Oops....reply....reply to all....same difference :P ----- Original Message ----- From: "dgilleece" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Scott C. Best" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 11:05 AM Subject: Re: [Leaf-user] Celeron/Pentium vs Duron/Athlon
> I love AMD....rock solid performance:$ ratio --- with a catch. If you are > going to be meticulous in your handling of AMD chips, the will serve you > well. If you need to build systems to hand off to clients, you may want to > reconsider. The fact is this: AMD chips commit suicide if cooling fails > for any reason, Intel chips don't. Intel chips automagically throttle down > to save the system, where AMD chips just cook themselves to death. > Something to consider. > > In my situation, I use AMD for almost everything. If I build a system to > sell, it's an Intel chip. The reason is simple: I have to warrantly them. > If a customer decides to stick the firewall in closet, there will be an > eventual buildup of dust on the fans and heatsink, high ambient air temp in > the closet --- a recipe for failure. I won't take the chance on factors > outside my control. > > So, there's the balanced, non-religious, do-what-works perspective :) > > Dan > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Scott C. Best" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 2:29 AM > Subject: Re: [Leaf-user] Celeron/Pentium vs Duron/Athlon > > > > Greg: > > Heya. A quick comment or two to your recent post: > > > > > > Is there a significant performance penalty when using a Celeron or > > > > Duron processor vs an Athlon or Pentium. Not just in speed but in in > > > > the ability to process. > > > > > > This is a really broad question. It all depends on what you want to > > > do. I read a performance review on www.tomshardware.com. I don't recall > > > the link but the data is almost a year old. It influenced how I look at > > > hardware now. > > > > I know the feeling. THG influenced the way that I look > > at *benchmarks*. Each of them (and there are many; typically THG's > > site uses a dozen or so different benchmarks when the review or > > compare & contrast multiple systems) is essentially restricted from > > demonstrating infinite performance because of a system bottleneck. > > That is, typically just one thing in the system will holdback a > > system's performance in any given benchmark. This could be cache > > size, FSB speed, CPU MHz, northbridge chipset vendor, memory bus > > bandwidth, memory latency, graphics card speed, etc. > > So the best way to see how "good" a system is is to run it > > against multiple benchmarks which evaluate performance against multiple > > bottlenecks. Then you can make an informed decision about where to > > spend your money to "go after" the cheapest bottleneck. I'd agree > > with what Tom said: for sub-1GHz machines, the most bang for a buck > > can most often be had by upgrading the graphics card. > > > > > > > Tom's Hardware has made other comparisons. He has found Duron and > > > Athlon's out perform Intel chips. I get the picture that the food chain > > > looks like celeron, pentium, duron, athlon...this is a genralization. > > > The other problem when looking at speed is that Intel use this a > > > marketing tool. AMD chips perform better at lower speeds suggesting > > > that "the ability to process" is held by AMD chips. > > > > > > You could start a religious war here. :) THG does a fairly > > good job of reporting about which systems are currently the top-dog > > at a given price target. I'd agree that AMD holds the lead here. > > However, THG also overclocks whatever they can get their hands on, > > to see whose system has more game left in it. In this category, Intel's > > P4 is out in front (though you'd pay more it). > > > > Also, I understand that there are multiple "reporters" who > > work for THG, and they each have their personal preferences. I > > recall reading one who was upset about paying $15 more for a stick > > of RDRAM than DDR SDRAM, but thought paying $20 more for CAS=2 > > memory instead of CAS=2.5 memory was "well worth it". Shrug. > > > > Lastly, surely both Intel and AMD use performance numbers as > > marketing tools: Intel boasts that they have the fastest CPU frequency, > > and AMD boasts that their design does more work per clock cycle so it > > doesn't matter. They're competitors approaching a big market in two > > different manners (Intel wants to own the high-margin Performance > > Desktop segment, while AMD wants to own the high-volume Mainstream > > Desktop segment), so I'm not surprised that there's marketing and > > positioning. I'd greatly prefer the spend their monies on that than > > on, say, more Blue Man Group advertisements. :) > > > > cheers, > > Scott > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leaf-user mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user > > > _______________________________________________ Leaf-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
