Duron VS Celeron...

[D*Ranged]

Right, I'm torn between buying a system...(for real this time )

Problem is, I am VERY indecisive and I just want to know which will be the better buy for money (My bud get is tight). So, some say celeron's better and others say Duron's better.

Any opinions on which processors?


p.s. Yes, I know they are both lower end cpus but money comes to mind...and I need a computer.


Thanks in advance.

[Luvian]

Duron and celeron are just less powerfull version of Pentium and XP, so it's the same debate as always.

Some like Pentium better, others like XP.

What do you like better? Pepsi or Coke?

[Harkoliar]

well i was a celeron user for a couple of years (low budget indeed) but that didnt stop me from playing games like NWN . celeron 1.2ghz works ok with it. also with morrowind.

[Earthdog]

all the way up to P3 they were basicly the same. they both had the same amounts of L1 and L2 cache.

I think the one advantage the Duron had over Celerons was consistancy if Interface. Intel was constatnly changing the socket the CPU plugged into and AMD never changed.

You can take an 800 Duron and plug it into the same socket that a 2800xp goes into but you cant take an 800 Celeron and plug it into a P4 socket.

Consistancy of socket is one thing that people liked, and still do like, about AMD.

All up, for an economical game machine, I would go (and did) with AMD all the way.

Intel wants too much for what you get, and unless youre doing some very serious professional level video encoding, you dont need the latest Intel 3.2 ghz processor (for about $400 USD).

The AMD 2400XP (at 2.0 ghz) far more cost effective at $75 USD

LOL not a hard choice to me mate.

Plus theres the fact that the while the 2400XP costs a little more than the Celeron 2.0 Ghz ($62 USD), the XP has more cache and is a much better performer.

For gaming, AMD ownz Intel. Dollar for Dollar, you cant be the Athlon XPs. I recently read a review of the cost effectiveness of CPUS and the faster the CPU, the more each frame per second costs you. The Intel 3.2ghz was the worst in the review while the AMD 2400 XP was the most cost effective.

Forget Duron and Celeron mate.

If youre going to be forced to buy a new motherboard for whatever platform youre buying, go AMD.

Coupled with a decent video card and 512 meg of ram, youll be smokin in your favourite game.

[skywalker]

Since the processors are older, here is an old Epinion article addressing your question:

http://www.epinions.com/cmd-review-6...3A376201-prod1

Hope it helps.

Mark

[Edit] This one's newer: http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2...z/index.x?pg=1

[Edit Again] This one's newer still: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20020121/

[ 01-07-2004, 06:46 AM: Message edited by: skywalker ]

[Target]

I have to agree with Earthdog, if you can go for the AMD 2400 XP.

[dplax]

While we are close to topic what P4 processor would a celeron 2600 be equivalent to?

[Bozos of Bones]

Probably a 1.6-1.7. The cache is a real choke-hold.
Take Duron. That way you'll not only have the more reliable processor, it would unlock the nForce 2 chip.

[Gammit]

I would recommend that you buy a scaled-down "regular" P4 or AMD Athlon XP. Due to the cache amounts and other "optimizations," you usually get MUCH more bang/kapow/kabloowie for your buck.

[D*Ranged]

Thanks all. Looks like I'll be trying Duron after all.
Perhaps XP 2400 if I get the chance. (With nForce2 chipset of course )