AMD Duron vs. Intel Celeron
DeadBugs writes: "With all the hype surrounding the new Athlon XP and P4 2.2 GHz, the more affordable processors have been ignored. Tech-Report has a great article comparing the new AMD Duron and Intel Celeron. Both are now running at 1.2 GHz and have upgraded cache. The new Duron contains XP technology, while the Celeron is a PIII Tulatin with a 100MHz bus and built on the .13 micron process."
The ECS K75SA motherboard is only $64
:).
I must also chime in as a fan of this board. I run it in my gaming rig with an Athlon XP 1600, and 512 megs of DDR. It whomps ass! Onboard 100baseT and ATA100, 4x AGP, and the SIS 735 chipset requires no fan. I got mine for $57 at newegg.com, whom I highly recommend for parts (this is an unsolicited testimonial for an independent party
Also, if you look at chipset reviews, the SIS735 comes in JUST behind the high-end Via chipsets, at many $$ less.
Yes, I put an Audigy in and disabled the onboard sound, but the AC97 is very workable if you're running a single pair of speakers or headphones.
Just my $0.02. (Note the leading zero.)
SlashSigTheorem: Humorous, Political, Critical, Constructive- If you have a
"(save for the cache)"
I'm sacrificing my ability to mod on this thread to reply to you, so I hope you're happy. You are doing a great misdeed to discount the importance of cache so greatly.
Duron: L1 Cache: 128kbytes L2 Cache: 64kbytes
Athlon: L1 Cache: 128kbytes L2 Cache: 256kbytes
A difference in cache sizes of this magnitude will ensure (insure?) the Athlon a victory if it is running at a clock speed the same as a Duron. Don't just assume that they're both as fast as one another simply based on bus speed.