• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Is this CPU better...

Joebob

Joebob

Joebob

Soldato
Joined
27 Sep 2005
Posts
5,909
Location
Burbage, Hinckley
My lad currently has an AMD Athlon 64 3500+ CPU on a Abit Motherboard with 1GB DDR400 RAM.

I have just bought a fairly cheap mobo & cpu combo deal to build as a print server at work.
The new system is as follows:-

1 x Intel Celeron Dual Core E1200 Socket 775 (1.60GHz) 800FSB 512KB L2 Cache Retail Boxed Processor
1 x MSI P4M900M3-L VIA Socket 775 onboard VGA 7.1 Channel Audio mATX Motherboard
2 x Crucial 1GB DDR2 667MHz/PC2-5300 Memory Non-ECC Unbuffered CL5 Lifetime Warranty


So my question is, will this dual core system be better than the AMD one he currently has for gaming?

Remember, I would have spent more if I knew it would have been used for a gaming rig but as it was just for a print server I went as cheap as possible. Are the Celeron Dual Cores any good for overclocking? I don't mind buying him a decent heatsink & fan if we can bump it up a little.

If the dual core is better then I can always use his old parts for the print server.
 
The Celeron is a better CPU at stock than the AMD and should clock to 3GHz, you may just get away with the stock HSF at that speed too, although not sure wether your MOBO is any good for overclocking.
 
G_Wizz said:
The Celeron is a better CPU at stock than the AMD and should clock to 3GHz, you may just get away with the stock HSF at that speed too, although not sure wether your MOBO is any good for overclocking.
Click to expand...

Excellent - basically as I thought then. I will have a go at overclocking, but I don't think i will get much with a cheap mobo tbh.
 
G_Wizz said:
The Celeron is a better CPU at stock than the AMD and should clock to 3GHz, you may just get away with the stock HSF at that speed too, although not sure wether your MOBO is any good for overclocking.
Click to expand...

ditto , any dual core would be better than and old single core amd :D
 
the only bad thing is that the 512kb cache is a big disadvantage for gaming, but yep it will be better than the old AMD.
 
synixx said:
the only bad thing is that the 512kb cache is a big disadvantage for gaming, but yep it will be better than the old AMD.
Click to expand...

i read about that when the new celron first came out. If it's going to be mainly for gaming then an e2160 or e2180 would be a big step up in terms of the cost.
 
He may well want to stick a core 2 duo in at some point in the future, but it's not a bad upgrade for free from his point of view ;)
 
At stock the E2140 1.6Ghz/1M/800 is only marginally faster than an AMD64 3500+ (around 5% faster) when running most current games, or non threaded applications. The E1200 Celeron with only 512k cache is going to be even closer. I'd say virtually no difference.

However in applications which can make use of the second core, it will be considerable faster, and the Celeron will leave the AMD in the dust.

However, I still suspect the Celeron will be the better system, and as long as you use a decent motherboard, there are options for overclocking, and far far better "upgrade" options available, as the Celeron is a proper PGA775 processor, so you can go all the way up to the top of the range 45nm quads. DDR2 memory is dirt cheap, if you go for 2GB, that should give enough of a performance boost to really help the system feel like an upgrade over the AMD.

Dont forget the graphics though, is the AMD using AGP or PCI express. If its AGP you certainly wont be able to recycle the graphics card(although obviously even if its AGP it will be fine for the print server), and you'll need a new one. Dont bother with "onboard" graphics for a system that will be used for even the most basic games.
 
money wasted, maybe it's a dual core but it's uber **** dual core.
And I highly doubt it will clock to 3ghz.

If you clock it to 2.4+ and run dual core apps then you will see a slight improvement, still not worth the money I would say.

Especially for gaming, make sure that you know how dual core works , it doesnt mean it's double the speed just because it has 2 cores.

-----------------------------------------------------

Go for the E2160, it's just about 10quid more. Then yes,it would make a diff.
 
The new system would be better for gaming for one reason alone, 2GB of ram. 1GB is a struggle in a modern gaming system.

The CPU itself is poop (lets be honest here) but it will suffice as a replacement for the Athlon 64.

You can buy a very good gaming system for little money right now (with CPUs, DDR2 and GPUs pretty cheap) so if you really want to give him an upgrade, make it a proper one.
 
I haven't wasted any money and I wont be spending any more on his system. Like I said, i had already bought it just to be used as a print server so doing a swap with him wasn't a problem and more importantly it cost me nowt. He's 18 so if he wants to spend a big to upgrade the CPU to a core 2 duo etc then he's more than welcome to.

Cheers for all the help guys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom