Speed, speed, SPEEEEED!!!

**screwtype** · 09-23-2005, 16:26

Bit late to tell me that now :)

Actually I'm not all that keen on AMD. They run pretty hot and only come with a twelve month warranty, as opposed to 3 years for the Intel. And besides, it's too hard trying to figure out what their funny numbers mean in terms of actual megaherz :)

**Taurus** · 09-23-2005, 17:17

Yeah some people would say that but when you realise that an Athlon is actually twice as good as the equivent Intel then it's worth it.

Athlons are far far better.

P.S I don't mean to cause any offence btw mate

Sorry for dissin' your Celeron

**edyzmedieval** · 09-23-2005, 17:26

Celeron has to be the low-end of Intel....It's kinda slow...

As for Intel Pentium, good. I have a Intel Pentium Mobile at 3,2GHZ with Hyper Threading. Great laptop.

**Spino** · 09-23-2005, 18:19

Originally Posted by screwtype

Bit late to tell me that now :)

Actually I'm not all that keen on AMD. They run pretty hot and only come with a twelve month warranty, as opposed to 3 years for the Intel. And besides, it's too hard trying to figure out what their funny numbers mean in terms of actual megaherz :)

Not sure about the warranty but the new Athlon 64 and Sempron chips do not run hot. In fact, they run substantially cooler than their Intel counterparts. They're also faster and run at much lower clock speeds than Intel's latest chips.

**Taurus** · 09-23-2005, 20:15

Not sure about the warranty but the new Athlon 64 and Sempron chips do not run hot. In fact, they run substantially cooler than their Intel counterparts. They're also faster and run at much lower clock speeds than Intel's latest chips.

Exactly mate

**screwtype** · 09-24-2005, 20:26

Originally Posted by Spino

Not sure about the warranty but the new Athlon 64 and Sempron chips do not run hot. In fact, they run substantially cooler than their Intel counterparts. They're also faster and run at much lower clock speeds than Intel's latest chips.

Yeah, I think you might be right about that. Although I believe that Intel have a technology that shuts the chip down if it overheats, whereas the AMD just burn up. At least, that's how it used to be.

I really should have done more research before buying though. I do with most hardware, but when it comes to CPU's, I'm inclined to think they're like RAM, one chip is much the same as another. Sure, one CPU will score a few FPS more than another in the lab - but are you really going to notice the difference in practice? In most cases, probably not.

**Reverend Joe** · 09-24-2005, 20:31

I came here expecting a thread about amphetamines...

"Aw, man, you ain't afraid of a little speed, are you?"
"Oh, you got some speed, man?"

**Beirut** · 09-24-2005, 21:42

My AMD64-3000/512RAM/9800Pro runs stable like bedrock. Handles everything I throw at it but does slow down on some of the new stuff like the F.E.A.R and Battlefield 2 demos. Those have to run at 800x600 for decent FPS. Everything else runs at 1024x32 with AA and AF at 4X or so.

The 64-3000 CPU is cheap enough these days and the 9800Pro is also reasonable. Makes for a good "low end of the high end" rig.

I've used Athlons for years and never had one second of trouble with them. I did get some overheating shut downs this summer but those were on brutal hot days. Never any other time though.

**Uesugi Kenshin** · 09-24-2005, 21:56

Current Athlon 64's are superior in EVERY WAY to Intel's. Yes the older chips used to not have a heat cut-off, but all of the recent ones do, and that includes all Athlon 64's. The Athlon 64's also run a lot cooler than equivalent Intel chips because they have much lower clock speeds. The main difference is the Pentium 4 and all of its offshoots are made for long pipelines (may have the wrong term here, but it means basically the same thing) and really high clock speeds, while the A64's are designed for short pipelines and lower clock speeds, this means the A64's have to send the information a far shorter distance and do not need the higher clockspeeds. The A64's are more powerful than the Intel equivalent and generally much cheaper, my A64 2.2ghz was about equal to a 600 dollar Intel chip and cost only 200. When I have it overclocked (cold weather only) it is capable of besting any Intel chip on the market when it came out, I go up to 2.4ghz.

That said you still have a solid cpu.

Congratulations on your upgrade!

**screwtype** · 09-25-2005, 16:41

Thanks Uesugi

For me the choice would have been between the 2.8 Celeron D and the Sempron 3000+. They are both the same price. The Sempron might be technologically superior, but it would have to be since it only runs at 2 Ghz. So I doubt there would be much difference in performance between the two.

Anything faster than that, on either side of the tech barrier, and I'd be paying almost twice as much. Now maybe a 3 Gig Pentium is twice as good as a 2.8 Celeron but I have my doubts. So the Celeron seemed like good value to me. And if it wasn't the best chip for the money, too bad. It's still three times faster than my old rig