What are you smoking? The Celeron isn't fantastic, but it's a heck of a lot
faster than a P3-750.
P4-3.2 is FIVE times faster.
No way.
MAYBE twice as fast, but more likely about 75% faster or under twice as
fast.
The C-1.7 will benefit from a lot more video card than you give it credit
for.
And you based your information on what? You're like a 7yr old boy
who says "UH UH" when someone tells him a fact.
1 - Celeron (P4) is a cheaper, severly reduced function version of the
P4 (most likely, many of them are FAILED P4s - SOP) Considering that
the 2ghz Celeron = 1ghz P3, I chopped off another 300Mhz for the
slower 1.7 Celeron. Because of the somewhat flawed design of the
P4, the reduction of its CACHE causes the CPU to take a severe
performance hit - in a way that an AMD/P3/Centrino CPUs are not.
(Note: Todays HIGH speed P4s are very fast, yes)
2 - The P4 1.6Ghz performs about the same as a 900Mhz P3 setup...
While consumers were buying P4s, business were buying P3s for low cost
servers for years instead. With this in consideration, The celeron
P4 core is even slower.
3 - I take the user's lack of memory (256mb PC/ 333mhz - could be
worse - like the poor slobs who bought the PC-133 P4 systems) to a P4
3.2Ghz using 1gigabyte of Dual Channel 533Mhz memory! The memory,
the CPU, the motherboard together increases the performance. There
is more to CPU that just MHz.
4 - Take a hint, a lot of people are calling the Celerons shit for a
reason.
5 - Give it credit? I and others provided statistical information
regarding performance of video cards and CPU and their combonations.
If these were not ISSUES, people wouldn't be buying 3000Mhz computers
with $400 video cards.
Here, make it easy for you - read this article:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=1
The test involved used the ATi9800 Pro and 512mb of RAM.
All 18 pages, and let me know what you think.
