Re: cpu camparison

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 00:41:29 -0500, "Happy" <cathypham@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

>hi can anyone could answer this qustion?
>
>Intel Celeron D 320 2.4ghz s478 V.S AMD Athlon Xp 2000+ s462
>
>Which one is more powerful and runs faster? Thanks

FWIW, Everest reports that my 2.4 GHz Celeron D 320 is a Prescott
chip.

Also keep in mind that when Intel states a speed, like 2.4 GHz, it is
likely to be more representative of the actual speed of the processor.
When AMD says 2000 they do not mean 2 GHz, they mean more like 1.5 GHz
or thereabouts. Some vendors give you the speed so you can tell.

If these figures are correct, then the comparison is moot. The Celeron
wins hands down. I have that exact cpu and I like it a lot. It is not
as fast as my son's 3.2 GHz P4 but it does a good job anyway. He takes
15 minutes to rip a DVD with Shrink and I take a little longer. Both
of us now have the NEC 3540 so that is not the difference.

If you are building a SOHO Internet machine, I recommend the Celeron D
with 512 MB RAM. Get the DDR400 RAM even though the cpu won't use it -
it costs so little more than the slower RAM and you may want to
upgrade to a P4 one day.

I did not have to change out the heat sink that came with the Retail
Box CPU. My son did with the P4. I have no idea what you would have to
do with the AMD.


--

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

The ideological elites at the U.N. see the world as a collection of
helpless and victimized peoples beset by an ever-widening array of
"problems" ranging from civil wars to racial inequality that can be
solved only by an outside, all-knowing bureaucracy - the U.N. itself.
Their ultimate agenda is the disappearance of the sovereign nations
they claim to represent and the advent of a uniform global
government in which no one will be represented except the elites
themselves.

"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:43043053.1723062@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 00:41:29 -0500, "Happy" <cathypham@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>hi can anyone could answer this qustion?
>>
>>Intel Celeron D 320 2.4ghz s478 V.S AMD Athlon Xp 2000+ s462
>>
>>Which one is more powerful and runs faster? Thanks

You would have to tell us what software you will be running.

> FWIW, Everest reports that my 2.4 GHz Celeron D 320 is a Prescott
> chip.
>
> Also keep in mind that when Intel states a speed, like 2.4 GHz, it is
> likely to be more representative of the actual speed of the processor.

No.

>When AMD says 2000 they do not mean 2 GHz, they mean more like 1.5 GHz
> or thereabouts. Some vendors give you the speed so you can tell.
>
> If these figures are correct, then the comparison is moot. The Celeron
> wins hands down.

No.No.No.

> I have that exact cpu and I like it a lot. It is not
> as fast as my son's 3.2 GHz P4 but it does a good job anyway. He takes
> 15 minutes to rip a DVD with Shrink and I take a little longer. Both
> of us now have the NEC 3540 so that is not the difference.
>
> If you are building a SOHO Internet machine, I recommend the Celeron D
> with 512 MB RAM. Get the DDR400 RAM even though the cpu won't use it -
> it costs so little more than the slower RAM and you may want to
> upgrade to a P4 one day.
>
> I did not have to change out the heat sink that came with the Retail
> Box CPU. My son did with the P4. I have no idea what you would have to
> do with the AMD.
>
>

--
Derek

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:12:40 +0100, "Derek Baker"
<me@xyzderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:

>>when Intel states a speed, like 2.4 GHz, it is
>> likely to be more representative of the actual speed of the processor.

>No.

Are you trying to say in one word that Intel lies about its cpu speed?

>>When AMD says 2000 they do not mean 2 GHz, they mean more like 1.5 GHz
>> or thereabouts. Some vendors give you the speed so you can tell.

>> If these figures are correct, then the comparison is moot. The Celeron
>> wins hands down.

>No.No.No.

It looks like we have an AMD fan here.

I had a bad experiece with AMD once - the same as Dell had that caused
them to drop AMD and go with Intel. So I dropped AMD and went with
Intel. Now I hopefully won't have a bad experience.

"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:43046d5d.5479687@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:12:40 +0100, "Derek Baker"
> <me@xyzderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>when Intel states a speed, like 2.4 GHz, it is
>>> likely to be more representative of the actual speed of the processor.
>
>>No.
>
> Are you trying to say in one word that Intel lies about its cpu speed?
>
>>>When AMD says 2000 they do not mean 2 GHz, they mean more like 1.5 GHz
>>> or thereabouts. Some vendors give you the speed so you can tell.
>
>>> If these figures are correct, then the comparison is moot. The Celeron
>>> wins hands down.
>
>>No.No.No.
>
> It looks like we have an AMD fan here.
>
> I had a bad experiece with AMD once - the same as Dell had that caused
> them to drop AMD and go with Intel. So I dropped AMD and went with
> Intel. Now I hopefully won't have a bad experience.

I've used AMDs since 2000 with no problems. I currently have three on three
computers and they all run like silk.

Alias

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 14:18:28 +0200, "Cody" <cody@cody.vistalonghorn>
wrote:

>I've used AMDs since 2000 with no problems. I currently have three on three
>computers and they all run like silk.

I guess my only excuse for becoming an Intel fan is because I can get
Numero Uno for the same price as Second Ran.

Just kidding. AMD is a fine company that keeps Intel from overcharging
people like me.


--

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

The ideological elites at the U.N. see the world as a collection of
helpless and victimized peoples beset by an ever-widening array of
"problems" ranging from civil wars to racial inequality that can be
solved only by an outside, all-knowing bureaucracy - the U.N. itself.
Their ultimate agenda is the disappearance of the sovereign nations
they claim to represent and the advent of a uniform global
government in which no one will be represented except the elites
themselves.

They're both good.

Cody

"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote

> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 14:18:28 +0200, "Cody" <cody@cody.vistalonghorn>
> wrote:
>
>>I've used AMDs since 2000 with no problems. I currently have three on
>>three
>>computers and they all run like silk.
>
> I guess my only excuse for becoming an Intel fan is because I can get
> Numero Uno for the same price as Second Ran.
>
> Just kidding. AMD is a fine company that keeps Intel from overcharging
> people like me.
>
>
> --
>
> Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
> http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html
>
> The ideological elites at the U.N. see the world as a collection of
> helpless and victimized peoples beset by an ever-widening array of
> "problems" ranging from civil wars to racial inequality that can be
> solved only by an outside, all-knowing bureaucracy - the U.N. itself.
> Their ultimate agenda is the disappearance of the sovereign nations
> they claim to represent and the advent of a uniform global
> government in which no one will be represented except the elites
> themselves.

"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:43046d5d.5479687@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:12:40 +0100, "Derek Baker"
> <me@xyzderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>when Intel states a speed, like 2.4 GHz, it is
>>> likely to be more representative of the actual speed of the processor.
>
>>No.
>
> Are you trying to say in one word that Intel lies about its cpu speed?

No, I'm saying that 2.4 GHz is the actual *clockspeed*; what it is not, is
representative of the *power* relative to another processor of a different
architecture.

>>>When AMD says 2000 they do not mean 2 GHz, they mean more like 1.5 GHz
>>> or thereabouts. Some vendors give you the speed so you can tell.
>
>>> If these figures are correct, then the comparison is moot. The Celeron
>>> wins hands down.
>
>>No.No.No.
>
> It looks like we have an AMD fan here.

Not a fan, but someone who appreciates a better processor (for what I do)
than Intel, at a given price point.

> I had a bad experiece with AMD once - the same as Dell had that caused
> them to drop AMD and go with Intel. So I dropped AMD and went with
> Intel. Now I hopefully won't have a bad experience.
>
>

I was under the impression that Dell doesn't do AMD because Intel pays them
not to.

--
Derek

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:18:00 +0100, "Derek Baker"
<me@xyzderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:

>Not a fan, but someone who appreciates a better processor (for what I do)
>than Intel, at a given price point.

Intel is pricey at the high end, but my 2.4 GHz Celeron D came in
comparable to the AMD equivalent.

>> I had a bad experiece with AMD once - the same as Dell had that caused
>> them to drop AMD and go with Intel. So I dropped AMD and went with
>> Intel. Now I hopefully won't have a bad experience.

>I was under the impression that Dell doesn't do AMD because Intel pays them
>not to.

The original story was that many years ago when Dell was buying AMD
exclusively, AMD lied to Dell about a heat issue - I believe in a
laptop. Dell had a huge recall on its hands so it was naturally pissed
at AMD and transferred its business to Intel, not only to avoid
getting burnt (pun intended) again but to break the negative image
with the public. If Dell had continued with AMD, it would have cost
them. Would you buy a laptop that catches on fire? Or so the story
goes - I did not really follow it that closely. Those were the days
when Houstonians supported Compaq, and I was one of them.

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:38:59 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Bob) wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:18:00 +0100, "Derek Baker"
><me@xyzderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Not a fan, but someone who appreciates a better processor (for what I do)
>>than Intel, at a given price point.
>
>Intel is pricey at the high end, but my 2.4 GHz Celeron D came in
>comparable to the AMD equivalent.

The issue is not whether 2.4GHz is the Celeron clock rate,
rather that "CPU speed" as it pertains to performance is not
related to clock rate across different CPU architectures.

There is not true "AMD equivalent" because the two are
designed so differently. The most demanding uses of the
system much be considered to determine which is better in
this bang-for-buck category... at least now that is the case
since Intel finally upped the L2 cache for the Celeron D
series... prior to that L2 cache increase, Celeron (non-D)
was quite slow.



>
>>> I had a bad experiece with AMD once - the same as Dell had that caused
>>> them to drop AMD and go with Intel. So I dropped AMD and went with
>>> Intel. Now I hopefully won't have a bad experience.
>
>>I was under the impression that Dell doesn't do AMD because Intel pays them
>>not to.
>
>The original story was that many years ago when Dell was buying AMD
>exclusively, AMD lied to Dell about a heat issue - I believe in a
>laptop. Dell had a huge recall on its hands so it was naturally pissed
>at AMD and transferred its business to Intel, not only to avoid
>getting burnt (pun intended) again but to break the negative image
>with the public. If Dell had continued with AMD, it would have cost
>them. Would you buy a laptop that catches on fire? Or so the story
>goes - I did not really follow it that closely. Those were the days
>when Houstonians supported Compaq, and I was one of them.


Nope, they receive kickbacks for using high volumes and
exclusive use of Intel CPUs. Dell does test and qualify
parts, there is no singular historical event that makes them
weary of entirely different CPUs.

"Fire" and laptops is utter nonsense... it's quite the
opposite, NEVER in the history of mankind has there ever
been anywhere near as hot-running a laptop as one with a P4
in it.

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 05:19:09 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

>"Fire" and laptops is utter nonsense... it's quite the
>opposite, NEVER in the history of mankind has there ever
>been anywhere near as hot-running a laptop as one with a P4
>in it.

Hey, I'm just the messenger. I never really paid any attention to
Dell's excuses at the time, since I was a loyal Compaq fan.

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:56:44 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Bob) wrote:

>On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 05:19:09 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>"Fire" and laptops is utter nonsense... it's quite the
>>opposite, NEVER in the history of mankind has there ever
>>been anywhere near as hot-running a laptop as one with a P4
>>in it.
>
>Hey, I'm just the messenger. I never really paid any attention to
>Dell's excuses at the time, since I was a loyal Compaq fan.
>


Fortunately P4 is an era Intel can't help but outgrow... it
may seem like I'm being hard on Intel but they do make good
products... but then so does AMD... Pentium M or A64/Sempron
just suit a laptop better than P4.