Celery 2 rocks!

[Four and Twenty 0]

My vote is Nader. Bush sucks and Gore "invented the Internet."

 

If i had to choose a processor right now I would most certianly choose a T-Bird. They are fast and cheap and they are good for more than just games. I built a computer on an Asus A7V with a 950 and it cranks auto cad 2k and photoshop. It has no stability problems in win 2k. So I would have to go with that. However I have a p3 right now and I am quite pleased with its performance. Unfortunatly Intel sucks and they rip you off and that is another reason to get amd.

 

 

------------------

My System

Dell Demension XPS T500

Dual Boot

Windows 2000 Pro 2195

Windows Millennium Final

PIII @ 500 Mhz (with after market heatsink and dual fan)

256 Megs Ram

TNT2 Ultra Graphics Card

Matrox Millennium PCI (for second monitor)

3Com 10/100 Ethernet Card

3Com 56k Modem

12.6 Gig IBM HD

40X CD Rom Drive

100 Mb Zip Drive

MS Explorer Mouse

MS Natural Keyboard Pro

[ledzeppel 0]

sapiens26,

 

HAHAHAHAHA!!! Quake III????? You want a challenge on Quake III???? That game is a POFS. It's only good for ONE thing. Real World Game Benchmarks. The REAL gamers quit playing that pathetic game a while back and started palying Counter-Strike. If you think you are ready to take on one of the best, then bring it. OH and by the way, I get 96 fps (QIII) on my MAIN machine. Genuine INTEL 733 and Geforce 2 GTS, with all the high quality stuff on you are talking about. I don't think your little T-bird can keep up unless it is over a gig.

[Silent-IQ 0]

What the heck is this **** all about? war between Intel and AMD?? i mean you cant come to me and tell me right in the eyes that AMD is a good cpu...you know and i know that AMD has ALWAYS HAD PROBLEMS!! and i mean always...i got at least 16 buddies that run amd and 4 of those had LUCK and got their machines to work prefectly, thats good coz if you whant something cheap and fast go for AMD but know this, there is a 70% risk that your AMD machine WILL NOT FUNCTION! and if you buy intel you will have to pay more but will have a 100% WORKING MACHINE!...thats just the way it is. There are to many ppl today having problem with their AMD to say that AMD rocks.....it just doesnt...yet...

 

/Silent

[sapiens74 0]

Counterstrike is beneath my machine and no Q3 then fine how bout some UT since you dont like that benchmarking program.. As to the AMD detractors saying that INTEL is 100% stable...tell that to all the CC820 board owners out there or the ones who bought the 1.13 GH chip..or maybe to Dell who had to delay release of P4.. lest we forget INtel recalled the orignal pentium chip cause of problems.. You take an AMD on a good brand name MOBO and install the drivers like your supposed too thy are rock solid stable..If they arent your not doing it right...Btw working in retail i can tell you the number one problem when putting a system together.....customers allways come off with "My buddy said" or "My buddy does"

 

F#$k your buddy he don't know SH@T do it the right way.

 

www.yourmom.com

 

 

FEWLS

[INFERNO2000 0]

Most of the people here know how to do it properly

 

And there are times when it just won't work. PERIOD.

 

My AMD experience was that way, and I KNOW how to build a system. I've done it many many times, and the AMD system was the only one EVER that has caused me problems. This goes from my old 386, to my 486, to the p1 100, to a PIII 500, Athlon 750, and PIII 800eb.

 

And those are just MY MACHINES.

 

I've redone about 20 other different computers as well, all of which were intel based however.

 

the AMD was the only problematic system...so what does this make me feel?

 

 

Intel may have bad issues such as the MTH, the 1.13 ghz..

 

But...overall (around this campus and with all the PCs I've dealt with) there are SIGNIFICANTLY fewer problems with intel cpu systems than with AMD.

 

 

CS is beneath your system? BS. The better the system, the more reason to play CS.

 

as for UT...screw it. It was built poorly, and doesn't take full advantage of a video card. It's sad that a PIII 600 with a Voodoo3 and a PIII 800 with a GeFOrce post similar FPS...

 

Take that into Quake3, where a video card gets used....and you notice a difference.

 

Halflife/Counterstrike maxes out for most people around 60 fps, due to the Zbuffer if I'm not mistaken...so the faster and better the video card and cpu, not always the better.

 

Just let it go.

People buy what they buy for their own reasons.

 

I bought an AMD becuase I wanted to.

I bought an Intel because the AMD made me have to.

 

A guys gotta do what a guys gotta do.

 

And my money will go to Intel and Mushkin until I feel that AMD will suit my needs and not crash.

 

 

------------------

NECESSARY EVIL

--Custom Built PC--

<Windows 2000 Advanced Server SP1>

Intel Pentium III Coppermine(FCPGA 370) 800eb @ 954 (with ThermalTake Golden Orb heatsink)

Asus CUSL2 motherboard(no onboard sound)Rev 1.02 BIOS rev 1003.004 Beta

256MB PC133 SDRAM (1x256 Mushkin Rev2 CAS 2:2:2)

SuperMicro 760A Full Tower(Modded for more fans and Painted Rustoleum Hammered Black)

SP301-RA 300W Athlon Approved Redundant Cooling Power Supply

IBM15-7 15GB UDMA/100 7200RPM hdd & 30GB MAXTOR Diamand Max UDMA/66 7200 RPM hdd

7 80mm,3 92mm, and 2 120mm High Output fans(along with 2 80mm in Power Supply, CPU, and GeForce fans) spewing out well over 1000 CFM

Creative Labs SB Live! X-Gamer running on Liveware 3

Creative Labs Graphics Blaster Annhilator Pro GeForce256 DDR on Detonator 6.34

Logitech Itouch Pro Wireless Ergonomic Keyboard

Microsoft Intellimouse Explorer(Gen 1) & Everglide (HL Giganta)

Logitech Soundman G1 Powered Speakers & AIWA HPX222 Headphones

D-Link DFE-530TX+ Ethernet Adapter

Compaq V720 17” (1280x1024) Monitor

Hewlett Packard 660Cse Printer

Memorex 4x2x24 CD-RW & Pioneer 6x DVD/ 32x CD-ROM

Hauppauge WinTV Go

[ledzeppel 0]

sapiens26,

 

You are such a joker. Counter-Strike beneath your machine???....Yeah right, Half-Life engine still roXXors....That's why more people make MODS with it then ANY other engine....and as far as gaming is concerned..there is more people playing CS then any of the others COMBINED!! If that doesn't speak for itself then what the F**K does. There's not a game out there that has the physics as nicely done as CS...So nice that it is going to be commercially released in December....UT?? what a cartoon that game is, no real-world weapons, no real-world physics (not to say that every single 'physics' in CS is real-world either, but it is the best balanced)...soooooo, when you want to get a grip and get a clue you come find the SEAL...and for the rest of you that don't play CS, your missing out on the biggest Tidal wave of gaming ever.

[tristan777 0]

led- half-life uses a modified quake 2 engine. and as far as physics go, well Thief was pretty good if i remember correctly, and Daytona USA or sega rally, cant remember which was real good for it's time....

 

i play quake, ut, and half-life. i think TFC is probably my favorite mod, though i play alot of CS and CCTF for q3 as well. i just wish that UT wasn't made for glide. in fact i wish glide would die off, so that we could get some more benchmarks that arent video card biased.

 

i benchmark 85 FPS in q3 w/ normal setttings, and with 32 bit color i get only 7 or 8 frames below that. which i dont think is bad since it's on a tnt2u, and a system with only 128 megs pc100 memory. i have a t-bird 800 btw.

 

i have had AMD chips since my 486 dx4-100 and havent had any problems. well my last one i had an MVP3 board and so i had to remove all the cards except video to install Win2k. but they have all been stable.

 

the unstable systems come from people with bad mobos or bad chipsets.

 

if they would just buy an Asus or Abit board they wouldnt have these problems. my computer runs just fine, except in UT, which i think is because the install got screwed up. but i can play other games forever and they do just fine...

 

sapien- i was agreeing with you until you started disrespecting half-life. :-/ half-life's the best shooter i have ever played, and CS is the best mod i have ever played that wasn't developed by the same people who made the game. it's not below anyone's system.

[ledzeppel 0]

I know what the half-life engine is. And as far as physics in Counter-Strike are concerned, it's way different then Half-Life, or any other game for that matter. That is all.

[jdulmage 0]

i'm throwing my hat in....I had....

 

1 intel processor back in 1994

Intel 486 DX2 at 66 Mhz...pretty good computer, it runs fast for it's speed....I didn't have to pay for it...

 

Got a 400 Mhz AMD K6-2, well, I was in heaven because it's awesome compared to my 486...

 

Got Athlon 550....loving it....boot time is fast, games are running great...and the processor is cheap in price....

 

Friend has P3 motherboard, same cache, bus, etc. I slap my hardware on it....muns like crap compared to my Athlon 550....he is running Pentium 600...so i'm like, what's the deal here? If I want Pentium, I have to pay almost 1/3 more in cost for less performance? what kind of crap is that...

 

Celeron 2 comes out, my friend switches to it, dumb move...Celeron 2 is slower than his P3, same speeds on it too....muns slower than his P3 and my Athlon....so i'm like...hmm, overclock it. So he does...muns better. better than his P3 did, but didn't beat my Athlon still...so he tells me "I shouldn't have bought this POS Celeron 2...I should have known back in the day when my Pentium 150 was running better than my school's Celeron 300 systems"....we both laughed...he sold off his whole computer, bought Athlon and said "Wow, now this is speed".....and I finished off by saying "Pentium is really only good as a dual or quad processor, etc. but a single Pentium chip ain't good enough"

 

My conclusion is you pay too much for too little in return with Intel, but they are damn good processors for compatibility and dual, quad, etc. As a single processor, Athlon wins. But yet Dual Athlons are coming out soon.....maybe the future holds yet another one of these dark and twisted tales....

 

[This message has been edited by jdulmage (edited 19 October 2000).]

[wind 0]

Anyone that thinks celeron 2 is faster than duron is just plain wrong. Instead of just giving my opinion, ill just give you some factual information / benchmarks so you can stfu and get over it.

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/reviews/cpu/duron_750/5.shtml and onwards,duron clearly winning in each situation, for games(check page 9, can you say+20fps for the same speed duron?), office applications and whatever.

 

Or how about.. http://www.planethardware.com/features/cpu/Celeron700/index5.shtml onwards, duron clearly winning there too..

 

You could argue that celerons overclock a lot, but even a overclocked celeron, a even mhz duron prolly isnt far off at the original clock of the celeron .. but then you could just overclock the duron too, which people have been doing very successfully..

 

such as: http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/articles/duron_vs_celeron_oc/

 

so overclocked durons are even faster..wow

 

So, the bottom line is, if your celeron is outperforming your athlon, or your duron, or your p3, or whatever, then somethings BROKEN, mis-configured, not working properly or just plain wrong.

 

Those are the facts, have a nice day.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by wind (edited 19 October 2000).]

[sapiens74 0]

First of all I made the HALF-LIFE joke in jest....it's the best single=player game of all=time and CS is ok just not my taste. Tastes in games is way to subjective.....Hell i still paly DIGDUG on mame cause i like too.....we talking about a how a company misleads and bullies their way to selling products making you believe theirs are the best

 

FU@K INTEL

www.yourmom.com

 

 

FEWLS

[Silent-IQ 0]

hmmm....how big is the difference between AMD and INTEL in performance? like 1% or 2% or even 3% at most...well geeeeee...what a fu@cking difference...**** i gotta get my self a AMD so i can get cheap on my @ss and MAYBE get it working. Get the fûck of my case boy and girls...stop flaming all over the place and if you like INTEL, BUY IT. it you dont fûck it! IF you like AMD, BUY it if not eat it.....now go help someone with a NT problem and dont flame about what you think and dont like.... :=)

[wind 0]

Actually, the difference is quite a bit higher than 1, 2, 3%. In ZD WinBench 99 CPUmark the 700mhz duron is about 25% faster than the 700mhz celeron. Also in other things they are ranging from 10-30% faster. So, it seems that durons are 10-30% faster than celerons in everything. Not to mention their a cheaper chip, and also overclock as well as celerons if thats your liking. So duron is better.

 

 

[This message has been edited by wind (edited 19 October 2000).]

[tristan777 0]

the athlon FPU is also 33% faster than the coppermine.

[ledzeppel 0]

OMG, You people need to get a grip, get a clue. There is NOT ONE PC faster than an INTEL Coppermine with a 440 BX Motherboard running at 133 MHz FSB. Who cares about those stupid synthetic FPU benchmarks, they are all misleading. AMD has you people brainwashed, I just buy whatever I think is the best solution at the time and the simplest. PERIOD. If that means AMD, then fine, but right now they don't have a better solution then 440 BX@133 and coppermine.

 

All of you get a grip, get a clue.

[Syncope 0]

I think I'll overclock my WinChip this weekend. Maybe I can get it to 333.3333333333MHz, if I get lucky maybe to 333.3333333334MHz. That should really make a difference. Maybe I'll also swap that AMI BIOS for an 815i. If things work out I'll retrofit the whole rig with RDRAM, swap in some optical interlinks for the now wholly outdated 80-pin SCSI cable. The whole thing will become a FreeNet server, backed up by my OC192, which should come back from repairs this weekend (at least that’s what RadioShack promised). The following weekend I'll set up two motherboards in SLI mode--double performance for triple the price, I always say.

 

Remember, the squeaky oil gets the wheel.

[INFERNO2000 0]

I just acquired a K6-2 450 system with a motherboard for 75 bucks.

 

What would this be comparable to in the intel lineup?

 

(I'm not overly familiar with the intel vs. AMD of 2 years ago)

[wind 0]

AMD K6-2's and alike are under celeron performance.

[Down8 0]

I had a K6-2 450, and it was about comparable to a Pentium 200. Those K6-2s jaded me against AMD for a long time to come.

 

-bZj

[INFERNO2000 0]

dammit.

So did I screw up?

[tristan777 0]

i wouldn't say comparable to a P200. i would say that it's prolly about equal to a Celery 300 or 366. u didn't really get totally screwed, but i prolly would have gone with something a little newer..

 

ledzeppel- no. actually what that means is that, with the same hardware and a clock for clock CPU a Athlon will render 33% faster than a P3...

 

440BX and a P3 may beat a Athlon at the same clock by about a frame or 2. but any other P3 board doesnt. and not at the same price either. the Athlon always ends up being the better deal. a T-bird 800 is like 160 bucks. for 160 bucks you could get a P3 550 or 600. you can't possibly think that the P3-600 outperforms an Athlon 800?

[ledzeppel 0]

Nope, your wrong again...wanna know why? Athlon-Geforce have to many incompatibility issues to call it a reliable system. So that means Athlon-Voodoo 5 vs PIII - Geforce.

 

Actually that 600 PIII will whip all over that 800 Athlon/T-Bird whatever. Wanna know how? That PIII 600 can run at 133 Bus! It is easily an 800EB in disguise (if not more)...can't overclock an Athlon like that, so in conclusion the PIII is the better buy once again. Plus every piece of hardware is compatible with it.

[Greggy 0]

Anyone who uses an AMD, Celeron or Cyrix (cough) CPU will always make all the excuses in the world as to why their CPU is better than the real thing, the PIII CuMine.

 

Does anyone ever ask for a Jack Daniels & Pepsi?

 

Greggy

Dual PIII 700 @ 933, MSI 694D (4in1 ver 4.25), 256Mb PC133, 32Mb GeForce2 GTS (Det 6.31), Barracuda 20Gb IDE on ATA-100, Win 2000 SP1 etc -= with no probs at all =-

[INFERNO2000 0]

Anyone who willingly and intentionally buys a cyrix should be shot.

 

I think AMD and intel users alike can agree on that one?

 

No excuses here. PIII CuMine. K6-2 for my portable PC(mobo and cpu cheaper than a Cel2 566)

[tristan777 0]

lol. go here:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/00q4/001017/index.html

 

look at the "Facts and lies" section. maybe then you will realize that the Athlons have no such compatibility issues.

 

have you ever actually ran an Athlon with a Geforce? or any other competant individual you know? my friend has a Geforce II MX on a Asus A7V(VIA KT133 chipset) with Athlon 800, and it runs just fine. also take a look at their test system for that review. you see that Geforce? i dont think they would have used a Geforce if it was "incompatible". i have a TNT2 and will probably upgrade to a Geforce 2, when they get a little cheaper.

 

ROFL, one more thing. the Athlon CPU is not multiplier locked. a few lines with a Graphite pencil will unlock the Socket-A cpus. you know what this means? BETTER overclocking. not worse.

 

here's another article, this time Socket-A overclocking:

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/00q3/000711/

 

ok, u buy that 600 and OC it to 800. then i overclock my 800 to 900 or maybe even 950 or maybeee 1000? so then which is the better deal?

 

Greggy- i don't even think Cyrix is around anymore. if AMD was anything like Cyrix, they probably would have met a similar demise.

 

i supose you may be right Greggy, but Intel users will always make excuses about why they continue to buy the overpriced Pentiums, and how there can never be a superior x86 processor than "The Real Thing"