AMD or Celeron

by **damian** » Apr 12, 2003 @ 6:18pm

I'd say get an AMD as Celerons are crap.

Something along these lines:
-AMD Thoroughbred 2100+ ($90 or so, maybe a bit higher)
[if you're daring, you can get a 1700+ from excaliberpc.com for $70 and overclock it to 2.3 or so gigs]
-Thermalright SK-6+ heatsink for $10
-Some 60mm fan for $5 or so... just don't get a Delta, it's loud as hell
-Asus NF7 for $100 if you want a kickass board, otherwise get an MSI KT4VL for $65
-256 megs Samsung PC2700 for $35

That should do it...

by **James S** » Apr 12, 2003 @ 7:23pm

The CPU should come with a stock heatsink and fan which would be plenty, you don't need to spend the extra money getting more fans and special heatsinks.

I agree, AMD is a much better performer than the Celeron and probably cheaper.

by **damian** » Apr 12, 2003 @ 7:42pm

by **sponge** » Apr 12, 2003 @ 8:14pm

by **zinger** » Apr 12, 2003 @ 10:31pm

I would have liked to build my own but my wife fought me on that. We just ran up to Circuit City and got a Compaq Presario with an AMD 2200+ (1.8GHz). $539 after rebate. Can I safely overclock this? One more question. I bought a Geforce 3 Ti 200 128Mb video card, a while back, that's in a PIII 933Mhz machine. Would you agree I should install the Geforce the Compaq? The Compaq has an integrated ProSavageDDR KM266 graphics 32Mb chip.

by **James S** » Apr 12, 2003 @ 10:46pm

Well the graphics card would help, but it's pretty old, really

. But ya, put it in the faster computer. And no, you're not able to overclock that because Compaq and all other manufacturers restrict overclocking ability.

by **damian** » Apr 12, 2003 @ 10:48pm

As for the processor itself, it depends. If it's a Thoroughbred it'll overclock fairly well depending on the stepping; if it's a Palomino it'll overclock very badly.

Yes, adding the GF3 will help MONUMENTALLY. I don't understand why PC manufacturers often ship an otherwise nice PC with at totally crappy video card.

by **zinger** » Apr 12, 2003 @ 11:18pm

Thanks for the info guys. I'm creating recovery cd's now, didn't ship with any, it's taking forever. I can't wait to fire up Unreal II and see how it looks.

by **sponge** » Apr 12, 2003 @ 11:21pm

Poorly. P4 1.6GHz, GE3, Unreal 2 runs and looks like crap. Athlon XP 1800+, Radeon 9500, Unreal 2 is amazing in comparsion.

by **zinger** » Apr 12, 2003 @ 11:33pm

I played Unreal II all the way through on my PIII 933. The frame rate was bad but it was still playable.

by **sponge** » Apr 12, 2003 @ 11:33pm

But it is very video card dependant - which is why I used my comparison.

by **damian** » Apr 12, 2003 @ 11:39pm

Isn't unreal about as fast as UT2003, maybe a bit slower? It ran OK-ish with my 1gig athlon and GF2, let me see now how it runs at 2 Ghz...

BTW, the original Unreal still rules all.

by **sponge** » Apr 13, 2003 @ 12:47am

by **damian** » Apr 13, 2003 @ 12:52am

AMD or Celeron

AMD or Celeron

Sort

Forum Description

Moderators:

Forum permissions