AMD explains why the Durons are locked

[Tripleshot]

HepDude
I think Toms method is only for the faint of heart. I won't go there with my investment.

 

[da loser]

I think its hard to compare duron and celeron right now because who is going to buy the crappy mobos released right now, except the msi($150)? also you gotta compare price, but how can you compare price with no mobo support, everything will be cheaper.
cheapest on pricewatch

celeron600 $105+soyo 6ba+iv $100 +slocket $10 $215 (855-900) (95-100bus, is that fair?)

duron 650 $105+mobo $150 $255 715-750mhz(6.5*110-115mhz)

So which one?in almost all the benchmarks the celeron 850=duron 700
Celeron2 looks better right now. Really depends on the mobo pricing, though as more availability occurs duron will become better. If you do real work, although I doubt it, duron is better.

Both look like viable suggestions though with the p3 and thunderbird so close who knows. SlotA thunderbird 750 (almost all 900 core)for $199+ msi k7 pro $110. p3 700 $220+$100+$10. Just $310-$330, not much difference. You can discuss how the slotA is retired, but how many of you keep the same motherboard?features of kt are useless too.

My question is if you can overclock a thunderbird in slotA form, what's different with a socket one?yeah the gfd, but why couldn't mobo makers do it in the bios, never understood it.

 

[HepDude]

Over at AMDZone they are talking about new variations on Tom's method.

Ultimately, it will be interesting to see to what degree the motherboard companies are willing to leave off the relevant switches, etc. to adjust the multiplier. It would seem odd that they would be willing to do so, considering that they have all these other switches and adjustments that are of no use to anyone other than the enthusiasts, ie the OCers.

 

[Scifione]

I don't recall saying that the Celeron2 (AKA castated P3) would not be a good and cheep upgrade for BX owner. (BX the chip set that refuses to die! Intel has its head on the chopping block, but that is another tread.) I think that if you have to by a motherboard the Duron looks far better than what Intel has to offer now. If the Duron 700Mhz makes the Celeron 700Mhz look like Cyrix so be it. There are multiple web pages with reviews of the C2 and Duron that say the same thing. The C2566@850 loses to the Duron 700Mhz on multiple benchmarks.

Intel has earned some loyal custumers with the Celeron and its legondary overclocking, and this tread shows that. With the number of BX owners, there will not be a short supply of C2 buyer.

Also I think that everone here with the exception of Hyper99 has said some intellegent things!

 

[Rectalfier]

Craperon Sucks!

Go here

http://www.bigfootcomputers.com

Craperon 566@850 $250 Canadian
Duron 600@900 $175 Canadian

If you are building a new system, there is simply no contest here.

 

[MadRat]

Local prices in Omaha, Nebraska.

Duron 600 = $99

MSI Socket-A m/b w/BIOS adjustments = $139

Celeron 566 = $126

EDM Slot-1 m/b Pro133 = $39 (special this week)
Soyo VBA6 m/b Pro133 = $79

We have a Duron that reaches 700-950 for $238
We have a Celeron that reaches 800-1000 for $165-$205

I'd rather take the 950mHz Duron in an ideal situation.
I already picked up the c566/EDM combo so the Duron will wait a few weeks.

 

[Hyper99]

you know what mikewarrior you're so full of yourself
and everything you said is completely bulls***
I'll buy which ever I like most, and not be pushed into one
You started off calling me retard.
You are one low scum bag, you hear me?

 

[Mikewarrior2]

Whatever you say... mr. "overclocking is useless" and now "the pr system is king" and "duron sucks".

And notice I never once called you a retaard, but I called your posts "idiotic". I also really don't care what you buy... Buy whatever the hell you want... But i'm here to prevent your "idiotic" posts from effecting consumers who would like to know hte truth, not some idiotic rabmling.



Mike

 

[Hyper99]

first im retarded and now i'm
idiotic huh?
that is pure flaming and I think you should get the ban instead
there is some people who dislike and like certain thing and what make you
think you can just try to shove your way around with calling other names
dude get off my back.
You are beginnng to irritate me out of your own stupidity.

 

[Mikewarrior2]

Again, where did I call you a retard... and where did I call you an idiot..

For the last time, YOUR POSTS ARE IDIOTIC. That in no ways says you are an idiot. It says that what you post is gibberish and doens't make any sense.


Mike

 

[Hyper99]

Dude you can go talk to yourself cause I'm fed up with ya
Later, you're a complete waste of my time.
and you who inflame me to begin with as far as I can remember.

Moderator if you can read back please see that I wasn't flaming at
all, just my opinion.
He doesn't care what I said, infact step on my head constantly making me look like an idiot.

 

[Thorn]

Ok guys, I'm a big supporter of AMD (as almost everyone well knows), but there is a major sticking point here. If you'll excuse me a moment I'll point it out.

Why does the average person (gamers included) need a CPU faster than 600MHz (or even 500 for that matter)? Even the fastest video cards can't keep up with anything faster than that, except at ridiculously low res... and who really plays Q3A and UT at 640x480? In fact I'll venture a prediction here. I say there won't be a 3D accelerator released in the next 18 months that'll really push a 700MHz P3 or Athlon to it's limits at a decent res (1024x768+). And if you don't need the horsepower for games what else do you need it for? 3D rendering (maybe)? Word? RC5? C'mon guys... a Duron 700 or Celery OCed to 800MHz+ is all the CPU that almost anyone's gonna need for the next year (maybe 2).

Let me tell ya, I'm an extremist... I buy PC hardware that I don't even need simply because I have a lust for new stuff. But a blazingly fast CPU (800MHz+) is not neccessary (and most likely a waste of cash). Maybe when the NV30, V10, or G1600 comes out we might reap the benefits of a super fast CPU but that time is not right now.

Ok, who disagrees? And why do you think I'm wrong?

 

[DarK SagE]

Are current Durons OCable with orthdox methods?

 

[randomlinh]

Thorn, they need it cause they have the same lust for new hardware.. Oh wait, you said average people I have that same problem....

 

[Kjazlaw]

is it not completely obvious that English is not Hyper99's first language? give the guy a break...

 

[RSI]

Huma: << Oh my god, Hyper99, are you retarded? >>

Mikewarrior2: << You'll have to ignore Hyper99 and his idiotic posts. >>

Hyper99: You are WAY out of line, you are the one flaming - making uncalled for accusations. Step back. Your points were analysed and replied to very fairly by Mikewarrior2.

Sisof Sandra is not an accurate tool - no matter what. I did a test for floppy, and it said it writes at 8MB/s. Very accurate eh? Use HD Tach (for hard drives) and use WinBench (or other tools by the same company) or Wintune, etc.. Sisoft Sandra and the &quot;PR&quot; they use is completely irrelevant. On top of it, it is ESTIMATED, as indicated. Same with the seek time, it appears low (I got 5ms), it SAYS it is estimated.

You really should read more carefully before attacking other people and accusing them of attacking you. How pathetic - and crying to the moderators on top of it - did you wonder why they didn't do anything? I'm sure they read this.

Edit: Whether English is his primary language or not, I don't care - the rules at the forums remain the same, and he should respect others the same.. if he is not fluent in English, he should realize that he could have misinterpreted something, and try to see what went wrong.

-RSI
Have a nice day...

 

[ccc]

Thorn,
You are wrong.

I forgot the site, but I read it somewhere :
the source from Intel said that if you need
a processing power of 600Mhz, you probably
need a CPU around 800Mhz or even 1GHz, due
to some processing powers are dedicated for
bus communication, managing memory, OS, ...

Hey wait till voice recognition software matures,
then we will need a CPU at least 2 GHz

Remember when someone in 70s (forgot his name, he is famous
in computer industry, was it someone from IBM ? or
Intel ? or Microsoft ?) said that 64Kb memory
is the most memory that someone will require in the
computer ?

 

[Mikewarrior2]

I will not give Hyper99 a break.

First off, No One can make you look like an idiot. You can only make yourself look like an Idiot(i learned this the hard way).

Secondly, He has continuously made flammatory remarks toward overclockers and generally everybody. Its obvious most people dont' know his rant from the Overclocking and CPUs/Processors thread. DO you watn to really know what he said?

He said that we overclockers lied about what are chips could do. He claimed that they were all unstable. He said we were liars. He said overclocking was useless. And he based all this &quot;knowledge&quot; on his overclocking of AMD chips. This and his other posts bring to light a clear reflection of his knowledge(or lack thereof).

He continues to attack me personally for remarks I have not made. I have never once called him retarded. As was pointed out above, it was someone else that said it. IF hyper99 wants to think that every deragotory post made against him was in fact made by me, then fine. I really don't care.

My sole goal in countering his posts is to prevent him from Misinforming others on the BBS.

Its a fact that after many, many, many useless and pointless threads that many of us disagree with him.(and he was warned by the moderators before) that he should cease starting flame wars.


Mike

 

[billcat]

Yes, that makes sence, locking cpu's that give credibility in the corperate world even though they most likely won't even be buying that model of cpu in the first place. Small business will use them but ones that do need processing power won't. I don't really beleve it but amd doesn't want to insult the overclockers or the end users so they sugar coated a excuse. Then again until there is real facts anything could be valid for a reason. It will sure help with the remarking and the sale of overclocked cpu's for profits AMD won't see and overall protect the users of their products. Then again it came from the Register and it's hard to take anything they say as fact.

 

[Goi]

Thorn...it really depends. I have a Celeron 533 here running at 600MHz, with 256MB SDRAM and a 3dfx Voodoo3 3000 running at 183MHz. With almost all game/graphical settings turned to the minimum or turned off, with the quake3 DLL patch, WickeGL and latest V3 drivers, I'm still only pushing ~58FPS at Quake3 demo001. My CPU, even at 600MHz, is severely limiting my Voodoo3, which is capable of doing much more than 58FPS. Even my older C300A@450,464 or 504MHz did demo001 in the 60s, before it died.

 

[Toxin]

<< and where did I call you an idiot.. >>



question mike: doesn't it take an idiot to make an idiotic post?

anyways.. Hyper and Mike: chill out we should lock you two in a room for an hour

 

[AndrewR]

Would it be feasible for AMD to allow a company to make an adapter that would allow multiplier manipulation but which, when installed, changes the BIOS identifier so that it was COMPLETELY obvious that the core was a certain speed? For example, if you had a Duron 700, the ID for the chip at boot if clocked at 950 might read &quot;Overclocked Duron 700/950&quot; or something to that effect.

Then, it would be apparent to any corporate buyer or any uneducated consumer that what they had purchased is a Duron 700, not a 950.

Just a thought.

 

[JimMc]

Thorn, the prediction was

<< I say there won't be a 3D accelerator released in the next 18 months that'll really push a 700MHz P3 or Athlon to it's limits at a decent res (1024x768+) >>

.

18 months ago Anand was testing 16 MB TNT's and 3dFX Banshees, we now have 64 MB DDR GeFroce 2's. If we see a comparable increase in video processing power over the next 18 months, there is no way a 700 Mhz Athlon or PIII will keep up, not even close. QIII is a somewhat anomalous benchmark anyway because of the unusually large textures it throws around. Other games scale with CPU +'s even at 10X7 32 bit, how about sims which rely heavily on AI as well as graphics. Not to mention the entire WORLD of applications which many average people run in the areas of graphics, animation, music, databases, etc, that benefit from every extra bit of CPU horsepower.

Obviously there is a point of diminshing returns, the flagship processors from AMD/Intel are way overpriced compared to the next level or two down, but that certainly doesn't mean a 700-800 Mhz CPU is a complete waste compared to a 600 Mhz part. No matter what you buy, it will be somewhat obsolete, but still functional, in a year or two. Buying-up now simply pushes that date a little further into the future and how much you are willing to pay for that is really just a personal decision.

If a 600 Mhz CPU is $200, an 800 Mhz is $290 and a 1000 Mhz CPU is $700, I'd buy the 800. Sure, I'm paying about 50% more for a 30% increase in speed, but I don't adhere to that slightly goofy Modus approach to pricing computer components. An extra $90 for 200Mhz is OK, but I simply won't pay $700 for a CPU.

Edit: I may as well say something about the orignal topic, it sucks that AMD is locking these CPU's. It will make ZERO difference to a big company, they could care less. They buy computers from Compaq, Dell, whatever, they won't end up with a remarked CPU. It probably made my decision for me, a cBO 700 Mhz PIII with the Asus 815 MB. I was going to go for a Duron 600 and overclock to 950, oh well.....

 

[Soccerman]

Billcat

Good post.

Yes, Thorn, the computer industry moves so fast, that we need the Internet to keep up!

hey that's a cool sentence no? I like it! I could quote it if I had to!

now, anyway, look at this from another way.

Duron + new motherboard = more then just upgrading your BX to the latast CPU, however with the BX, you have to make it jump through a few hoops just as you have to with the AMD solution (heat, PCI bus and AGP bus Speed, Slot/Socket) so neither one is perfect.

Now, the part about the other perspective. How much longer will you be able to have new CPU's running on BX? I assure you, Intel would not have let this go on, if the i820 was a hit (which it most definetly was NOT). THe BX will die, however the Socket A platform has a fair amount of life left in it (hell it just STARTED, and I can already see the end..), enough to compete well with the Willamette if you ask me.

 

[Modus]

Thorn is absolutely right: anything faster than a Duron 600 is currently useless, except in professional applications.

A look at any recent game benchmarks will tell you that at proper resolutions (1024 or higher), the video card is the bottleneck. The framerate only dips as we go bellow about 550 MHz. And the rise of hardware T&amp;L is only exacerbating this situation.

You might argue that there are plenty of other non-professional tasks where CPU speed is an issue, but you would be wrong. There aren't any. The only place CPU speed is an issue is 3D processing: games, rendering, CAD, etc. And all of the later are in the realm of professional work.

Modus