Author Topic: Celeron vs. PIII 500  (Read 642 times)

Offline onyer6

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Celeron vs. PIII 500
« Reply #15 on: January 12, 2000, 10:13:00 AM »
Popeye, I replaced a slot1 PII 233 with a ppga 466 cel($104 retail box) and a $14 Asus "sloket". Mine was an ALX board. I had to update the bios. On my board some slokets did not work.

Offline Fishu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3789
Celeron vs. PIII 500
« Reply #16 on: January 12, 2000, 11:26:00 AM »
Cel 500 - V770 TNT2: 50-55fps 16-bit / 45-50fps 32-bit    1024x76
40fps 32-bit 1145x<something..>

P133 + voodoo I: 7fps :P

Falcontx

  • Guest
Celeron vs. PIII 500
« Reply #17 on: January 12, 2000, 11:26:00 AM »
Let's see Mr. Ed,

My Celeron 300A cost $80
My abit bh6 board was $120
Overclocked to 450 100FSB

You cant get a K-7 chip for the total cost
of what I had spent. Plus K-7 are realivly new. Amd has always had a problem with
floating point. Never has been an issue
with intell. Also once an OS that is
put out that will support multi processors
and runs games well. Then I can buy the Abit board and slave the second cpu (Celeron)
and have a 700 to 900 mghz system for about
$200. K-7's maybe ok but until the gamers
give them a good run thru and the price drops. Most will stay with intel.

Offline Rude

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4609
Celeron vs. PIII 500
« Reply #18 on: January 12, 2000, 01:38:00 PM »
I just want to thank all of you for your posts.....I really appreciate it

I'll still have to kill ya if I see ya, but, still a nice thing for all of you to respond

Salute!

Rude....................Out

Mr.ED

  • Guest
Celeron vs. PIII 500
« Reply #19 on: January 12, 2000, 07:13:00 PM »
_____________________________ ________________
My Celeron 300A cost $80
My abit bh6 board was $120
Overclocked to 450
_____________________________ ________________
Well lets call an apple an orange.

An AMD K6 450-3 cost $70 and can be overclocked to 566. With a $80 FIC 100mhz Motherboard, I've gotten a faster PC for less. A few of my AW3 buds fly this vary PC.
_____________________________ ________________          
You cant get a K-7 chip for the total cost
of what I had spent. Plus K-7 are realivly new.
_____________________________ ________________
Speed costs son, how fast do you want to go?
(borrowed from HT)

Yes the K-7 is brand spanking new and the 500 is under $200, the 710 about $250. I'm not able to pay the ungodly price for the 810. I'm waiting for the motherboard that will take the 500-810, I'll but the 500 now, and wait for the 810 price drop.

The K6-3 500 is right around $100.
_____________________________ ________________

Amd has always had a problem with floating point. Never has been an issue with intell.
_____________________________ ________________
Man I KNEW this was going to come up, now I'll set you straight. Yes the AMD K-6s can't handle heavy 6 or greater digit number crunching, like spreadsheets, this is a fact, but they aren't designed for that. Also The 3D instructions are far superior to Itels.

_____________________________ ________________
Also once an OS that is put out that will support multi processors and runs games well. Then I can buy the Abit board and slave the second cpu (Celeron)and have a 700 to 900 mghz system for about $200.
_____________________________ ________________
Well someday you can have a patched together system, & yes NT & Intel can do it now, better than AMD, but with no Plug & Play support. I looked heavly into a duel Intel system with NT. What I found out is that very few non-business apps will run on a duel CPU set up, heck if AH didn't run I'd have a super fast PC, and not be able to fly :-(

_____________________________ ________________
K-7's maybe ok but until the gamers give them a good run thru .
_____________________________ ________________
Already been done. ZD TV's show "The Screensavers" are building super gaming PCs. Both with Intel & AMD. Go and read their site .
_____________________________ ________________
Most will stay with intel.
_____________________________ ________________
Most will, Like I said, when someone sells me a true 32bid OS with PnP, I'll go Intel also.

I've ran my K-6 200M2 for 3 years now 10-12 hours a day, 7 days a week, and have had no problems, and great flying.

_____________________________ ________________
and the price drops
_____________________________ ________________
Gee My wholesaler always has AMDs for less than Intel.

BTW I live 30 minutes form the Intel plant, here in Washington. Let me tell you a bit of travia. You know how AMD got their start? They were an Intel start up company that made Intel 486 CPUs, when Itnel couldn't keep up with demand back in the early 90s. They new the 32bit CPUs were coming out and told Intel that until the OS cought up, that sticking with a 16 bit hardware, was the way to go. The Super socket seven is still the fastest 16 bit motherboard for benchmarking. Oh yes the Alpha and others are faster, but they run NT and are 32 bit.

Oh yeah, the world is flat!

Mr.ED
Pony Driver
Knight
 

Offline bloom25

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1675
Celeron vs. PIII 500
« Reply #20 on: January 13, 2000, 01:28:00 AM »
I'm running a 400 celeron (in slocket adapter btw. Intel AL440LX mbd.) 96 mb ram, with Intel 740 8MB v card.  Usually I get 40 - 45 fps in 800 x 600 hi-res mode.  Slowest I've ever seen is 23 in massive furball.

My friend has a K6-2 350 and only gets 10 fps in low res.  (I think this has to do with the historically poor floating point performance of AMD processors.  Athlon should be amazingly fast though.)

Originally I was running a P2-266 and only got around 25 fps back in .36.  Upgrading to celeron is a great way to improve game performance.  (In most cases, Celeron is just as fast or faster in games due to cache design.)

Hope you can make sense of my post, (I can't).  

Offline Laika

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Celeron vs. PIII 500
« Reply #21 on: January 13, 2000, 04:40:00 AM »
Mr ED,

Yeah the K6 is cheap but "speed for speed" ver a Celeron the K6 looks like a 486 (for games). I'm not interested in comparing FPS in AH until a standard test is worked out like the CV test for WB's. Have a look at the following page and view the WB's benchmarks (much the same graphic's engine as AH), The best listed K6 (400 o/c @ 450) runs at 24.5fps@1024, A Celeron 300 o/c @ 450 is listed 42fps@1024 with most Celerons running at the same speed are in the hi 30's, so the K6 looks about 10-15fps slower than a Celeron at the same speed (for AH/WB's...Yeah I know video cards play a big part but thats another story). And you have more chance overclocking faster with a Celeron than a K6. A Intel user that has a slot 1 Mobo can fit a Cel Slot1,Cel370,P2 or a P3.... good bang for your buck for upgrades http://wbexperience.tripod.com/framerate.html

Just out of interest there is a Athlon 500 listed with 52fps@1024.... My Celeron 300A@504 is listed with 53fps@1024    

Yes the Athlon "may" be a Intel killer but we will have to wait and see, I know kryotek have Athlons at 1G but I've also seen P3's that have hit 1G

My 300A started out overclocked at 450, then 504, last weekend I managed to run it at 558 !! .... thats "good bang for ya bucks" in my book

laika  


Mr.ED

  • Guest
Celeron vs. PIII 500
« Reply #22 on: January 13, 2000, 09:16:00 AM »
>>>>the K6 looks like a 486 (for games)<<<

POPPYCOCK! The K-4s did, they fixed Windows 9x to SEE the AMD CPUs, now everything is and has been the way it should.

>>>Just out of interest there is a Athlon 500  [K-7] listed with 52fps@1024<<<<

Well this is what I was talking about, not K-6. I only use 800x600 (old eyes) so It should do me fine. Overclock it to oh lets say 666mhz, just for shrimps and giggles and wait for the 810 price to go down.

And your right video cards make a big difference, as a young lady told me once "Bigger IS better!"

I bookmarked the benchmark site and will check it out. BTW I checke dthe ZD TV site last night. They went with the Intel... but put the CH Products flight gear away, and went with a Logitec FF stick for $40, said the CH was to complatcated for average user.
Yeah right.

Which goes to prove:

Different stokes, for different folks

Mr.ED
Pony Pilot
AMD abuser

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27251
Celeron vs. PIII 500
« Reply #23 on: January 13, 2000, 09:37:00 AM »
Mr.ED:
"but put the CH Products flight gear away, and went with a Logitec FF stick for $40, said the CH was to cpmplicated for average user.Yeah right."

LOL!  CH Products is one of the easiest!  They should try writing a macro for TM before they spout off about CH Products!

------------------
Brian "Ripsnort" Nelson
"There is no reason anyone would
want a computer in their home."
   Ken Olson, president, chairman and
founder of Digital Equipment Corp.,1977

Offline CRASH

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 186
Celeron vs. PIII 500
« Reply #24 on: January 13, 2000, 02:29:00 PM »
I got a celery 433 oc'd to 488, 128 megs ram and a voodoo 3 3000 running the latest drivers and dx7a.  I've discovered that the screen resolutions plays a big part in your frame rate.  In 640x480 I get 45 as an average...fur balls dont really slow it down, but when clouds, sun and mountains are all in view it'll bog down to 30fps.  In 800x600 it's a good 10 to 15 fps faster. I havn't flown in any higher res so I dont know if that'll be improved upon.
CRASH

Offline Voss

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1261
      • http://www.bombardieraerospace.com
Celeron vs. PIII 500
« Reply #25 on: January 13, 2000, 03:35:00 PM »
You can always tell the guys that have the "uber" systems. Should you offer them a snapshot, they hit you like a hailstorm!

Rude, I have a P200MMX, runing AH at 5fps (3 in furballs). It is very rare that I can kill someone in one pass. That's why I stick to ambush.  



------------------
- Voss -

Offline Lephturn

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1200
      • http://lephturn.webhop.net
Celeron vs. PIII 500
« Reply #26 on: January 13, 2000, 04:04:00 PM »
Best "bang for the buck" right now is a Celeron 366 on an Abit BH6 II or something.

I'm running a Celery 366@495 stable with retail heat-sink and fan.  I have the Abit BP6 though, so I can slap another one in when this machine turns into my server.    Hopefully soon.

If you have a bit more $, the new 550E FC-PGA PIII will aparently go to 825Mhz... with the retail heatsink.  You need an Appollo chipset mobo though.  Check out http://www.anandtech.com/#3015  for more details.



------------------
Lephturn
The Flying Pigs

Offline popeye

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3616
Celeron vs. PIII 500
« Reply #27 on: January 13, 2000, 04:48:00 PM »
Just ordered a Celeron 366 that is guaranteed for 550 MHz. Should be cookin with gas soon.  

Thanks for all the good advice here!!

popeye
KONG

Where is Major Kong?!?

kjb

  • Guest
Celeron vs. PIII 500
« Reply #28 on: January 13, 2000, 06:37:00 PM »
Voss, nice to know i've got a better frame rate than some one   . I get about 8, don't notice in a furball cause i'm dead before my screen tells me i'm there. And higher res. doesn't help my FR at all   .

------------------
KJB
aka kjb  ;)

Falcontx

  • Guest
Celeron vs. PIII 500
« Reply #29 on: January 13, 2000, 08:17:00 PM »
Mr. Ed,

The K-6 with 3dnow tech. would run neck and neck with Intel. If and only If the game
was optimized for 3dnow tech. If not intel
would kick its pants again due to floating point. If ya dont belive be put a Celeron
and a K-6 side by side same speed same FSB
and run any 3d game even AH and see who wins.

I have done this and the celeron blew the pants off the K-6 because the game wasnt optimized for 3d now.

I hope you get that K-7 pushed that fast, but I am sure your gonna need super cooled mineral oil to keep that puppy from burning the board. Any way good luck

With my celeron I have the speed I need for a little money. As long as the FPS dont go below 15 its playable and plenty fast.

FalconTX