Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD - General › AMD Athlon64 3500 vs Intel Celeron D-331 2.66GHz
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AMD Athlon64 3500 vs Intel Celeron D-331 2.66GHz - Page 2

post #11 of 14
He won't give up eh. http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html

Edit: I just noticed it doesn't have any Celerons in it. But it beats virtually all of the Pentium 4s which must prove something.
Bootiful
(14 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 3570K Gigabyte z77x-D3H 6GB Asus Turbo - Nvidia GTX1060  16GB DDR3 1600 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
256GB Crucial M4 SSD 2TB Western Digital Blue Coolermaster Hyper 212+ w/ Noctua NF-F12 Windows 10 Pro 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
27" X-Star Matte- QHD - PLS IBM Model M (Lexmark 94') 650W FSP - Aurum - Gold Fractal Design R3 - Black 
MouseAudio
Logitech G500 Onboard + FiiO E10 Olympus USB DAC 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Core i5 2520m 2.5ghz (turboboost 3.2ghz) Intel HD3000 graphics (2x4GB) 8gb DDR3 1333 Hynix + Samsung 320GB Hitachi 7200rpm (data) - Ultrabay 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
128GB Crucial M4 SSD (boot) Hitachi DVDRW (Ultrabay) Win 7 Pro x64 1600x900 (AUO generic) +17" Dell 1708FP 
Power
90w power brick 
  hide details  
Reply
Bootiful
(14 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 3570K Gigabyte z77x-D3H 6GB Asus Turbo - Nvidia GTX1060  16GB DDR3 1600 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
256GB Crucial M4 SSD 2TB Western Digital Blue Coolermaster Hyper 212+ w/ Noctua NF-F12 Windows 10 Pro 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
27" X-Star Matte- QHD - PLS IBM Model M (Lexmark 94') 650W FSP - Aurum - Gold Fractal Design R3 - Black 
MouseAudio
Logitech G500 Onboard + FiiO E10 Olympus USB DAC 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Core i5 2520m 2.5ghz (turboboost 3.2ghz) Intel HD3000 graphics (2x4GB) 8gb DDR3 1333 Hynix + Samsung 320GB Hitachi 7200rpm (data) - Ultrabay 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
128GB Crucial M4 SSD (boot) Hitachi DVDRW (Ultrabay) Win 7 Pro x64 1600x900 (AUO generic) +17" Dell 1708FP 
Power
90w power brick 
  hide details  
Reply
post #12 of 14
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimon View Post
lol, nah, he's as stubborn as a dead pig.

Thanks man
133MHZpow
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel P4 Soyo VIA P4M266  Nvidia 5200FX 1GB 
Optical DriveOSKeyboardPower
LiteOn DVD ROM Antix Linux Xtech Generic generic 400w 
CaseMouse
Compaq  BenQ optical 
  hide details  
Reply
133MHZpow
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel P4 Soyo VIA P4M266  Nvidia 5200FX 1GB 
Optical DriveOSKeyboardPower
LiteOn DVD ROM Antix Linux Xtech Generic generic 400w 
CaseMouse
Compaq  BenQ optical 
  hide details  
Reply
post #13 of 14
Go compare a Athlon 64 with a Pentium 4. Then take those Pentium 4 benchmarks and like double the times and cut the scores in like half and you have a celeron. A celeron is architecturally a Pentium 4, which is baded on the Net burst architechture(which most of us know is really inefficent). For your friend, I will explain why it is inefficent. It sounds like he thinks that higher clock speed is better. Well, when intel designed the Pentium4 CPU, their researchers created the Netburst architecture to get back at AMD since they were getting higher clock speeds with their Athlons. One problem though. To achieve this higher clockspeeds, Intel had to widen the deepen the pipelines that data is transferred through. It allowed for faster clockspeeds, but it wasn't as efficent because every time the CPU did a cycle, it only picked up so much data to be processed. The AMDs on the other hand, where the current generation is based on the K8 architecture is very efficent. It might run slower in terms of Ghz but it can take more data to process through each cycle which is why a 3500+ can beat most Pentium 4s with stock clocks. Also, their were other small advancements AMD did with fusing instruction code together and such and espcially the integrated memory controller which allows for WAY lower latency times with reading/writing RAM. So all in all, the Celeron might be faster in terms of clock speed but it aint beating an 3500+ not unless it was OCed ALOT.

Hope this helps your person who believes a budget processor can beat an AMD mid-range.
The Naked Scooter
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 920 4Ghz@1.24V Asus P6T Deluxe eVGA GTX 285 12GB Patriot DDR3-1600 8-8-8-24@1.65V 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x640GB WD in RAID 0+1TB Seagate 7200.11 HP LightScribe DVD Burner Windows 7 Ultimate x64 22" Samsung 720p HDTV 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 1000W Antec TruePower Quattro CoolerMaster ATCS 840 Logitech G9x 
  hide details  
Reply
The Naked Scooter
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 920 4Ghz@1.24V Asus P6T Deluxe eVGA GTX 285 12GB Patriot DDR3-1600 8-8-8-24@1.65V 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x640GB WD in RAID 0+1TB Seagate 7200.11 HP LightScribe DVD Burner Windows 7 Ultimate x64 22" Samsung 720p HDTV 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 1000W Antec TruePower Quattro CoolerMaster ATCS 840 Logitech G9x 
  hide details  
Reply
post #14 of 14
Thread Starter 
Thanks much for cutting it to him straight beret.
I'll send him this link.
133MHZpow
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel P4 Soyo VIA P4M266  Nvidia 5200FX 1GB 
Optical DriveOSKeyboardPower
LiteOn DVD ROM Antix Linux Xtech Generic generic 400w 
CaseMouse
Compaq  BenQ optical 
  hide details  
Reply
133MHZpow
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel P4 Soyo VIA P4M266  Nvidia 5200FX 1GB 
Optical DriveOSKeyboardPower
LiteOn DVD ROM Antix Linux Xtech Generic generic 400w 
CaseMouse
Compaq  BenQ optical 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD - General
Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD - General › AMD Athlon64 3500 vs Intel Celeron D-331 2.66GHz