The Best overclock bang for the buck.........

[TuffGuy]

look at my sig. see what i have? unlike others, i'm not pro intel or pro amd, so i'm not pimping one company over the other.

as to your argument that the regular user does not need that much power and that it's not noticeable to the naked eye. granted. the regular user also doesn't overclock. that is not the point that i am debating. did you guys even read the title of this thread? it is called The Best overclock bang for the buck......... . this whole thread is about performance and power, PERIOD.

 

[jdaves]

Why don't you guys stop whineing about which CPU is faster...besides both are fast!...and cost the same after mobo etc...SO STOP WHINENIG AND AMD SUCKX!!!!!! INTEL RULEzzzzz!!!!!!!!! and...a P3 is the BEST!!!...the mobo's hold the t-bird back...so stop whineing!!!!

 

[rigor3]

3dmark 2000 score of 5020 :
cost:
mobo+celeron+slotket+ddr geforce(or 2mx) $250

I spose you could get the $duron 600 gigabyte combo, no multiplier hack, and run it at like 660 and get a geforce 2 mx for the same price.

and prolly get similar results in speeds.

someone run their duron @ 660 with a geforce DDR or 2mx and post the 3dmark 2000

 

[TuffGuy]

you guys are nuts. but as long as you're happy...

 

[pdo]

I have just got a Duron rig and I didn't even have to buy some new parts to run it. It ran fine on my 235W PS and I been cracking RC5 for 4 straight days already. This baby will run circles on even the PIII when it comes to cracking RC5.

 

[nate hancock]

Well said, Tuffguy.

 

[SilverBack]

According to the AMD website, the Duron cpu should be able to run on a 150W Power Supply
of course I don't think any GTS owners would get it to work

 

[SilverBack]

Borzack
You really need to be enlightened.
The BX chipset is indeed a very good chipset , although it's age is definately showing. The biggest problem being no real PC133 support. I know that there are people who have been able to do that and beyond, but we are talking bang for the buck here. Not about the guy who spent $100
on his whole peltier kit.

The Duron cpu's scale much better than the celeron cpu's.
In every benchmark......
Not just one or two, but every one you care to mention.

As said here at Anandtech :"
While we originally attributed this to the fact that the Celeron had 1/2 the L2 cache of the Pentium III, it later became known that it wasn?t the fault of the L2 cache but rather the fact that it was only a 4-way set associative L2 cache in comparison to the Pentium III?s 8-way set associative L2 cache, which allows the Pentium III?s L2 cache to achieve a higher hit rate than the L2 cache on an equivalently clocked Celeron."
"This allowed AMD?s Duron, which turned out to be almost as fast as the original Athlon, to come in and completely dominate the ?value? market."
Well said.
From your strict attitude from your posts it's quite apparent that you have never worked with the
the Duron or TBird cpu's. You really should take a look at the Duron in the value segment.
What the Duron has going for it versus the Celermine:
1. A larger fullspeed cache. You and I both know that larger and faster cachemeans better performance. "Just like the Thunderbird, the Duron features an exclusive L2 cache versus the more conventional inclusive L2 cache architecture." What does this mean? Well the Duron has a cache size of 192k versus the Celeron's 128k, more is better.
2. The 200MHz EVA bus versus the bus speed of your overclocked bus.
3. Compatibilty, this should make you start yelling But it's true.
PC133 compatibilty. 4x AGP , Fast writes, SBA, the list is a long one. ATA66 and now ATA100 support. All on motherboards that are near the same price as a quality BX board.
4. SMP support <<<<<Big one The Celermine can't do it...

So you see spending money in the &quot;value&quot; segment is actually smarter if you are buying a Duron.
More features, much better performance, and upward compatibilty.

 

[RobsTV]

Since the Duron is still fairly new, it still hasn't really begun to show it's potential.
Check out this new comparison at Tom's Hardware:
AMD vs. Intel: The best CPU for MPEG-4
This shows how the performance of the Duron is needed, and has pages titled:
AMD Duron beats Intel Pentium III
Summary: Duron has the best Price-to-Performance Ratio

And for those of you that think a Celeron can compete with the Duron:
The Celeron Killer -AMD's New Duron Processor
But this is dated June 19th and a lot has changed for the better since then.

Don't like Tom's? Here's another review from June.:
AnandTech- AMD Duron - Conclusion Which says in part: &quot;&quot;On the Intel side of things, the Duron 700 is performing between a Pentium III 600 and a Pentium III 700 as well&quot;&quot; and &quot;&quot;Chances are that the &quot;slowest&quot; Duron running at 600MHz would have its way with Celerons clocked at higher speeds as well.&quot;&quot;

 

[bozack]

you know I am sorry that I dont feel one should play arts and crafts with their cpu for it to be able to overclock, drawing with a graphite pencil seems a little sketch, especially for a cpu that runs as hot as the duron.

Yeah it may be faster in benchmarks, and in rc5 (woo hoo who even really cares about that?) but will I notice and even if I did notice would I really care-probabily not

celeron even at only 633 is fast enough for me and cheaper than a duron setup

bx chipset is old and has no 133 support but the 815 is new and not as expensive as the duron boards currently available if you shop around.

 

[crackerdaddy]

Hey SilverBack (or anyone who has ordered the combo from mwave), what sink/fan does that come with? I'm sure its nothing special but I am considering ordering one of these and was curious.
Thanks!

 

[SilverBack]

It's a 2 x 2 inch Heatsink with a fan on top made by Cooler Master. ,
It's not a remarkable HSF , but it does work.

Just found a model number:
Cooler Master DP5-5G11

Here is a Picture of the little bad boy

 

[Fish54]

I hate to say it, but this argument is a bit silly. It is very clear, that while there is no doubt that the Celeron/BX setup is slightly cheaper, and WILL be the CHEAPEST upgrade path for those already in possesion of a BX board, if one is to setup a new system involving the purchase of a motherboard and cpu, the Duron clearly has the best bang for the buck. WE ARE NOT SAYING WHICH IS CHEAPER! The Duron will run with PC100 RAM, and an old 235/250W P/S. In fact, I am running my Duron 600@915 with PC100 SDRAM and an old 250W P/S. The fact of the matter is that the Duron is so much faster than the Celeron, that is makes up for it's slightly higher price. Just my 2 cents, but I am a poor ass college student and I do my homework before buying anything, this I know. Good luck Celeryheads!
-Fish54

 

[redpriest_]

Losing argument chief. I had a BH6 board as well, so I indeed had the option of buying a Celeron II to replace the Celeron 300a@450 that was in that board. I chose to go for the slightly more expensive route of buying an Abit KT7 and a Duron 600. Needless to say, at 954 MHz, I will challenge ANY celeron II owner to a CPU duel and win hands down.

Personally, I just don't see the point of strapping a powerful, $300 video card to a junk processor (Celeron II + GeForce GTS? Please, come again. Buy a real processor like a PIII or Tbird). It just doesn't make sense shelling out that much money for a good video card, but then strap it down to something that'll never come close to the fill-rate limits that a GeForce2 can provide. I mean, come on. At $133, spend the extra freaking $50 to purchase a REAL processor like a PIII.

If you want to compare the Celeron II to a Duron, compare it with an EQUAL video card, and I'm not talking about special tech-deals where you got 256 MB of RAM for $38, or regurgitated hardware that you happen to have in the basement. Building from SCRATCH, a new owner would have to be pretty blindsighted to waste the money on a BX board + Celeron II for the same price as a Duron + Abit KT7.

Arts and crafts on a new processor? LOL. If you are too dumb to connect the freaking dots, then you have NO BUSINESS owning a computer in the FIRST place! You can also buy UNLOCKED processors, you know -- it's called going to a computer show, and examining the processor for connected bridges. This is so childishly simple that even a moron could figure it out. I suppose that would require eyesight to do, so I guess blind people are stuck with Celerons -- oh wait a minute, I forgot, it requires eyesight to overclock those as well.

Calling TuffGuy an AMD fan is just plain stupid as well. His personal system is a PIII 700@1000 MHz, and therefore he is not blinded by Celeron II OR Duron bias. If you don't want to take my word for it as fact since I own a Duron system, you can take his. The benchmarks CLEARLY show that for EVERY single benchmark, it takes a Celeron CLOCKED 200-300 MHz higher to beat a Duron. When you compare this to 85% of the Duron 600s that does 900 with ease, and 950+ with some effort, you need a Celeron II 1200-1300 MHz to even come close in performance. You can't even use the overclocking argument to your advantage, since I would be willing to bet the same ratio (85%) of processors hit the 900 MHz mark.

 

[redpriest_]

Ah, back to the typical lame FUD argument of heat. If you want a cool processor chief, why don't you pick up a G4. You don't even need an active fan to run those, just a small heatsink. LOL.

If the performance gap isn't worth it, why are you overclocking??? Overclocking implies that the extra 300 MHz of performance is WORTH it to you. If it wasn't worth it, why overclock at all? It just seems stupid that you are overclocking if you admit to the fact that you don't really need it! Why risk voiding your warranty and all those other clauses that anti-overclockers like to add on. A miniscule risk to be sure, but why risk any additional amounts when you CLEARLY demonstrate that you can't notice the difference? (And yes, Duron performance is 200-300 MHz more than a Celeron II of equal clock, so if you can't see a 200-300 MHz difference, why bother overclocking a Celeron II the same amount?)

It makes no logical sense.

 

[bozack]

Wow what is with you and the name chief?

First off I just don't see using a pencil to draw some lines on my processor as something I would want to do. If I knew that was involved I would either spend more and get a cpu I didn't have to draw on or leave it stock.

Secondly I used to be big into keeping a cool computer, especially since I thought I was a bad ass by ocing a celeron, but now I have been working in the field for a while and realise having some monstorous fans is a waste of time and money, and worrying about heat just sucks-constantly running monitoring programs, having 19 fans in your system just to be safe it just isnt worth it (but that is extreme which at one point was where I was)

I work now with 550-700 mhz systems at nasa running cpu intensive programs all day every day and rarely notice a difference (visually) between the two systems. In fact my 450 celeron at home seems alot faster than most of the 700mhz systems we have here, and I know my cable connection is better too.

Asd I said before best bang for the buck new system would most likely be a duron if your willing to overclock and even if your not, I myself just wouldnt bother with them because of what I consider bad motherboards and too many issues I would rather not deal with, I work with intel stuff all day every day and never have a major issue and their performance/price is fine with me

 

[pdo]

case close now let's go on and live our lives.