bgavin said:
Celerons are still mutts.
They are an emasculated P4. If you want a mutt, then buy one. I'm sure there is a benchmark out there somewhat that will help you rationalize buying a Celeron.
I prefer AMD and nForce, myself.
I say own it, and like it. The least you could do is be a bit more polite about it. You don't have to be a jerk about it.
Besides, Celerons were also based on P3's, which were more efficient than P4's, or can't you read what I posted?
And yes, I can rationalize a P3 based Celeron w/ 256KB cache beating many full P4's up until 2Ghz......because that's a reality.
I have AMD in my desktop (with a KT600, barely a tick slower than a full nForce2 Ultra 400 chipset, but I'm sure you'll argue that too) and it works great as well.
If I sound less than thrilled with you, it's because I am thoroughly tired of your opinion coming through as fact, and disregarding others' opinions as bullshit.
So my opinion, backed up by multiple benchmarks, is that 1.3Ghz Celeron w/ 256KB cache > P4 1.5/1.6/1.7/1.8Ghz w/ 256KB cache.
Why? The Celeron of that generation had less instructions, therefore more efficient than a P4 of a higher clock speed, therefore faster. With the same L2 cache, the first P4's couldn't compete.
I don't understand why you don't realize this.
Yes, the newer Celerons are slower. They don't really pick up until 2.6Ghz, like said.