More proof that Intel sucks

I have been building AMD's for a few yrs but made the mistake of buying a
Celeron 2.3GHZ 256MB Dell Latitude ($600 new). What a dog! Decoding Naked
News at the maximum bitrate in WMP takes 100% of the processor.
A T-Bred 1700+ running @2000+ (1.67GHz) uses only 15%.

And it feels so slow, even after reformatting and installing WinXP Pro. It
feels about like a Duron 750 I have running at 933MHz....but slower.

you buy a dell then a celery and then claim Intel sucks STFU


"Godzilla Pimp" wrote in message hlink.net...
I have been building AMD's for a few yrs but made the mistake of buying a
Celeron 2.3GHZ 256MB Dell Latitude ($600 new). What a dog! Decoding Naked
News at the maximum bitrate in WMP takes 100% of the processor.
A T-Bred 1700+ running @2000+ (1.67GHz) uses only 15%.

And it feels so slow, even after reformatting and installing WinXP Pro. It
feels about like a Duron 750 I have running at 933MHz....but slower.

Well a celery is Intel and the AMD equivalent (Duron) is a better CPU so why
shouldn't he say Intel sucks ... it does in this case?

BillL
"JAD" wrote in message
ink.net...
you buy a dell then a celery and then claim Intel sucks STFU


"Godzilla Pimp" wrote in message
hlink.net...
I have been building AMD's for a few yrs but made the mistake of buying
a
Celeron 2.3GHZ 256MB Dell Latitude ($600 new). What a dog! Decoding
Naked
News at the maximum bitrate in WMP takes 100% of the processor.
A T-Bred 1700+ running @2000+ (1.67GHz) uses only 15%.

And it feels so slow, even after reformatting and installing WinXP Pro.
It
feels about like a Duron 750 I have running at 933MHz....but slower.

no no no fisherman troll somewhere else.... AMD K62 sucked ass do all AMD's suck because of those?


"Bill L" wrote in message ...
Well a celery is Intel and the AMD equivalent (Duron) is a better CPU so why
shouldn't he say Intel sucks ... it does in this case?

BillL
"JAD" wrote in message
ink.net...
you buy a dell then a celery and then claim Intel sucks STFU


"Godzilla Pimp" wrote in message
hlink.net...
I have been building AMD's for a few yrs but made the mistake of buying
a
Celeron 2.3GHZ 256MB Dell Latitude ($600 new). What a dog! Decoding
Naked
News at the maximum bitrate in WMP takes 100% of the processor.
A T-Bred 1700+ running @2000+ (1.67GHz) uses only 15%.

And it feels so slow, even after reformatting and installing WinXP Pro.
It
feels about like a Duron 750 I have running at 933MHz....but slower.

"JAD" wrote in message
ink.net...
no no no fisherman troll somewhere else.... AMD K62 sucked ass do all
AMD's suck because of those?



According to Intel trolls, Yes

Intel has been making crippled processors for the cheap-prick market since
the 486 SucX. People keep buying them so why shouldn't they? Buyer beware
and all that rot.

"rstlne" wrote in message
news:EW3%b.922$6l4.506@newsfe1-win...
:
: "JAD" wrote in message
: ink.net...
: no no no fisherman troll somewhere else.... AMD K62 sucked ass do
all
: AMD's suck because of those?
:
:
:
: According to Intel trolls, Yes
:
:
:

"Godzilla Pimp" wrote in message
hlink.net...
I have been building AMD's for a few yrs but made the mistake of buying a
Celeron 2.3GHZ 256MB Dell Latitude ($600 new). What a dog! Decoding Naked
News at the maximum bitrate in WMP takes 100% of the processor.
A T-Bred 1700+ running @2000+ (1.67GHz) uses only 15%.

And it feels so slow, even after reformatting and installing WinXP Pro. It
feels about like a Duron 750 I have running at 933MHz....but slower.

The late-model Celerys are quite slow compared to, say, a Duron or Pentium
of equivalent Mhz. They certainly don't have the performance reputation of
older Celerys (wrt overclocking). Blame the crippled cache (or, rather,
lack of cache).

What did you expect? You bought a Dell. It's going to suck.



"Godzilla Pimp" wrote in message
hlink.net...
I have been building AMD's for a few yrs but made the mistake of buying a
Celeron 2.3GHZ 256MB Dell Latitude ($600 new). What a dog! Decoding Naked
News at the maximum bitrate in WMP takes 100% of the processor.
A T-Bred 1700+ running @2000+ (1.67GHz) uses only 15%.

And it feels so slow, even after reformatting and installing WinXP Pro. It
feels about like a Duron 750 I have running at 933MHz....but slower.

Godzilla Pimp wrote:

I have been building AMD's for a few yrs but made the mistake of buying a
Celeron 2.3GHZ 256MB Dell Latitude ($600 new). What a dog! Decoding Naked
News at the maximum bitrate in WMP takes 100% of the processor.
A T-Bred 1700+ running @2000+ (1.67GHz) uses only 15%.

And it feels so slow, even after reformatting and installing WinXP Pro. It
feels about like a Duron 750 I have running at 933MHz....but slower.


Compare a dell laptop to your overclocked desktop and try to proclaim
something? LOL!
--

Stacey

"Pug Fugley" wrote in message
ink.net...
What did you expect? You bought a Dell. It's going to suck.



"Godzilla Pimp" wrote in message
hlink.net...
I have been building AMD's for a few yrs but made the mistake of buying
a
Celeron 2.3GHZ 256MB Dell Latitude ($600 new). What a dog! Decoding
Naked
News at the maximum bitrate in WMP takes 100% of the processor.
A T-Bred 1700+ running @2000+ (1.67GHz) uses only 15%.

And it feels so slow, even after reformatting and installing WinXP Pro.
It
feels about like a Duron 750 I have running at 933MHz....but slower.



Please People!! Intel worked hard to make their P4 the best. But I don't
care about how fast this P4, the one I typed this on
goes. It's nice when encoding Video. Older Intel's did suck, AMD's were
faster.
Were just slowly watching some of the same stuff replay it's self.
AMD's 64 bit CPU has en Edge, not in speed. But that it's 64Bit, and they
have it first.
AMD did this by linking/stacking, two 32Bit cpu's to make it one 64 Bit, and
makes sense.
How can you run it in 32Bit modes so easy? That's how.

Hmm? In the short time I've had my AMD 2000+ XP I've benched it against this
one, even if I slow it down, I still almost beat my AMD
Heh?
Here's the thing. I have an Unamed game I play. (Copyright Laws, I think
People Understand.)
I can run it close to 200 FP/s on my P4, I can't say I can play it @
that. As a matter a fact, I tried.
My AMD may only give me around 100 or so FP/s, BUT!! The point is, you can
play it @ the speed it needs to go.
And I have also found my AMD to be a little more compatible when it comes to
game pads, and other hardware.


So lets see now onced noow Shakey

Burning Fast/ ta, too fast. Costs Much $$$$
Just as fast as needed, and more compatible. A lot less cost in $$$$
It still Costs close to 400$ or more for a 3.2 GHz Cpu/ Around 200$ or less
for one of the faster AMD's without going to Athlon 64, that would be over
200$
Full Computer system for under 1,000$ & even some extra's not needed.
Or
Over 1,000 for speed some people won't ever use.
Shock my head the other day @ the place I buy my Computer stuff.
I thought the guy should've just gone with AMD, he just wanted a gaming
system.
But no, he had to have a 800FSB P4, I have one, and I say all that speed is
NOT! Needed.
What do others think?
Denny. :-) Always with a smile, even if times are bad.