Tue, 19 Jan 1999 09:48:51 -0600
|
You comparison is a little bit confusing. If you are trying to decide
between the two, and money is not the determining factor, then of course the
PII 400 would be your choice over a Celeron 333.
A better comparison would probably be between the Pentium II 350 and the
Celeron 400, where the Celeron actually out-performs the Pentium II and at a
lower cost. Note: this is a non-overclocked Celeron, so you don't have to
worry about any problems some people associate with overclocking - in fact
it would take an awful lot of work to successfully overclock a Celeron 400,
if it can even be done. Also, the Celeron has excellent gaming performance.
A good article with plenty of nice graphs and benchmark results can be found
on Tom's Hardware Page (http://www.tomshardware.com). The article, "CPU
Overview 1999," starts at
http://www5.tomshardware.com/releases/99q1/990114/index.html.
I personally have a Celeron 300A overclocked to 464MHz, and love it! But, I
accept the risks I am taking by overclocking, and you should definitely do
your homework before attempting it.
Jeff McConnell
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PCBUILD - Personal Computer Hardware discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Wayne Ramlogan
> Sent: Monday, January 18, 1999 3:35 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [PCBUILD] Celeron or Ture PII
>
>
> Hello
> I need some opinions should I go for a Celeron
> 333MHz or go for
> the PII 400MHZ? I will be using this system mostly web
> design and some
> light graphics or games.
PCBUILD's List Owner's:
Bob Wright<[log in to unmask]>
Drew Dunn<[log in to unmask]>
|
|
|