, when i upgraded my bh6+300A, i brought a celeron 600 instead. the choice is obvious. a new mainboard+duron is almost double the $$ of a celeron. lower clock celeron is also known to be a good overclocker. i run my c600 @ 900.

the article should present difference aspects and upgrade option for the reader. eg. it should tell bx user, celeron may be slower (not too far behind after overclock) but good value for money.

this is for the best interest of the buyer.
 
G

Guest

Guest
If you read the article carefully the reason for not buying the 766 for upgrade is that it is much more expensive than its 733 little brother and holds a much higher price tag...... to me this is pretty objective

M
 
G

Guest

Guest
I think there're two main reasons why the Celeron is still selling well. The first one is there's still no motherboard with integrated graphic available for Duron. If you want a cheap CPU, probably you don't want to spend money for a graphic card. The second reason is Intel is very very strong in the professional channel (like banks and big companies) and that's where you can sell a lot of cheap PC. Beside that, Duron works better than Celeron and it's cheaper. I think that in a couple of months, when there'll be m/b with integrated graphic chip for Duron, things wil change.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Hey FastD,
You are making conclusions and assumptions here. The Celeron smackdown article was a simple review and comparison between the two top end budget processors. The article did not compare overall system configuration prices in detail nor did it discuss the benefits of upgradabiliy. The article verhy simply compared the performance of two processors. And the conculsion of the article was quite accurate, the AMD Duron 800 DOES put the smackdown on the Celeron 766. But that does not mean it will or does or should sell any better then a Celeron. the socket A platform is still very new and not accepted yet as a proven and reliabel platform and there is no system that can be upgraded to a Duron 800 like an older socket 370 Celeron system can be upgraded without changing memory or motherboard. These are all very good reasons that the Celeron is outselling the Duron. I do not hink the article or Tom's Hardware in general is pro-AMD or anti-Intel in any way. The article simply compared the perfromance of two processors.

Outlaw98
** Nothing In Spec Inside
 
G

Guest

Guest
Hi all guys,

I think that's enough for a reply to FastD.

Clearly the Duron is better. That's even more true when you consider that at a price tag of $170 (hey, are you buying 1000 pieces), it is on par with a decent Duron + decent motherboard. What is Intel selling out there anyway?

By the way, I would think the article might actually miss some points:
1. For upgrader, they may go for Celeron, as FastD said;
2. For person building their system from scratch, they would surely go for Duron;
3. For OEM - and this is the most important segment of the market, Duron must be the choice for the most part.

Now, considering that OEM segment, you cannot say Celeron is selling better than Duron, while it may be true if you count the number of retailed boxes.
 

phsstpok

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
5,600
0
25,780
0
I have to disagree with your 3rd comment. After all, OEM stands for Original Equipment Manufacturer. OEM parts are ALL intended for retail boxes which then MUST be counted. Look how many Celeron computers are being sold by every major manufacturer. How many Duron powered machines have you seen by the same manufacturers? Very few.

The reason there are so many Celeron systems is the low cost of motherboards. Boards with the Intel 810 family chipset are, what, $50 or $60, OEM pricing? That's with built in graphics (yuck), built-in sound (big yuck), and built-in NIC. On a pricing basis how could a Duron based system compete?

I know, that's changing and new duron/thunderbird motherboards are comming out everyday. However, the cheap Celeron systems have had a long run and will continue to do so.

I do believe Duron (or it's successor) will eventually have it's day
 

Similar threads


ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS