The last CPU post until next fall - intel wins the THG $300

[MasterLee]

It's been a see-saw battle and it will continue as long as both companies are in business.
All the Intel vs AMD posts are pure BS, created by people who's mother told them they were grounded, so they come on here and start this mess up.
Moronic at best, if you don't know how it works by now you never will.

 

[yakyb]

thats the best post i have read in the whole of this crappy thread

yes until now its been a see saw with Intel being on top the last 8 months and Amd on top for the 2 years before that with there A64 line

Now intel has up'd the Ante with 45nm promises.
The question is how good is Barcelona? I hope for AMDs (and our) sake it is as much of a jump above C2d as C2D was above the X2 range. at both stock and OC'd, because as i see it if barcelona has a good 20% improvement but doesnt OC one iota then intel is still in the lead.

Now inregards to the article about cheap systems this infuriated me if i had the money to spare i would shell out $600 and buy two systems on budget and judge them on all their merits for what they are intended (i.e. if i where to spend $300 to game i would get a Wii)
For the past few months there has been a massive intel swing in the articls that has lead me to read articles on other sites. Whomever the main editor is at toms i would seriously consider re writing the article mentioned above(or maybe DaClan could)

 

[m25]

The problem with this crappy thread is that most of the people posting, have never seen a Sempron or a Celeron D.

 

[InteliotInside]

I for own a Celeron D based computer, and it plain fricken SUCKS.

Which is why I say; "It's a tie--they both lose!"

 

[Sirfiroth]

The problem with this crappy thread is that most of the people posting, have never seen a Sempron or a Celeron D.

A truer statement has never been made.

These are the ones we refer to as "Armchair Technicians".

___________________
”No matter where you go or what you do, you live your entire life within the confines of your head”. ~Terry Josephson

 

[Major_Spittle]

Wow, look at you geeks fighting. 8O You would think that their was a Blue light special on pocket protectors at K-Mart or something. :lol:

Let it goooooooooooo.

 

[Twisted_Sister]

Actually, for $299 I can get an Xbox 360...

Checkmate!

 

[BaldEagle]

Actually, for $299 I can get an Xbox 360...

Checkmate!

How do you get Office on an Xbox 360????

 

[celewign]

Sounds like your biased, since you own an Intel processor. Intel does not own the extremely low end market.

YOU

-cm

 

[Twisted_Sister]

Actually, for $299 I can get an Xbox 360...

Checkmate!

How do you get Office on an Xbox 360????

I was just kidding... but I guess you could use an OS hack.

 

[celewign]

I dunno, Gears of War is a great word processor. At least, that's what he'll tell his Mom so she lets him get one.
-cm

 

[dragonsprayer]

damn you kinda got an attitude didnt you fatman.

ya! i guess! I am really just looking for real would test data. My point is its never been done.

thank you to: m25 he actually took the time to get some data:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron-2600_9.html

But its all single tasking: as i stated no real would multitasking tests - synthetic bench marks and gaming tests with background programs off.

We can all agree amd chips run many single applications as good or better then intel!

It seems to me from sempron to athlon to even an fx-60 when i program and test them they are slower when doing/running real world mutltasking.

the fx-60 is great chip until down load multiple programs - the difference is slight.

still no data of a real world computing - that is: with anti virus and anti spyware running, how about adding im and gaming at the same time - this is what people do with computers. sitting next to me is 2 systems with dual monitors - one monitor is im the other guild wars spydoctor, avg running on a 560j single core chip - no lag (try that on an athlon)- the guy on the system is playing some music too. bench mark this!


well i started the post to see if i could find some data - if any existed of true multitasking on low end single core chips - still none! I really do not think its ever been done.

I am typing on a 3.0c - avg is on (spysweeper is off it bogs it down) i have about 10-20 browsers open - media player is rolling. This is system built in 2003 - next to me is core 2 next to that am2 4200+ this single core northwood antique still works - semprons do not! Do you think any amd chip from 2003 can do that? I am not sure - so show me some data!

I am looking for the truth not to piss off the amti fanatics

 

[RJ]

If they are going to make comperable systems they should spend the same amount of money on each. They chose not to spend an extra $10 to get an Athlon 64 because it would have made their system exceed the $300 mark by $40 instead of $30. The Intel system however exceed the $300 by $60 so they seemed to have proven that if you give Intel a headstart they win. What a genius review for 10% more money even a noob could make Intel a winner.

The pitty is that even with the actual setup, the Sempron system is overall more responsive, more game capable, better multitasker than the CeleronD. I have assembled and tested mysel various Sempron and CeleronD systems but reviews speak themselves; just take a look to the firs article I was able to google, the other (THE REAL) side of the coin :
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron-3400_7.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron-3400_8.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron-3400_9.html
P.S: For the CeleronD, most often check the last 2 lines of each table :lol:

Not to piss in someone's Cheerios, but my Celeron D 360 easily overclocks to 4.63 from 3.46, without voltage changes, and its scores are equivalent to a FX-57 in SiSandra using cheapo Kingston DDR2-533 memory AND onboard graphics.

Don't go making the Celeron look like a POS without factual data :roll:

 

[Guest]

QUICK! Hide this topic from Baron :!: :!: :!:

 

[m25]

Not to piss in someone's Cheerios, but my Celeron D 360 easily overclocks to 4.63 from 3.46, without voltage changes, and its scores are equivalent to a FX-57 in SiSandra using cheapo Kingston DDR2-533 memory AND onboard graphics.

Don't go making the Celeron look like a POS without factual data Rolling Eyes

You're not pissing anything but don't forget the Sempron can get to 2.8GHz too and one thing we all should forget is ALL KIND OF SYNTHETIC BENCHMARKS because they are either biased or stupidly put together; How is it possible that in this review:
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/404
The Sempron lags by 17% in the crappy 3DMark but soundly beats the Celeron D in ALL games :?: :!: Is pretty easy; all Intel CPUs have excelled in 3DMark but got systematically beaten by Athlons till the arrival of Core2, so why do we use this benchmark :?: :!:

 

[joefriday]

Right, each one has strengths and weaknesses but have you tried the overall feel on both of them; the CeleronD is such a lagging multitasker that you are really p!ssed if tou want to open 2 light apps at the same time; the overall reaction is much better on a celeron and that can be shown with a multitasking benchmark.

Yes, I have. I owned a Celeron D 310 @ 3.6GHz/900fsb stock vcore, and a Sempron 2800 @ 2.5GHz and 1.55 vcore on a Biostar T-force. Both used 1 gig Patriot Signature series ram, and were housed in a black Xaser III case. They were both great little rigs at the time (about 2 years ago). Since I primarily do encoding work, the two cpus actually performed on par with each other. I built the Sempron rig after the Intel rig, b/c I wanted a PCIe slot, and I wanted to use the then-new 6100 IGP (the IGP could play call of Duty maxed out at 1024x768, the max res. of my 15" flat panel). It was a nice AMD rig, but unfortunately either the motherboard's video drivers were buggy, or my Winfast capture software is poorly coded for AMD. Either way, I experienced too many video capture related problems, got tired of constant tweaking, and after a couple months sold the AMD rig to a gaming friend of mine at cost. Then I preceded to sell my Celeron D 310 and mobo to another friend to replace his aging Abit NF7-s/Athlon XP 2000 combo. Since that time I used my Dell Dimension 4500, 2.4B Norhtwood, 512MB PC2100, and GF3Ti200 for all my video capture and media encoding needs (and just a tiny bit of Call of Duty). Last summer I of course upgraded the Dell with the Asrock 775i65G and D805, reusing everything else. If you want brutal honesty, both the Celeron D and Sempron suck balls at multitasking. I have a foxconn Ebot with a 2.4C Northwood, and that thing will out multitask either one of those cpus, but even the 2.4C is not even close to the robustness of the D805, where you can actually run two demanding tasks at the same time. If you want smooth feel and great multitasking, get a dual core CPU, not a sempron.

 

[fifth_pineapple]

proof of sempron going to almost 3ghz

take note this is an 86% oc

 

[joefriday]

Multitasking? please. It won't make a difference on single core Celerons. Competing Semprons are faster than the old Prescott Celeron Ds. I would only recommed Prescott Celerons if the person wanted an Intel rig and coudln't afford anything more expensive than a $30 CPU for the time being, or if the person just wanted to go on the internet, maybe play a DVD, sync their iPOD, and use word...you know, what most non-computer geek people do. And for the latter case, I'd just as soon build AMD. It doesn't matter what brand you have, or how much performance when it comes to the tasks a non-gaming, non-encoding, average computer user will do, because the CPU is not the bottleneck. Generally, it's the amount of ram that's most important for a rig like this. You just need enough ram to prevent the computer from getting dragged down, and all will be well in Noobie Land.

 

[CompTIA_Rep]

Your first post and subsequent posts lost you a lot of creditability as far as I am concerned. Its more like bickering then a real debate.


We all know that the article from THG was the most bias and unreasonable display of technical jacka55ism on behalf of Intel. I dont care if your pro intel or amd, anyone quoting that article as proof of superiority is a moron.


It has been discussed much on the forums and there has been many alternative builds to the "$300" ones.


Since your attitude suggests you will not heed this statement, please continue to argue.... go on...

 

[m25]

Of course; we're uselessly talking about "budget CPUs" when a CeleronD is $60 and a Pentium D 805 is ~$70. I've lately noticed a lot of people saying "Hey, I'm building a budget PC with an E6300" or "X2 4200+" 8O , so the concept of budget build has a lot changed the last 6-7 months. Looks kile yesterday when full of joy I put together my 939 3000+ budget and then the price drops and nothing was the same anymore.
Even Intel and AMD got caught in this wave; otherwise how would you explain CeleronDs and P4s being more expensive than PentiumDs or a Sempron 3600+ equally priced with a X2 3600+ :?: :!:
At the end, they'd better drop their value line names; a single core nowadays is more than enough to to cripple and to classify a CPU as a budget one, especially in the light of these nonsense prices.

 

[joefriday]

And that is atypical. From my own observations, a socket 754 Sempron will land anywhere from 2.4 to 2.6, sometimes 2.7 GHz on stock air cooling. There are screenies from xtreme systems are people getting 4.2+ GHz on a Celeron D 326 with stock hsf and 5.5GHz on Cedar Mill Celeron Ds using stock air cooling, but I also call those atypical. It seems most Celeron Ds based on the Prescott core hit 3.2 to 3.8 GHz on stock cooler, and Cedar Mill Celerons run around 4.6 to 5GHz with the Intel hsf. On average the Cedar Mill Celeron beats the Sempron with shear clock speed advantage.

If you will, can you tell me the cooling used, and the motherboard it was overclocked in? My feeling is that it wasn't the stock cooler, and it definately wasn't a $40 ECS mobo.

 

[joefriday]

I know what you mean. Some people really don't get the term "budget"; either that, or you and I are really cheap bastards....

 

[m25]

If that is atypica, 4.63GHz on stock voltage by RJ is totally outlandish; With a CeleronD you have to sweat to go beyond 4.2GHz even by bumping the voltage, typically. Maybe he is the luckiest overclocker in the world, or (most probably) it's just that mobo supplies a good 0.05-0.1V more than the required Vcore.

 

[joefriday]

No, RJ has a Cedar Mill Celeron D. His results are right in line with what is expected.

As far as people asking me "Why would anyone overclock these rigs?", as I stated, if I were to build the Intel rig, which is certainly more specific than anyone. I would overclock the Intel rig b/c I like having Athlon FX-57 performance from a $50 CPU, and because I can.

 

[RJ]

If that is atypica, 4.63GHz on stock voltage by RJ is totally outlandish; With a CeleronD you have to sweat to go beyond 4.2GHz even by bumping the voltage, typically. Maybe he is the luckiest overclocker in the world, or (most probably) it's just that mobo supplies a good 0.05-0.1V more than the required Vcore.

Outlandish?...no
Lucky?....definitely not.
Good Mobo?....up for debate.

The only reason I haven't gone higher is because the mobo has NO voltage settings. I'd love to crank the snot out of this CPU to see where it lands. I'm tempted to put the Celeron into my Abit rig with the peltier cooler and see what it clocks. I wouldn't even need the Patriot memory I'm getting tomorrow that's capable of over 600 mhz.