People with celerons

Me wrote in message ...
Dark Avenger wrote:

Is it me or are there many people with celerons, nice cpu's but they
don't perform!

Are you really so bored that you can find nothing better to do than
troll? If you'd like to troll in a more lively environment, try posting
that to alt.english.grammar

Hi... well well.. what do we have there. So you hawk on me since I
don't have "perfect" american grammar.

You have neither, so stop complaining. And why I posted it... well as
you see.. already 4 cases of "lower performance due to celerons" have
been around, I guess it's rather basic to say that celerons are crap!
The Old ones where fine overclockers but.... the new ones, ... they
just are to slow!

You probably run linux or some *ix on those servers because thats the only
way I could ever get an AMD to perform. My claims do not come from a lack of
experience. Ive used AMD's since 5x86 DX4-100 And they worked ok sometimes.
I have to say AMD was ahead during the K6-2 Era, Intel didnt have a chip to
compete with its speed really. But when they answered with the Descutes
celeron chips, it felt like a better machine, not to mention its
overclocking ability. moving on to 1st generation duron vs. the coppermine,
i built about equal amounts of each and found the flip chips to be less
troublesome. the T-bird was pretty stable and it got very cheap to build as
time went by. I really liked working with the tualatin celeron chips, they
seemed to really outrun everything else in all departments. I built 3 or 4
athlon XP computers and I had either one problem or another from heat to
shotty motherboards, asus and all the ''good" boards included. I have just
found the celerys to be a nice chip. I must confess im not the guy looking
to get 275 fps in quake3 or whatever. but Im glad the new amd's work for
you's guys.


"Me" wrote in message
...
hklingon wrote:
Well those tests dont really mean anything

LOL. I see how this works... when you don't like the benchmarks, they
don't mean anything. I've heard this theory at the race track too, but
nobody seems to think it credible. snicker


And the AMD chips are just plain
unstable in any environment. I could take all the dead (for some reason
or
another) AMD chips I have and tile my bathroom floor. Dont ever build an
AMD
system for someone whom you dont want calling you everyday cause it
keeps
crashing or locking up.

That's complete crap. I've got close to a dozen Athlon machines between
here and my office including two web servers and two mail servers. Most
of these boxes churn 24/7 (obviously the servers do) yet I've never had
a hardware related problem with ANY of them... not once. Over the years
I've built numerous AMD machines including K6 series, Duron and Athlon
and I've never once seen a chip fail, period. I think that either you
are spouting a completely unsubstantiated opinion (I.E., you're full of
crap) or who ever is building these machines you speak of has no clue
how to properly build a computer.

Not my experience at all.....

Last six PCs I built were all AMD CPU and all are extremely stable....

Maybe you're not to hot at putting them together?

Guy

hklingon wrote:
Well those tests dont really mean anything And the AMD chips are just
plain unstable in any environment. I could take all the dead (for
some reason or another) AMD chips I have and tile my bathroom floor.
Dont ever build an AMD system for someone whom you dont want calling
you everyday cause it keeps crashing or locking up.


"DaveL" wrote in message
...
You obviously don't know what you are talking about. I'm sure you
were using cheap components like maybe a PC Chips motherboard with a
Via chipset or worse.

Check out this comparison from Anandtech:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927

It has a Duron beating the celeron like an unwanted stepchild. The
Duron even beats a P4.

Dave


"hklingon" wrote in message
...
Celerons are awesome chips for the price. AMD chips are horribly
unstable IMHO and have lots of heat related problems. Ive had
nothing but problems out of all the Duron computers I've built.
Maybe its cheap components but I havent had good luck finding
boards. Perhaps if AMD made their own motherboards like Intel does,
It might work a little better. If you are into Water/Freon cooling
your system, AMD might give you more performance for your dollar.
All in All, celeron is my cpu of choice!


"Dark Avenger" wrote in message
om...
Is it me or are there many people with celerons, nice cpu's but
they don't perform!

If you got a celeron and a reasonable graphic card, then already
the graphic card is waiting on that damn slow cpu of yours to give
it the data.

Truly if there is any upgrade worthy for people with a celeron,
then it's firstly of all... the processor! Really even an GF3 is
eating out of it's nose on your cheap ass processor. Get a nice
Pentium 4 processor, or if your motherboard is older a nice P3
processor, why.... cache and speed, the celerons are heavily
limited due to their crapped cache. And Intel processors are
heavily dependant on their cache's.

And really your old GF3 ti 200 or 500 can perform faster and
better.. once it got a CPU wich doesn't makes it eats out of it's
nose but just makes it run full speed.

And if you truly haven't got much money... ah... try to find an
upgrade with a nice motherboard and a DURON processor, yes it's the
budget line of AMD but... their budget line is fast and powerfull
in performance. Many people swear by durons in their "home media
centers" with a reason, though it has less cache as it's brother,
amd processors don't have asmuch troubles with their cache!

Really get a nice duron system and you'll see you go faster, fork
up a bit more money and get a true XP for the real deal!

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 19:49:31 -0500
"hklingon" wrote:

Well those tests dont really mean anything And the AMD chips are just
plain unstable in any environment. I could take all the dead (for some
reason or another) AMD chips I have and tile my bathroom floor. Dont
ever build an AMD system for someone whom you dont want calling you
everyday cause it keeps crashing or locking up.

What we learn from the above paragraph is don't ever have someone who
calls himself"hklingon" build you a system of any kind if you don't want
to have to keep calling him every day because it keeps crashing or
locking up.


"DaveL" wrote in message
...
You obviously don't know what you are talking about. I'm sure you
were using cheap components like maybe a PC Chips motherboard with a
Via
chipset
or worse.

Check out this comparison from Anandtech:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927

It has a Duron beating the celeron like an unwanted stepchild. The
Duron even beats a P4.

Dave


"hklingon" wrote in message
...
Celerons are awesome chips for the price. AMD chips are horribly
unstable
IMHO and have lots of heat related problems. Ive had nothing but
problems
out of all the Duron computers I've built. Maybe its cheap
components
but
I
havent had good luck finding boards. Perhaps if AMD made their own
motherboards like Intel does, It might work a little better. If
you are into Water/Freon cooling your system, AMD might give you
more
performance
for your dollar. All in All, celeron is my cpu of choice!


"Dark Avenger" wrote in message
om...
Is it me or are there many people with celerons, nice cpu's but
they don't perform!

If you got a celeron and a reasonable graphic card, then already
the graphic card is waiting on that damn slow cpu of yours to
give it the data.

Truly if there is any upgrade worthy for people with a celeron,
then it's firstly of all... the processor! Really even an GF3 is
eating out of it's nose on your cheap ass processor. Get a nice
Pentium 4 processor, or if your motherboard is older a nice P3
processor, why.... cache and speed, the celerons are heavily
limited due to their crapped cache. And Intel processors are
heavily dependant on their cache's.

And really your old GF3 ti 200 or 500 can perform faster and
better.. once it got a CPU wich doesn't makes it eats out of
it's nose but just makes it run full speed.

And if you truly haven't got much money... ah... try to find an
upgrade with a nice motherboard and a DURON processor, yes it's
the budget line of AMD but... their budget line is fast and
powerfull in performance. Many people swear by durons in their
"home media centers" with a reason, though it has less cache as
it's brother, amd processors don't have asmuch troubles with
their cache!

Really get a nice duron system and you'll see you go faster,
fork up a bit more money and get a true XP for the real deal!







--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 23:08:24 -0500
"hklingon" wrote:

You probably run linux or some *ix on those servers because thats the
only way I could ever get an AMD to perform. My claims do not come
from a lack of experience.

Well, actually they do--doing the same stupid thing over and over
without learning from it does not constitute "experience".

Ive used AMD's since 5x86 DX4-100 And they
worked ok sometimes. I have to say AMD was ahead during the K6-2 Era,
Intel didnt have a chip to compete with its speed really. But when
they answered with the Descutes celeron chips, it felt like a better
machine, not to mention its overclocking ability. moving on to 1st
generation duron vs. the coppermine, i built about equal amounts of
each and found the flip chips to be less troublesome. the T-bird was
pretty stable and it got very cheap to build as time went by. I really
liked working with the tualatin celeron chips, they seemed to really
outrun everything else in all departments. I built 3 or 4 athlon XP
computers and I had either one problem or another from heat to shotty
motherboards, asus and all the ''good" boards included. I have just
found the celerys to be a nice chip. I must confess im not the guy
looking to get 275 fps in quake3 or whatever. but Im glad the new
amd's work for you's guys.

Now, since you are posting this in an nvidia newsgroup, I have to ask
you which nvidia chipset is on those motherboards on which you are
running your celerons.


"Me" wrote in message
...
hklingon wrote:
Well those tests dont really mean anything

LOL. I see how this works... when you don't like the benchmarks,
they don't mean anything. I've heard this theory at the race track
too, but nobody seems to think it credible. snicker


And the AMD chips are just plain
unstable in any environment. I could take all the dead (for some
reason
or
another) AMD chips I have and tile my bathroom floor. Dont ever
build an
AMD
system for someone whom you dont want calling you everyday cause
it
keeps
crashing or locking up.

That's complete crap. I've got close to a dozen Athlon machines
between here and my office including two web servers and two mail
servers. Most of these boxes churn 24/7 (obviously the servers do)
yet I've never had a hardware related problem with ANY of them...
not once. Over the years I've built numerous AMD machines including
K6 series, Duron and Athlon and I've never once seen a chip fail,
period. I think that either you are spouting a completely
unsubstantiated opinion (I.E., you're full of crap) or who ever is
building these machines you speak of has no clue how to properly
build a computer.





--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

hklingon wrote:
Well those tests dont really mean anything And the AMD chips are just
plain unstable in any environment. I could take all the dead (for
some reason or another) AMD chips I have and tile my bathroom floor.
Dont ever build an AMD system for someone whom you dont want calling
you everyday cause it keeps crashing or locking up.

Hmm, I guess I must have somehow managed to get my hands on those ultra rare
stable CPUs from AMD then. XP2400 runs 24/7 on Windows 2000 at home running
FTP server, and I use it for playing games, photo editing, 3D rendering,
Office apps, etc. XP2000 on Windows 2000 runs perfectly, my 4 year old
daughter uses it most of the time but it's also there for friends to play
multiplayer games on and so far has not crashed in 4 weeks of heavy use
(prior to this it was running a Windows 2000 Server network with Exchange
2000 for a friends MCSE/MCSA course running 24/7 for just over 3 months).
Also have a 1.4 Thunderbird on Windows 2000 running 24/7 for my Battlefield
1942 + DesertCombat server, again no crashes due to the CPU (although BF1942
itself occassionally hiccups on some maps). And finally a 1.3 Duron on
Debian Linux Woody running a Castle Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory server
24/7, again no crashes. Next up is to build another PC from some spare parts
I have kicking around to move the FTP server and occassional LAN gaming
servers off my main home PC onto a 1.4 Thunderbird and expect that to
perform just as well.

And all of these CPUs have been man-handled. The XP2400 I got from a friend
whose motherboard had blown and decided to get a new complete PC (and he
bought an XP2500 based system to replace it, which has been running solidly
for the past 6 months). The XP2000 I picked up from a computer fair cheap
and has been swapped a few times between boards during upgrades. The first
1.4 Tbird was originally in my main home PC before it was replaced by the
XP2000 and then the XP24000, and is now in a small Asus Terminator system
which runs fairly hot (up to 50C) due to their being no additional cooling
above the stock heatsink, and the case being tiny. The Duron was picked up
from a computer fair along with the board it's sitting in and put together
the same way I always put my systems together - with a little care, and good
thermal contact between the CPU and the heatsink. All systems are running
stock AMD heatsinks or Coolermaster cheap aluminium ones, and temps on the 2
fastest PCs are pretty low - around 34C on the XP2400, and 38C on the
XP2000.

I've always recommended AMD systems to my friends, and as soon as I can get
a requisition note signed off by my boss I'm replacing the P3 and P4 systems
in the IT department where I work with AMD XP or FX based systems. Intel
based systems here are fine and rarely crash, but I'd rather get AMD based
systems and spend the cost saving on improving other parts of the PC for the
same total cost (more RAM, more HDD space, or better graphics for instance)
giving me a better performing machine for the same price.

Dan

Im sure your boss will be kicking himself for making a dumb decision like
that.


"Daniel Crichton" wrote in message
...
hklingon wrote:
Well those tests dont really mean anything And the AMD chips are just
plain unstable in any environment. I could take all the dead (for
some reason or another) AMD chips I have and tile my bathroom floor.
Dont ever build an AMD system for someone whom you dont want calling
you everyday cause it keeps crashing or locking up.

Hmm, I guess I must have somehow managed to get my hands on those ultra
rare
stable CPUs from AMD then. XP2400 runs 24/7 on Windows 2000 at home
running
FTP server, and I use it for playing games, photo editing, 3D rendering,
Office apps, etc. XP2000 on Windows 2000 runs perfectly, my 4 year old
daughter uses it most of the time but it's also there for friends to play
multiplayer games on and so far has not crashed in 4 weeks of heavy use
(prior to this it was running a Windows 2000 Server network with Exchange
2000 for a friends MCSE/MCSA course running 24/7 for just over 3 months).
Also have a 1.4 Thunderbird on Windows 2000 running 24/7 for my
Battlefield
1942 + DesertCombat server, again no crashes due to the CPU (although
BF1942
itself occassionally hiccups on some maps). And finally a 1.3 Duron on
Debian Linux Woody running a Castle Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory server
24/7, again no crashes. Next up is to build another PC from some spare
parts
I have kicking around to move the FTP server and occassional LAN gaming
servers off my main home PC onto a 1.4 Thunderbird and expect that to
perform just as well.

And all of these CPUs have been man-handled. The XP2400 I got from a
friend
whose motherboard had blown and decided to get a new complete PC (and he
bought an XP2500 based system to replace it, which has been running
solidly
for the past 6 months). The XP2000 I picked up from a computer fair cheap
and has been swapped a few times between boards during upgrades. The first
1.4 Tbird was originally in my main home PC before it was replaced by the
XP2000 and then the XP24000, and is now in a small Asus Terminator system
which runs fairly hot (up to 50C) due to their being no additional cooling
above the stock heatsink, and the case being tiny. The Duron was picked up
from a computer fair along with the board it's sitting in and put together
the same way I always put my systems together - with a little care, and
good
thermal contact between the CPU and the heatsink. All systems are running
stock AMD heatsinks or Coolermaster cheap aluminium ones, and temps on the
2
fastest PCs are pretty low - around 34C on the XP2400, and 38C on the
XP2000.

I've always recommended AMD systems to my friends, and as soon as I can
get
a requisition note signed off by my boss I'm replacing the P3 and P4
systems
in the IT department where I work with AMD XP or FX based systems. Intel
based systems here are fine and rarely crash, but I'd rather get AMD based
systems and spend the cost saving on improving other parts of the PC for
the
same total cost (more RAM, more HDD space, or better graphics for
instance)
giving me a better performing machine for the same price.

Dan

You mean I was supposed to put those little spacers between the case and the
motherboard? DARN! Maybe thats what I was doing wrong. If your AMD hasnt
crashed or died yet, Its about to.


"Bigguy" wrote in message
...
Not my experience at all.....

Last six PCs I built were all AMD CPU and all are extremely stable....

Maybe you're not to hot at putting them together?

Guy

hklingon wrote:
Well those tests dont really mean anything And the AMD chips are just
plain unstable in any environment. I could take all the dead (for
some reason or another) AMD chips I have and tile my bathroom floor.
Dont ever build an AMD system for someone whom you dont want calling
you everyday cause it keeps crashing or locking up.


"DaveL" wrote in message
...
You obviously don't know what you are talking about. I'm sure you
were using cheap components like maybe a PC Chips motherboard with a
Via chipset or worse.

Check out this comparison from Anandtech:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927

It has a Duron beating the celeron like an unwanted stepchild. The
Duron even beats a P4.

Dave


"hklingon" wrote in message
...
Celerons are awesome chips for the price. AMD chips are horribly
unstable IMHO and have lots of heat related problems. Ive had
nothing but problems out of all the Duron computers I've built.
Maybe its cheap components but I havent had good luck finding
boards. Perhaps if AMD made their own motherboards like Intel does,
It might work a little better. If you are into Water/Freon cooling
your system, AMD might give you more performance for your dollar.
All in All, celeron is my cpu of choice!


"Dark Avenger" wrote in message
om...
Is it me or are there many people with celerons, nice cpu's but
they don't perform!

If you got a celeron and a reasonable graphic card, then already
the graphic card is waiting on that damn slow cpu of yours to give
it the data.

Truly if there is any upgrade worthy for people with a celeron,
then it's firstly of all... the processor! Really even an GF3 is
eating out of it's nose on your cheap ass processor. Get a nice
Pentium 4 processor, or if your motherboard is older a nice P3
processor, why.... cache and speed, the celerons are heavily
limited due to their crapped cache. And Intel processors are
heavily dependant on their cache's.

And really your old GF3 ti 200 or 500 can perform faster and
better.. once it got a CPU wich doesn't makes it eats out of it's
nose but just makes it run full speed.

And if you truly haven't got much money... ah... try to find an
upgrade with a nice motherboard and a DURON processor, yes it's the
budget line of AMD but... their budget line is fast and powerfull
in performance. Many people swear by durons in their "home media
centers" with a reason, though it has less cache as it's brother,
amd processors don't have asmuch troubles with their cache!

Really get a nice duron system and you'll see you go faster, fork
up a bit more money and get a true XP for the real deal!

Last time I checked this group wasnt about nvidia motherboards but nvidia
videocards, and furthermore, you might notice im not the one who started
this post. It seems to have grown off topic a little bit since all of you
morons have your heads stuck up somewhere.

"J.Clarke" wrote in message
d...
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 23:08:24 -0500
"hklingon" wrote:

You probably run linux or some *ix on those servers because thats the
only way I could ever get an AMD to perform. My claims do not come
from a lack of experience.

Well, actually they do--doing the same stupid thing over and over
without learning from it does not constitute "experience".

Ive used AMD's since 5x86 DX4-100 And they
worked ok sometimes. I have to say AMD was ahead during the K6-2 Era,
Intel didnt have a chip to compete with its speed really. But when
they answered with the Descutes celeron chips, it felt like a better
machine, not to mention its overclocking ability. moving on to 1st
generation duron vs. the coppermine, i built about equal amounts of
each and found the flip chips to be less troublesome. the T-bird was
pretty stable and it got very cheap to build as time went by. I really
liked working with the tualatin celeron chips, they seemed to really
outrun everything else in all departments. I built 3 or 4 athlon XP
computers and I had either one problem or another from heat to shotty
motherboards, asus and all the ''good" boards included. I have just
found the celerys to be a nice chip. I must confess im not the guy
looking to get 275 fps in quake3 or whatever. but Im glad the new
amd's work for you's guys.

Now, since you are posting this in an nvidia newsgroup, I have to ask
you which nvidia chipset is on those motherboards on which you are
running your celerons.


"Me" wrote in message
...
hklingon wrote:
Well those tests dont really mean anything

LOL. I see how this works... when you don't like the benchmarks,
they don't mean anything. I've heard this theory at the race track
too, but nobody seems to think it credible. snicker


And the AMD chips are just plain
unstable in any environment. I could take all the dead (for some
reason
or
another) AMD chips I have and tile my bathroom floor. Dont ever
build an
AMD
system for someone whom you dont want calling you everyday cause
it
keeps
crashing or locking up.

That's complete crap. I've got close to a dozen Athlon machines
between here and my office including two web servers and two mail
servers. Most of these boxes churn 24/7 (obviously the servers do)
yet I've never had a hardware related problem with ANY of them...
not once. Over the years I've built numerous AMD machines including
K6 series, Duron and Athlon and I've never once seen a chip fail,
period. I think that either you are spouting a completely
unsubstantiated opinion (I.E., you're full of crap) or who ever is
building these machines you speak of has no clue how to properly
build a computer.





--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 09:37:49 -0500, "hklingon"
wrote:

Last time I checked this group wasnt about nvidia motherboards but nvidia
videocards, and furthermore, you might notice im not the one who started
this post. It seems to have grown off topic a little bit since all of you
morons have your heads stuck up somewhere.

At least us morons have enough common sense to be able to build stable
AMD processor based systems. Where does that put you on the food
chain?
--
Andrew. To email unscramble & remove spamtrap.
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text.
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.