(Link to AcmlmWiki) Offline: thank ||bass
Register | Login
Views: 13,040,846
Main | Memberlist | Active users | Calendar | Chat | Online users
Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album
06-29-24 12:50 PM
0 users currently in Hardware / Software.
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - Hardware / Software - It Bacame A Choice...
  
User name:
Password:
Reply:
 
Options: - -
Quik-Attach:
Preview for more options

Max size 1.00 MB, types: png, gif, jpg, txt, zip, rar, tar, gz, 7z, ace, mp3, ogg, mid, ips, bz2, lzh, psd

UserPost
NSNick
Posts: 881/2228
Put this in hardware.
NITIN
Posts: 23/64
hell yeah

64-bit rulez!!!!

do take care about the overheating part.
Aeclml
Posts: 8/14
I just got a even better deal (Im guessing) ECS MotherBoard With Amd Sempron 2800+ 64bit, Is this better then both its only for $200
Randy53215
Posts: 9/726
I would go with AMD's. AMD's would out perform the Celeron most def.
Aeclml
Posts: 6/14
Ya the motherboards are almost the exact same just the other one supports Intel Celeron Proc's.
Cellar Dweller +
Posts: 2/138
AMD is usually a better deal than Intel.

Based on the fact that the two options you posted are the same price, the Sempron 2200 will probably outperform the 1.65GHz Celeron, if the motherboards have the same features. If you compare the clock speeds, remember that AMD processors don't need as fast of a clock to have the same performance as a similar Intel processor.
Aeclml
Posts: 2/14
Well... I have a choice to make and I need to know what is better or are these equal, Biostar MotherBoard with a AMD Sempron 2200, Or A BioStar Motherboard With a Intel Celeron Processer 1.65ghz (Can support up to 3.06 dont know about the other motherboard though) Im paying $120 for either and was wondering if these are equal to eachother or is there a better one in the situation here.

(I Caint post in hardware forum for some reason ???)
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - Hardware / Software - It Bacame A Choice...


ABII

Acmlmboard 1.92.999, 9/17/2006
©2000-2006 Acmlm, Emuz, Blades, Xkeeper

Page rendered in 0.009 seconds; used 345.77 kB (max 385.30 kB)