D
Darthy
(What GMAN wrote)
And you my friend, is why Intel loves people *LIKE* you.
Buy crap based on MEGAHurTz, not performance. Duh, if a 2Ghz Celeron
was in the same league as a 2Ghz P4 (which isn't saying much, as P4s
don't shine until 2.4Ghz and up) then it wouldn't be much of an issue.
a 2Ghz Celeron CPU is not much faster than the better designed 1Ghz P3
CPU. Hence, its not all about clock rate. It is on a timing rate,
nothing more. Remember the 33mhz 386 vs a 33mhz 486? Same Mhz, but
the 486 was faster. Or how about the ATI 9800 vs th 5800Ultra -
about half the Mhz but we know who lost that race. Even the 5900 Is
a lower clock rate than the 5800.
The issues are design, clock rate, cache (theres about 3 of them, or
some or removed), pipelines, etc. Hence a AMD64 CPU that costs
about $300 can still out run the $900~1000 Intel "Extreme" P4 3.2Ghz
CPU (Which is really a repackaged XEON core) - yet its is about
1000Mhz lower than the Intel.
But as we know... bragging rights sometimes mean more than actual
abilities. Example:
Guy buys a FAST car... but has a 3inch penis or can only last 10
seconds.
A guy becomes president, but has an IQ under 80 and is quoted not
liking people who have the ability to think. (thinking hurts I
guess).
Do a little research...
hehe... funny... in PC Stores, they sell HP/Compaq notebooks. One is
an AMD2500 the other is a Celeron 2.4... the Celeron notbook (which
has the EXACT stats as the AMD, but slightly bigger) costs $50~100
more.... But the Mobile Celeron is even slower than a 1Ghz P3 and
the AMD 2500 notebook is AS fast as a desktop 2500 (with AC power)!
And this... I confirmed myself.
And you my friend, is why Intel loves people *LIKE* you.
Buy crap based on MEGAHurTz, not performance. Duh, if a 2Ghz Celeron
was in the same league as a 2Ghz P4 (which isn't saying much, as P4s
don't shine until 2.4Ghz and up) then it wouldn't be much of an issue.
a 2Ghz Celeron CPU is not much faster than the better designed 1Ghz P3
CPU. Hence, its not all about clock rate. It is on a timing rate,
nothing more. Remember the 33mhz 386 vs a 33mhz 486? Same Mhz, but
the 486 was faster. Or how about the ATI 9800 vs th 5800Ultra -
about half the Mhz but we know who lost that race. Even the 5900 Is
a lower clock rate than the 5800.
The issues are design, clock rate, cache (theres about 3 of them, or
some or removed), pipelines, etc. Hence a AMD64 CPU that costs
about $300 can still out run the $900~1000 Intel "Extreme" P4 3.2Ghz
CPU (Which is really a repackaged XEON core) - yet its is about
1000Mhz lower than the Intel.
But as we know... bragging rights sometimes mean more than actual
abilities. Example:
Guy buys a FAST car... but has a 3inch penis or can only last 10
seconds.
A guy becomes president, but has an IQ under 80 and is quoted not
liking people who have the ability to think. (thinking hurts I
guess).
Do a little research...
hehe... funny... in PC Stores, they sell HP/Compaq notebooks. One is
an AMD2500 the other is a Celeron 2.4... the Celeron notbook (which
has the EXACT stats as the AMD, but slightly bigger) costs $50~100
more.... But the Mobile Celeron is even slower than a 1Ghz P3 and
the AMD 2500 notebook is AS fast as a desktop 2500 (with AC power)!
And this... I confirmed myself.
