View Full Version : Excellant Article On Budget Processors.(under 100)
_John_Lennon_
12-05-2003, 10:47 PM
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=1
Found the article today nosing around the anandtech site, and it puts a great perspective on the budget end of processors, with all the benchmarks they ran and tests they did.
abu_has_the_power
12-05-2003, 11:46 PM
y is the stats comparing a athlon xp 2600 to a crappy p4 1.8 a? that's unfair and biased man
read up? BUDGET CPU SHOOTOUT
abu_has_the_power
12-05-2003, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by DWk@5 December 2003 - 18:52
read up? BUDGET CPU SHOOTOUT
i know. but obviously the p4 1.8a is not gonna be able to compare to any athlon xps higher than 2000. y don't they just compare something in the same league?
Virtualbody1234
12-05-2003, 11:59 PM
Because the Intel CPU of the same performance is way over the $100 barrier.
wow, xp2600 kicked ass on almost everything
Smurfette
12-06-2003, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by abu_has_the_power+5 December 2003 - 23:54--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (abu_has_the_power @ 5 December 2003 - 23:54)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-DWk@5 December 2003 - 18:52
read up? BUDGET CPU SHOOTOUT
i know. but obviously the p4 1.8a is not gonna be able to compare to any athlon xps higher than 2000. y don't they just compare something in the same league?[/b][/quote]
Because it's about what you get for your money... why on earth would you compare a budget priced AMD with the comparable but over-budget Intel equivalent?
If Intel priced their 2.5GHz processor a little nearer the Athlon then same-speed comparisons would become relevant; as it is, Intel don't and the comparisons aren't.
Virtualbody1234
12-06-2003, 12:17 AM
Also the 1700+ almost consistently outperforms the Pentium 4 - 1.8
And look at this one where the most expensive P4 is the least performing. (even overbudget in this test at $120.)
http://server4.uploadit.org/files/051203-chart.gif
clocker
12-06-2003, 12:25 AM
Hee,hee,hee!
I knew my 2600+ was my ace in the hole....
Smurfette
12-06-2003, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by Virtualbody1234@6 December 2003 - 00:17
Also the 1700+ almost consistently outperforms the Pentium 4 - 1.8
And look at this one where the most expensive P4 is the least performing. (even overbudget in this test at $120.)
Hehe, my 1700+ is quite merrily running at 1.84GHz (2200+ -ish) without getting too near 50degC under load.
I'm happy with that! :D
bigdawgfoxx
12-06-2003, 12:28 AM
It says the 2400 runs at 2Ghz...I didnt know it was that fast! its faster then the 2500 ...that makes no since.
Smurfette
12-06-2003, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@6 December 2003 - 00:28
It says the 2400 runs at 2Ghz...I didnt know it was that fast! its faster then the 2500 ...that makes no since.
That's because the 2500 is a Barton chip and the 2400 a Thoroughbred.
adamp2p
12-06-2003, 12:31 AM
Not a suprise that AMD is the clear winner.
bigdawgfoxx
12-06-2003, 12:33 AM
Yeah but I thought the 2500 was supposed to be faster. The 2400 runs at almost 200Mhz faster... Would the Barton still be better though?
DarthInsinuate
12-06-2003, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@5 December 2003 - 23:33
Yeah but I thought the 2500 was supposed to be faster. The 2400 runs at almost 200Mhz faster... Would the Barton still be better though?
browsing over the benchmarks a general rule seems to be that the 2500+ is faster on games, but slower on applications
_John_Lennon_
12-06-2003, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@5 December 2003 - 19:28
It says the 2400 runs at 2Ghz...I didnt know it was that fast! its faster then the 2500 ...that makes no since.
Well, think of it this way, as well.
The celeron runs at 2.6, but a 2Ghz Pentium 4 outperforms it.
Not the same thing, but just another way to point out that clock speed isnt the only thing that makes a chip.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.