1595193

Re: Processors

November 27th, 2004 02:17 PM

I dunno, to me minesweeper looks an awful lot like Farcry running 60-70fps on Ultra settings these days. I don't doubt the AMDs are well built, they also have a lot of extras that Intels don't. But it doesn't mean they don't have the performance. If you said Celeron, then yeah I would say yeah, Granny. But not the Prescott. Sorry, man.

1595203

Re: Processors

November 27th, 2004 02:23 PM

I'll keep my 1337 32bit p4 for a little while longer.

Now how much of a differnce does Hyper threading or hyper transopt technology make in a processor? About 11 months ago intel was parading HT tech around.
hmmm 3.2ghz prescott going for $225 off newegg...May look at getting one for the summer.

1595205

Re: Processors

November 27th, 2004 02:24 PM

I agree that Celerons are a pile of horse fecese.

I never said Intel were bad, just a bit lacking on the performance-front. The reason Prescotts are so cheap is because Intel will be replacing the Pentium 4 soon with their version of 64-bit or a brilliant new 32-bit processor (not likely).

1595214

Re: Processors

November 27th, 2004 02:28 PM

I understand, but what I'm trying to say is, I'm running Intel, and I'm not lacking in performance. It's a misconception that a lot of people have about Intel that if they get a Pentium, they won't perform well. The truth is, if the system is set up right, and parts are matched up(following MB compatability lists, others experiences etc.), the performance is there. Gobs of it.

1595223

Re: Processors

November 27th, 2004 02:34 PM

the story behind celerons.

Intel (cheap loser bastards) made a processor with a cool name, so that it would stand out to the computer idiots. This new chip is an underpowered version of the pentium 4.

so Intel are cheap money-grubbing bastards.

1595224

Re: Processors

November 27th, 2004 02:34 PM

Intels best stuff really is very good, but AMD can still beat it. The Prescott is beaten by the AMD 64-bit FX series on performance, but not on price.

On a budget, I would buy an Intel and still be very pleased with it. The Prescott can handle the likes of Half-Life 2, Rome: Total War and Far Cry with ease. But with a wad of cash, I would buy AMD as they offer the very best performance.

Hey have you even heard of the AMD Sempron processors?

1595225

Re: Processors

November 27th, 2004 02:34 PM

. I got a good system...for the average user and it runs very good. Boots up in about 45 seconds, which is alot faster than my pII 350mzh:lol:. But for gaming it is crappy.

It runs very cool from what i have been reading about processors. Idels at around 90f (31c) and will get up to about 115f(40c) with the stock heatsink/fan.

1595228

Re: Processors

November 27th, 2004 02:35 PM

......and the Duron?

1595233

Re: Processors

November 27th, 2004 02:37 PM

From what I read it is a low cost processor to help lower computer costs and make computers more avavble. Same goes with the duron. If all you need a comp for is internet surfing, typing, photo sharing, and maybe some Counter strike(original version) then that is great.

1595238

Re: Processors

November 27th, 2004 02:40 PM

my gaming computer is awsome for gaming. AMD Athlon 64 3400+ ATI radeon 9800 XT.

i can poump any game up to max graphics and go online lag FREEE.