Celeron VS Duron

I will be visiting Buffalo in a week (from Canada). I am planning to buy a system for o/c (as it seems prices are cheaper in states). It is for o/c. Which m/b, processor and fan should I invest in? As I see it there are 3 choices:

1) Celeron (with ASUS cl board)
2) Duron with KT133A CHIPSET (w/t FOP38?)
3) DDR board with Athlon266FSB (if price difference is +/- $100US)

The computer's primary purpose will be servers (proxy, gateway,etc) and (application) development machine (in home use only).
What do you suggest?

Anyone know any good computer shops in buffalo I should contact?


------------------
Soon to be
ASUS A7V133
256 CRUCIAL CAS 2
4 CHANNEL SOUND CARD
16MB TNT (with video IN and out)

If it's for servers a Celeron/Duron should do. I would prefer the Duron overall with a nice KT133A combo.

Will a lot of poeple be accessing your computer?? I'm thinking SCSI https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/08/2.gif

How are you getting to the states?? Driving over?? If your visit is less than 3 days, I believe they might tax you on the way back. Well I usually take "precautions" https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/6.gif

------------------
~Knight of the OC Crusaders ~ Mushkin Brotherhood~

ynd - Young and Dangerous, forever.

My Specs at Mr.White's Computer Haven

A Duron would make a mighty fine proxy. I'd stay away from DDR for the time being, and go with the good ol' KT 133a. It's been proven, and it's really a great OCer. I'd stay away from the DDR for a bit longer, and let the technology develop some more. That's just me though.

------------------
-I eated the purple berries.
-What did they taste like Ralph?
-They taste like burning

-Go banana!

Drop this celeron/duron crap. If you are going to be running a server as an internet gateway. Make it a Thunderbird. About 50-70 dollars more makes the differnce between a good computer and a top of the line server. And it will work on all the same boards that the duron will.

Pay for the performance.

I'd have to agree with GUPPY on this one. A small $50-$75 increase for a Proc is worth the larger speed increment.

But if your ABSOLUTELY STUCK between Celeron and Duron, it depends. If your expecting to be doing some serious OC'n, go for Celeron. They're built for the punishment. But if your leaving it as it is, go for a Duron. They score slightly higher than Celerons at the same speeds, but your lucky if you can OC it farther than 10Mhz. Beyond that is crashing and burning.

Duron over Celeron, hands down. If you've got the cash I'd go with a T-bird over a Duron. However picking up an 800MHz Duron for around $60 and OC'ing it to 1Ghz is almost too good of a deal to pass up

The celeron makes no sense in any respect. a t-bird/duron sys has far more upside potential. the celeron is history now! Intel will drop this line of processors soon. look at support for the ABIT bh6, a classic oc'r, no new bios updates come'n. look to the future and not the past when spending todays dollars.
nerf

------------------
Life is what happens while you are making other plans.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nerf:
..look at support for the ABIT bh6, a classic oc'r, no new bios updates come'n. look to the future and not the past when spending todays dollars.
nerf

---

That old BH61.1 is 4-years old and will offically support a P-3 850 and gladly take a P3-1gig.

What was AMD running 4 or 3 or 2 years ago that has that proven of a upgrade path?

Sure it would not make much since to buy one but if you have, why not upgrade it?

Not to mention that lots of us old BX users are very content waiting for northwood, when we can get a nice, STABLE, upgradable, unbreakable, and cool running CPU and chipset.

In all this AMD price/performance advantage stuff, sure doesn't take into account lots of tbird users on their second or third motherboard in a year or so.

My little celeron and old BX6R2 does everything I need it to do.

------------------
cel.600@928

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GUPPY:
Drop this celeron/duron crap. If you are going to be running a server as an internet gateway. Make it a Thunderbird. About 50-70 dollars more makes the differnce between a good computer and a top of the line server. And it will work on all the same boards that the duron will.

Pay for the performance.

---

FYI Guppy, that is not a guppy on your pic profile, it's a goldfish. Just messin, just thought u'd like to know in case u didn't already



------------------
AMD Athlon 900 @ 900 mhz (tbird)
GlobalWin Fop-38 w/ A.S. II
Asus A7V
Mushkin Basic pc133 256 megs SDRAM
riva TNT2 32 meg (Soon a tweaked Radeon LE)
W.D. 40 gig, ATA 100, 7200 rpm
aureal vortex 2
Linksys Nic 10/100
Diamond phoneline nic
12x DVD rom
10x8x32 acer cd rw

Ashpool what have you been smoking? A Duron is way easier to OC than a Celery. The Duron I put in father's computer is a 600@900 no peltiers, no problems. I have seen Duron's almsot match the performance of a Celery. The slow FSB and low on board cache cripple the Celery compared to the Duron. You might want to check things out a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ashpool:
I'd have to agree with GUPPY on this one. A small $50-$75 increase for a Proc is worth the larger speed increment.

But if your ABSOLUTELY STUCK between Celeron and Duron, it depends. If your expecting to be doing some serious OC'n, go for Celeron. They're built for the punishment. But if your leaving it as it is, go for a Duron. They score slightly higher than Celerons at the same speeds, but your lucky if you can OC it farther than 10Mhz. Beyond that is crashing and burning.

---

Durons are great OCers too. 750 regularly gets to 1gig. As for AMD users having to upgrade Mobos all the time, any kt133 board is still good today, and kt133a boards will be good till palomino, so that's a kinda silly statement to make.


------------------
-I eated the purple berries.
-What did they taste like Ralph?
-They taste like burning

-Go banana!

Duron vs Celeron.

Well, for absolute stability, I'd get a Celeron on a i440 BX motherboard. That's if processing is not that important.

Overclocking wise, I'd say that Duron vs Celeron is about equal. Most 566 - 633 chips make it to 100 bus with the stock Intel fan. Duron's are easier because you can unlock their multipliers, but they produce more heat.

Performace wise, a Celeron at 900 is about equal to a Duron at 750 - 800. So Duron definetly wins out there.

Why get a Duron if you can get a 800 - 1GHz Thunderbird for not that much more?

------------------
Knight of the OC Crusaders.

Don't you hear them?

This user is 100% Intel and Microsoft compatible.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mandorallen of Molynnr:
Duron vs Celeron.

Well, for absolute stability, I'd get a Celeron on a i440 BX motherboard. That's if processing is not that important.

---

I have seen lots of respectable people recomending Athlon over duron if i can spare the cash. what kind of performence boost are we talking about? some real life benchs or example will be helpful.
btw, performence and stability are equally important and as i mentioned its for home use so i can live with once in a while windows crashes (not hard disk crashes) or little performence loss.

------------------
Soon to be
ASUS A7V133
256 CRUCIAL CAS 2
4 CHANNEL SOUND CARD
16MB TNT (with video IN and out)

I really don't know why people talk poorly about the stabillity of AMD processors, I really think it's one of those old wive's tale style things, but the chipset support can be kinda difficult sometimes. However, I have had ABSOLUTElY no trouble with my setup, T-bird 850@1007 on A7V133. That's just my experience though.

------------------
-I eated the purple berries.
-What did they taste like Ralph?
-They taste like burning

-Go banana!

BUMP

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bromide
BUMP

---

Ho... Ly...

:eek: :confused: i'm confused, why bump(gravedig is a better word) this one? :confused: :p

i am building a little router/server and would like to get more opinions :cool:

wouldn't it be better to start a new thread? I mean the hardware brought up here is "ancient". I mean, athlon xp's have phased out durons for the most part at this pricepoint and made buying a celeron equally pointless for all but intel diehards...

oh- my bad

Quote:

---

Originally posted by speedyaxon
wouldn't it be better to start a new thread? I mean the hardware brought up here is "ancient". I mean, athlon xp's have phased out durons for the most part at this pricepoint and made buying a celeron equally pointless for all but intel diehards...

---

The new durons arent bad if you want to go real cheap. They uped the FSB to 266 and most OC like a champ for $35. The celerons just dont have enough cache to be decent.

This is old yet still a contemporary question. Certainly I would take a Duron over a celeron. The hot ticket is the 1.6Ghz which suposedly can have its L2 enabled making it a Tbred in essence. Not to mentioned you can score a base Tbred for little more than $50. If you need something without bells or whistles you can get it now for dirt cheap

Avoid Celerons! Durons are the same price if not CHEAPER and run 200/266Mhz FSB and 192/256kb cache. The new ones (1.4Ghz, 1.6Ghz I think) are the better ones with the 266Mhz FSN and 256kb cache.

Celerons have slow 100Mhz FSB and 128kb cache... Nows that is a joke CPU.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bromide
BUMP

---

OMG!! You grave digger you. I bet you raid ancient burial grounds on the weekend don't you... :eek:

But yeah Today Durons > Celerons or you could get a 2500+Barton and a Shuttle AN35N-Ultra for $150 at Newegg..

Funny, someone revives this yesterday, then today this article pops up on Anandtech. :p