Which is faster...

[Guest]

A Duron@900Mhz with a TNT2 or a Celeron2 667@~900Mhz with a GeForce2 MX?
Both systems would have identical hardware setups other than the CPU/Mobo + graphics card.
Any help is appreciated.

 

[Guest]

In depends on WHAT you are measuring the speed of.

3D gaming, the Celeron+GF2MX would be faster. In pretty much everything else, the Duron would be faster.

 

[Kodiak]

Just get a Duron with Geforce2 MX and you'll be set
(though I guess it appears that's not an option for you for some reason🙁

 

[Bubba]

Agreed, get the Duron with the Geforce2 MX.

 

[Grizely1]

He's not talking about building a new computer, just comapring the 2 setups.

 

[Guest]

Yeah, I have a Celeron 433@507 on a Via Apollo Pro 133 mobo and I have a TNT2. I don't have a lot to spend and I want to upgrade my sytem. I play games regularly. I don't feel I need the highest framerate to enjoy a game, but I want to get the fastest setup possible.

My options are:
1. Buy an Abit KT7 and a Duron (will be overclocking) and keep the TNT2.
2. Buy a Celeron2 for my current motherboard and replace the TNT2 with a GeForce2 MX.

 

[Bubba]

In that case, I think you would benefit more by getting the Duron and keeping the TNT2 card.

 

[Arrow]

I would go with the Duron combo you proposed.

Rob
Please visit <b><A HREF="http://www.ncix.com/shop/index.cfm?affiliateid=319048" target="_new">http://www.ncix.com/shop/index.cfm?affiliateid=319048</A></b>

 

[Guest]

I like AMD. Great prices, good chips. But let's face it... if you're talking gaming, a TNT2 can't even come close to a GF2 MX. Ok? Not even in the same damn ballpark. It's the differance between running games laggy at 800x600x16, or 1280x1024x32 and nice and smooth.

So, despite the fact it will help support 'the empire' (Intel), get the Celly and GF2 MX if you play a lot of games.

 

[Guest]

Hmm. If the Duron is 35% faster running applications, but the Mx is 65% faster running games, that means that if you play games 40% of the time, the train must have left chicago at 3 pm

So it depends a bit. Does your monitor support higher resolutions? Also, when and what might your next upgrade be, a little further down the road. All things to think about. But it sounds like you'll have some fun, either way.

Tom Mc

Even a fool, when he remains silent, appears wise.

 

[jg38141]

Actually, if you can afford me, I'm faster, especially with a good tail wind, and since Chicago is the windy city I really can't loose.

"Are you saying that I can dodge bullets?"

 

[Crashman]

I can't understand what relevance the Celeron has with performance computing anyway. I wouldn't buy one, simply because of the low bus speed. And I don't care who thinks they can overclock it to 100, you can overclock a PIII E series to 133+ and an EB to 150+, so Celerons can't even stand up anymore. If you can't afford a PIII or Thunderbird get a Duron.

 

[Guest]

Thanks everyone,
I'm pretty sure I'm going to go with a Duron and Abit KT7. I can probably upgrade the card to a GeForce2 MX or higher in a few months, so I'm not really worried about the TNT2. I'm pretty satisfied with my game performance as it is and the delay in getting a faster card won't affect me much. I'm more intersted in how it'll affect my usage of multiple apps under Windows 2000. I believe the Duron will probably be a better option there.