Well, If u can burn u're CD while listen to music and also convert mpeg to Divx and surfing the NET too,u can call a celeron a processor. On My Athlon 1800+ machine thses tasks r trivial. So may be u shud try all these and then rethink. So please start using u're CPU cycles ;)
Visu
From: "Nikhil bhaskaran" nikhil@campusguru.com To: "GNU/Linux Users Group, Mumbai, India" Wrote: hii , as an end user i find intel celeron 1.7 ghz on HIS better than Amd athlon xp 1.8 ghz on asus
motherobard >>both with 128 mb ddr ram . i havent faced any cooling >>issues though .i would strongly not recommend Amd .
________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! India Mobile: Download the latest polyphonic ringtones. Go to http://in.mobile.yahoo.com
Vishwanath V writes:
Well, If u can burn u're CD while listen to music and also convert mpeg to Divx and surfing the NET too,u can call a celeron a processor. On My Athlon 1800+ machine thses tasks r trivial. So may be u shud try all these and then rethink. So please start using u're CPU cycles ;)
Visu
AFAIK there will be disk I/O / bus contention. You are * reading data (mpeg to divx) from HDD. * reading data (for writing to CD) from HDD. * writing to browser cache while surfing.
mpeg to divx will be the only one which will take up quite a lot of CPU cycles. Here the celeron which has less cache than Athlon will take a beating. But surfing is mainly network intensive and not CPU intensive. Also for CD writing only making the iso image while writing onto disk takes some CPU cycles (but not much). I don't see why the last two factors should depend much on the CPU.
All in all I think both celeron and Athlon are both good value for money. but Athlon definitely has the edge.
--> Vinayak Hegde
Greetings,
I think the Heating has become a fear factor in Processor world. But seriously I feel that if I can keep my processor utilization to 100% and if die teperature is still around 85° (For Athlon) I have peformance I would expect.
Also heating problem not is not just with the processor if you are using some el-cheapo motherboard other components even having a so called heat resistant Intel processor would start crying. ( I tried seti benchmark on some branded Intel p4 systems and my own home AMD XP )
Typically I would benchmark with the numbers that I mentioned earlier.
Ofcouse if processor is going to the max rated temperature even if it is not been in 100% utilization then you are in trouble.
Regards
hii all ,
this is my earlier mail to the forum : *************************
as an end user i find intel celeron 1.7 ghz on HIS better than Amd athlon xp 1.8 ghz on asus motherobard both with 128 mb ddr ram . i
havent
faced any cooling issues. .
******************************************** well it seems some people didnt get what i was trying to say .many here are comparing AMD to older celeron which ran it 100 fsb .
celeron 1.7 ghz and upwards are dark horses in intel's stable , they r cheap ,and real value for money . Intel itself as its marketing strategy doesnot advertise or publicise the features of celeron ( you will never see ads in t.v or print about celeron ) .So much that when i try selling a celeron machine instead of an Intel p-4 , they say but isnt Intel better ??, the common man is not even aware celeron is an Intel product. But to compete with AMD they still need a processor at the lower price bracket and hence manufactures celeron which is almost same a p-4 . celeron 1.7 has absolutely the same architecture ( 0.18 micron and 400 mhz fsb) , and same core of p-4 1.7 ghz and runs on the same motherboard that a p-4 runs on , except that celeron has a lower cache only 128 mb as compared to p-4 1.7 which has 256( or 512 ) . AMD athlon xp 1.8 ghz on the other hand runs only on 200 or 266 fsb , and also u need asus or better motherboards . AMD though i read on tech web sites and articles has host of other features which made my buy one amd 1.8 on asus , but i regret the decision , practically when i compare the 2 , i think celeron has an advantage , because it cost me less , i put the celeron on an HIS via chipset board which is 1200 rs less as compared to asus .Amd is not so popular so there r very few motherboards than can optimally use the processor , hence AMD performs better in benchmarking tests but not practically .
note: These are my personal views which i hold and i speak only out of my hardware experience of last 4 years .I dont intend to promote Intel or discourage Amd .
Nikhil Bhaskaran
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Nikhil bhaskaran wrote:
the same motherboard that a p-4 runs on , except that celeron has a lower cache only 128 mb as compared to p-4 1.7 which has 256( or 512 ) . AMD
128 MB cache ??? are u sure ? I am currently learning Pentium I and AFAIK the cache size is 8KB code cache + 8KB data cache. I think you mean 128 *KB* cache.
On Thursday 06 November 2003 01:38, Nikhil bhaskaran wrote:
Next LUG meet: 9 Nov 2003 around 4 pm - VJTI
hii all ,
this is my earlier mail to the forum :
celeron 1.7 ghz and upwards are dark horses in intel's stable , they r cheap ,and real value for money .
I used a Celeron 1.7GHz on a Via P4M266, and it works very well and very cool.
Planning to get rid of the fan by using a heat pipe heatsink and a sealed box. The system would then require no maintanence. Forced cooling is required due to the small size and the high internal ambient temperature of the box. A heat pipe will work well even with an AMD.
less , i put the celeron on an HIS via chipset board which is 1200 rs less as compared to asus .Amd is not so popular so there r very
What is the chipset?
rgds
hi there..
I am facing problem in getting my Printer Server working.. Its working perfectly alrite for local machine(thats my print server) but when i tried to exectue print command from my remote machine on my lan.. i was not able to do so.. i am using redhat 9 ( my print server is also working as a router.. and iam using CUPS)
Please mail me ....
Thanxs..
On 05/11/03 16:38 -0800, Nikhil bhaskaran wrote: <snip>
celeron is an Intel product. But to compete with AMD they still need a processor at the lower price bracket and hence manufactures celeron which is almost same a p-4 . celeron 1.7 has absolutely the same architecture ( 0.18 micron and 400 mhz fsb) , and same core of p-4 1.7 ghz and runs on the same motherboard that a p-4 runs on , except that celeron has a lower cache only 128 mb as compared to p-4 1.7 which has 256( or 512 ) . AMD
Errr? 128 millibits? Perhaps you mean 128 kibi Bytes?
athlon xp 1.8 ghz on the other hand runs only on 200 or 266 fsb , and also u need asus or better motherboards . AMD though i read on tech web sites and
Asus is one of the better brands out there. You can get cheaper brands. Also, the numbers after the Athlon XP are the equivalent speed ratings of a Pentium. Your Athlon XP 1800 would actually be running at 1400 to 1500 MHz. The Athlon XP 2000 runs at 1667 MHz.
articles has host of other features which made my buy one amd 1.8 on asus , but i regret the decision , practically when i compare the 2 , i think celeron has an advantage , because it cost me less , i put the celeron on
If you want to compare the celeron with something, try a Duron instead.
Devdas Bhagat
-
Devdas Bhagat -
J. T. D'souza -
milo -
Nikhil bhaskaran -
Nikhil Joshi -
S. K Rahman -
vinayak_hegde＠softhome.net -
Vishwanath V