will my amd system blow up in a year lol

[james.miller]

The rankings are here. Yes, the SK7 would be a better choice, but as you can see, the Volcano 7+ does certainly hold its own. Either one should serve you quite well.

gautum your forgetting one thing - the fans used for that test. the sk-7 was paired with a 5500 rpm Vantec 80mm fan@ 55 dBA, while the v7+ was paired with a 49 cfm 70mm fan @ 71 dBA

That's quite a difference lol

 

[Lord_Zoltan]

Thermal Right all the way, i was gonna originally get a volcano 9 then i saw the light, and my temperatures are unebelievably great with my slk800.

GO THERMALRIGHT, and get a nice fan

 

[cack01]

I'm using a stealth on my sk7, and I'm am very happy with it. Granted the cpu is at 1.55V so its not a very hot CPU.

The moral of the story is that you don't need a 100cfm fan for the sink to work wonders.

 

[macklin01]

Agreed. I'm using a Panaflo HI on mine, often running towards 7V. (Except lately, since it's summer and I'm running my research pretty much 24-7. ) -- Paul

 

[RangerJoe]

Heh, your friend is a retard.

ill 2nd that. ive had my AMD system for nearly 2 years. and ive never had a problem. ive upgraded, and i still havnt had any problems. and besides...a celeron??? hahah thats funny.


just today i was talking about building a computer for a friend, and another friend of mine was saying how crappy AMD is, and how they overheat all the time. and that my friend should get a 2ghz P4 instead. i mean...why would you want to spend not only twice as much on a processor (i recommened a 1700 tbred b) but more on a motherboard too? i have had some amazingly good results with my 1700. no stability problems, no heat problems, no nothing, except great speed.

in the ways of a heatsink. id go with an sk-7, or slk800. those would be your best bet for a pretty good price

 

[trdsw20]

Your friends brother must have had a bad experience with AMD or heard of a bad experience. Regardless I know people with AMD systems running for oer 5 years. No blowin up over there. Anyway they do run a bit hotter but they are just as reliable as any Intel. BTW
Welcome to the forums!!!

 

[Beast Of Blight]

Agreed that Celerons can be good some applications.

Sorry about the Canadian dollars there -- not sure what the conversion rates are at the moment, or whether svc is appropriate to this example. -- Paul

2Ghz and up celerons are basicly stripped down P4's.

Sure, it may not be the fastest thing in the world.. but it can do quite well, with mine and my MX440 video card I was able to play unreal tournement 2k3 demo at 1280x1024 with almost max details and no slowdown, even with a crapload of bots

 

[TerroH8er]

your friend is pulling those numbers out of his arse.. he doesn't happen to run [h] does he?

 

[macklin01]

2Ghz and up celerons are basicly stripped down P4's.

Sure, it may not be the fastest thing in the world.. but it can do quite well, with mine and my MX440 video card I was able to play unreal tournement 2k3 demo at 1280x1024 with almost max details and no slowdown, even with a crapload of bots

Thanks for some numbers. Indeed. Help remind me, please -- what's the L2 cache size on a P4 Celeron? Thanks! -- Paul

 

[james.miller]

2Ghz and up celerons are basicly stripped down P4's.

Sure, it may not be the fastest thing in the world.. but it can do quite well, with mine and my MX440 video card I was able to play unreal tournement 2k3 demo at 1280x1024 with almost max details and no slowdown, even with a crapload of bots

lol. 3ghz celly's cant compete with 2.4ghz p4's AND, guess what? my 1700+ and 1800+ dlt3c's outperform a p4 2.4ghz..........

its a no-brainer.

 

[IR1]

Yeah AMD is great because it is relatively inexpensive. I like many others dont know where your buddy got that number from, or where he got the disdain for AMD from. And why in hell would anyone ever suggest to someone who isnt a "joe sixpack" to get a celeron? And as long as we are playing 20 questions here, is your friends brother named Tom?

Anyway, I still have my very 1st AMd cpu. An 1800+ Palamino I got with a mobo combo. I have since passed the mobo and CPU on to my brother who is happily running it without any probs. CPU is gonna be 2 years old here soon.

 

[macklin01]

Celerons do have their applications, and not just for Joe Sixers. For example, they have relatively low heat output for their speed but they perform better than the Via Epia's, which makes them a good choice for quiet applications.

As I recall, the P4 celeron has 128 KB of L2, vs. 512 KB of L2 for the P4 Northwood. Now, if you were to take a Celeron and P4 at the same clock speed (with comparable bus speeds on identical architecture for the best comparison), you'd find that a doubling of the L2 cache gets you a 6-8% performance boost. So, let's apply this twice.

1.08 * 1.08 = 1.167,

so the quadrupled L2 cache gets a P4 a 17% performance boost, given an identical clock speed, bus speed, etc. Of course, it will vary according to the application.

Now, let's compare a Celeron at 3.0 GHz to a P4. (And we'll ignore bus speeds, etc.) 3.0 GHz / 1.17 = 2.56 GHz, so by this analysis alone, your Celeron should perform close to a 2.53 GHz P4. The additional .16 GHz = 160 MHz discrepancy is small, and any one of a number of things could account for it. (Differing mobos, memory timings, memory architecture, hyperthreading (I haven't kept up with which models of P4 have it at the moment. Feel free to chime in here.))

Just a bit of counterpoint. -- Paul

 

[IR1]

I still think a celeron over an amd is just plain stupid for the price. Especially with the 1700+ tbredB overclocking so well for less than $60.

I have never in my life seen anyone post "Forget that setup based on AMd... get a Celeron" That would cause more flames than a match in a dry forest.

However I am biased towards AMD because of how much performance I get at such a cheap price tag.

 

[Gage8]

i'm already smelling smoke...

 

[J2T]

Agreed, recommending a Celeron over AMD, or anything for that matter? Thats just funny. They have their place, but to recommend one over better CPU's is just plain stupid.

 

[Cube]

Re: hsf question and will my amd system blow up in a year lol

helo,
im just about ready to buy my system but my freidn says he could get stuff for cheap. so i told him what i wanted to get and he tells me to get a celeron cause my amd system will crash in about a year. he also tells me amd's have a 25% failure rate. where is he gettign this form lol

Heh, I've had my AMD system since February of 2002 and it has never quit on me. I've also had it overclocked from 1000MHz to 1500MHz for most of that time.

I think your friend is being influenced by his Intel buddies.

 

[Nanidin]

Go amd get a 1700+ stepping dlt3c jiuhb preferably week 319, 310 is ok. OC's very good. Very reliable.

 

[trimai]

If it is a recommendation for a Pentium IV with Hyper Threading over Throughbred B then I can understand the logic (even though I think Throughbred B give you a better bang for your buck). If it is a recommendation for a Celeron then it is totally illogical. I do not think your friend understand what he is talking about.

 

[schismspeak]

Celerons do have their applications, and not just for Joe Sixers. For example, they have relatively low heat output for their speed but they perform better than the Via Epia's, which makes them a good choice for quiet applications.

As I recall, the P4 celeron has 128 KB of L2, vs. 512 KB of L2 for the P4 Northwood. Now, if you were to take a Celeron and P4 at the same clock speed (with comparable bus speeds on identical architecture for the best comparison), you'd find that a doubling of the L2 cache gets you a 6-8% performance boost. So, let's apply this twice.

1.08 * 1.08 = 1.167,

so the quadrupled L2 cache gets a P4 a 17% performance boost, given an identical clock speed, bus speed, etc. Of course, it will vary according to the application.

Now, let's compare a Celeron at 3.0 GHz to a P4. (And we'll ignore bus speeds, etc.) 3.0 GHz / 1.17 = 2.56 GHz, so by this analysis alone, your Celeron should perform close to a 2.53 GHz P4. The additional .16 GHz = 160 MHz discrepancy is small, and any one of a number of things could account for it. (Differing mobos, memory timings, memory architecture, hyperthreading (I haven't kept up with which models of P4 have it at the moment. Feel free to chime in here.))

Just a bit of counterpoint. -- Paul

Your math is correct, but they do not perform even close to P4's over 2.0ghz (when not oced), I'd say a celeron at 3.0ghz performs along the lines of a p4 2.2, and alot of time it is worse then that.
Toms had an actual review on that though. (Celeron oced to 3ghz that is)

 

[schismspeak]

gautum your forgetting one thing - the fans used for that test. the sk-7 was paired with a 5500 rpm Vantec 80mm fan@ 55 dBA, while the v7+ was paired with a 49 cfm 70mm fan @ 71 dBA

That's quite a difference lol

Actually james the vantec's are 55dba at 3ft, but they are actually producing 70dba from all the reviews I have read.