Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Upgrades

Intel Celeron 2.2GHz Reviewed 228

Posted by CowboyNeal from the more-bangs-for-bucks dept.
Detonator 3:16 writes "Black-Ash.net has posted a review of Intels Celeron 2.2GHz Budget CPU; interestingly they have compared it to a common older CPU (PIII-700MHz) to see whether it would be worth using this CPU as an upgrade." Celerons have usually a been a decent processor for the money, and this one looks to continue the trend. It's not the fastest chip ever, but for spending less than $100, it's a good bargain.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel Celeron 2.2GHz Reviewed More

Intel Celeron 2.2GHz Reviewed

Comments Filter:
  • the review points out that an upgrade requires an atx case with a p4 psu. in this case, wouldn't it make more sense to upgrade to an athlon?

    • Re:how about celeron vs athlon (Score:4, Informative)

      by biggknifeparty ( 618904 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @12:33PM (#5815023)
      For the same price here you can get an XP 2200+
      (Both retail with cooler)
      Celeron 2Ghz $149.95 CDN
      Athlon XP 2100+ $146.95 CDN
      The Athlon will kill the Celeron too!
    • most PSUs these days are p4 compliant. COurse, i'd rather just buy an athlon, seeing as how the price is about the same for the speed, but the performance is SO much greater. Especially when you run Floating-point loving apps (adobe after effects and such). Course, i'm a bit biased, cuz i love my comp so much ^^

  • Conclusions (Score:5, Informative)

    by Rooked_One ( 591287 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @12:28PM (#5815006) Journal
    I'm sure this will be /.'ed so heres the conclusions for ye scurvy dogs

    Conclusion:

    If you are looking to upgrade an older system, and you don't want to spend a lot of cash, then the Celeron 2.2GHz might just be the right processor for you. From my experience with a P4 1.6A processor, that is the first Northwood P4 with 400FSB and 512KB of L2 cache ,I would say that the Celeron 2.2GHz performs a little slower, maybe 5%.So, you are getting a 1.5GHz + P4, at a price of 75-85 USD compared to the P4 1.5GHz costing from 99-127 USD. Combine that with an Asus P4B266 motherboard at 50 USD and a stick of DDR266 memory at 22 USD only, you are looking at a total renewal of your old system for as little as 157 USD which seems quite ok for me. Do note though that you will need an ATX case for the motherboard and a P4 power supply, as your older one will probably lack a special connector that P4 motherboards require to power the CPU.

    PROS:

    Good All Round Performance

    Price is very good, around 85 US dollars at most

    Performs similarly to a fully fledged P4 2.2GHz in certain apps

    CONS:

    Not as good as a P4 2.2GHz in gaming

    128Kb of L2 Cache

    400Mhz FSB

    Looks like a great CPU for granny!

    • From the article:

      But how does the Celeron processor differ from a convectional P4 processor?

      A pretty accurate slip of the tongue there =).

  • Decent review (Score:4, Informative)

    by Pharmboy ( 216950 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @12:31PM (#5815015) Journal
    Short, straight to the point. Is it me, or is the gap between Celeron and P4s in performance getting larger? Seems this would make AMD a better choice, dollar per dollar, if the big resellers would use them.

    My point of comparison was a Dell 2.0ghz Celeron system I purchased at Christmas for my parents. Good thing they don't play Quake III. Now I wish I would have gotten them the AMD system from someone else.

    • Re:Decent review (Score:2, Informative)

      by Wiz ( 6870 )
      Yes, and it is Intel's fault entirely. The problem is the architecture of the Pentium 4, it is very bandwidth hungry and very cache hungry. A good reason why Intel bumped the L2 cache of the Pentium 4 from 256k to 512k very quickly after it's launch - it was getting killed by AthlonXPs still, just as the Pentium 3 before it.

      With only 128k L2 cache and a slow FSB, it is too easy to cache starve it and it simply does lots of NOPs at 2GHz+ whilst waiting for memory. Where the Penitum 3 P6 architecture wasn't

    • Re:Decent review (Score:3, Insightful)

      by deadsaijinx* ( 637410 )
      In my most biased of opinions, the athlon is by FAR the better purchase. The celeron, however, isn't aimed at consumers like me, who look at every benchmark, calculate the pcmarkpoint:dollar ratio, and calcuate in the expense of the other gear (MB, RAM). No, it is aimed at the lackluster $700 dell buyer, who sees the word "Intel" and sees the numbers "2.2Ghz" and is thus satisfied, not quite realizing what they are really getting.

  • Okey, I am confused. (Score:5, Funny)

    by termos ( 634980 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @12:32PM (#5815019) Homepage
    they have compared it to a common older CPU (PIII-700MHz)
    The 2.2Ghz versus the 0.7Ghz. *drums in background*
    Oh the excitement!
    • The problem that MOST people don't realize is clock speed has very little to do with performance. There was just that article where the 1.4Ghz Opteron was killing the P4 3Ghz in many benchmarks.
    • Well, interestingly, the systems were
      approximately comparable in performance.
      Reading the numbers, one suspects that a
      P3-1.13GHz would have tromped the Celeron 2.2GHz
      with a resounding *crunch*.

      Yeah, it's not a scientific benchmark, just
      a low-budget approximation of one. But it's
      credible data. Marginally useful, but credible.
    • Well, if the Oh-So-Popular, Via C3 was the 2.2GHz chip, I have no doubt the 700MHz PIII would stomp all over it.
  • Go to my site [martin-studio.com] and check out the links.
    • Boy, this one took some real thought didn't it?

      : I'll post a link to PCMall's product with my advertising link on Slashdot.

      : ???

      : Profit!


      Oh!, wait! PC Mall doesn't even stock the product you were attempting to spam!

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
  • What would be more sensible is not only a comparison to the old PIII, but a comparison with AMD's equivalent (eg. Duron).
    • Durons actually haven't been manufacturered for awhile. Since the Tbred XPs were introduced, I think. The proper comparison would be a $50 Tbred 1700+.

      Tbred 1700s also have the marvelous properties of being the coolest Athlons ever and also being magnificent overclockers. I've got one at 2600-equivalent speeds on a 166MHz bus.

      Combine with a Shuttle AK32A or ECS (bleh) K7S5A motherboard, and you don't even have to upgrade RAM.

      Total cost for the pair will be maybe $120, shipped, or around what the Celeron
  • When you can pick up an AMD AXP 2400+ for $92, why even goof with some budget celeron CPU? If you are in the mood for an upgrade and don't want to wait for A64 in September, then pick up a pretty nForce2 board like the Asus A7V8X-DX or just the A7V8X. Great board with great features (dual lan, serial ATA) and be happy!

    Seriously - celeron = waste of time and money.
    • For some people, it seems like having "Intel Inside" is an absolute requirement. I've been on AMD for 5+ years and have never regretted it!

      The new 800Mhz FSB Intel rollout is tempting, though...

    • celerons are the equivalent of nvidias mx line(and the coming lowend-fx).

      in other words: cheap, but horribly expensive when looking at the performance.

    • I'm done with AMD (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      While the CPUs are stable, I just can't find a good board that can go more than 6 months without a problem. I've had SiS, nForce, and VIA based boards that have all eventually crapped out.
      • I feel your pain. I have found a nice and stable motherboard. The Asus A7V8X! Asus rocks. Its still using a VIA chipset but the least one with ddr-2700 memory support is stable.

        I think the problem is that intel requires certain motherboard makers to go through reliabilty tests to be licensed to use the pIV. This includes things like capacitors that do not blow up which you can read about from past slashdot stories. Asus is a reputable brand that goes through extra steps to make them reliable. However its n
    • Last week Fry's had a Soyo board with DDR slots, an AMD Duron 1Ghz, case, and power supply for $59. That is what I would call a bargain upgrade. Any part in that you don't like, you throw it out and replace it. And to start off you have a working system to upgrade to, if you move your existing disk and cards over. Just gotta buy some DDR, but at $50 for 512MB it's pretty cheap.
    • I'm really disappointed that a successor to the age of Celeron I's on BP6s has never come forward. Sure, I can SMP expensive AMD or Intel chips, but the whole point of the BP6 experience was the quantity-over-quality aspect. And yeah, I know you can fiddle with Athlon MPs and sometimes get them to run in SMP, but I want something more certain. I want my cheap shit, dammit!
      • The opteron chips out there now support MP, and they're relatively inexpensive for a chip that's been out a few days ($300 for the chip, $400 for a board which has some pretty sweet features).

        Not to mention they kick the stuffing out of Intel's stuff at almost everything.

      • Re:SMP or Bust (Score:3, Interesting)

        by DarkEdgeX ( 212110 )
        Agreed, I'm hanging onto my SMP Pentium III 800 system for just that reason-- Pentium 4's are SMP'able, and I'm not a big fan of AMD processors (for various reasons, none of which I'll elaborate on because I'll just end up being modded a troll or flamebait, like every other person with a dissenting anti-AMD opinion). Besides, this dual processor P3 800 system doesn't even feel like it's aged much; every P4 based system I play with is just as responsive as this box at everyday tasks, and for gaming this sys
    • "Seriously - celeron = waste of time and money"

      So... what does humorously + athlon equal?
    • Seriously - celeron = waste of time and money.

      Last I heard, Mobile AMD processors still burn a hole in your lap... I'd rather burn the hole in my wallet, given the choice.

  • Yeah, GREAT savings... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by theGreater ( 596196 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @12:35PM (#5815036) Homepage
    An Athlon 2200 is $71.04 on Pricewatch [pricewatch.com] right now. Pardon my feigned ignorance, but how exactly are you saving money while still buying an inferior CPU?

    -theGreater Sarcasmic.

  • All 3D tests? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PinkoHeretic ( 665616 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @12:37PM (#5815042)
    The tests used in the review are two Quake III based tests and 3d Mark 2001. Part of the reason for such a small increase (23-48%) with 300% of the processor is not just the difference between PIII and Celeron architectures, but because the 3D Card is a more important consideration then the processor in these types of tests. Some office benchmarks or video encoding speed would have been valuable metrics for comparing processors.
    • Yeah, but.... how many people actually need to upgrade a P3/700 system for office apps? Maybe you need an upgrade if you do serious number crunching (in which case, use SETI or DIstributed.net as your benchmark), or development (in which case, use a kernel compile w/same config), but for 90% of the people, 700mhz is plenty for desktop-type stuff. I run a PIII/733 myself, and the only thing I've thrown at it so far that feels slow is Grand Theft Auto III. (And that's even with my spankin' fresh Radeon 90

  • Mud, meet Stick. Stick, Mud. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rusty0101 ( 565565 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @12:38PM (#5815049) Homepage Journal
    I understand that the review is somewhat game centered, I suspect the review site is as well, but this review does nothing for me.

    Any frame rate that exceeds the refresh rate of your display is effectively wasted. You just won't see the extra frames. A 23% improvement just means that many more frames you won't see.

    In all honesty, since he had to replace both the CPU and the Motherboard, the improvement provided by the combination will touch a few other things that should be presented. Since he chose to use the same video card, how much of the processing load was offloaded to the card? Is there a way to see comparable information wrt the hard drive?

    For a closer to purer CPU comparison, I would like to know what kind of improvement to processing Seti@home blocks, or any of the other distributed computing projects.

    -Rusty

    • Re:Mud, meet Stick. Stick, Mud. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Russ Steffen ( 263 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @12:49PM (#5815082) Homepage
      Any frame rate that exceeds the refresh rate of your display is effectively wasted. You just won't see the extra frames. A 23% improvement just means that many more frames you won't see.

      That would only be true if the work required to draw a frame in a game was a constant. It's not. When these benchmarks show frame rates beyond a resonable display refresh rate it's a (crude) measure of the system's ability to hold a playable frame rate when there is a lot going on on-screen. It's also a measure of excess capacity that may not be used in the benchmark game, but might be used by, say, it's sequel.

    • Re:Mud, meet Stick. Stick, Mud. (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "Any frame rate that exceeds the refresh rate of your display is effectively wasted. You just won't see the extra frames. A 23% improvement just means that many more frames you won't see."

      So what? Are you saying people should never buy video cards that can exceed their refresh rates? More fps give the experienced palyer the edge. I'd much rather have a card that plays rtcw from 80-120fps than one that can only do 60-90.

      Also most gamers don't buy a card and then only play one game on it forever. So There i
    • Any frame rate that exceeds the refresh rate of your display is effectively wasted. You just won't see the extra frames. A 23% improvement just means that many more frames you won't see.
      >>>>>>
      This is a stupid arguement. If you're frame rate is exceeding your refresh rate then why not just turn the detail up? Or are you somehow running Unreal II at 1600x1200 with full detail on a 2GHz Celeron?
    • Any frame rate that exceeds the refresh rate of your display is effectively wasted. You just won't see the extra frames. A 23% improvement just means that many more frames you won't see.

      Visually speaking? Perhaps.

      However, some games sample the user input in between drawing frames. More frames means less time between input sampling, so you have better responsiveness to user input (Which can be critical).
    • What I find interesting is that everyone that replied, foccused on line two. I get the feeling that none of them went on to read paragraph three, or four. Much less comment on them.

      The video card that the reviewer used is a "Creative Geforce 3Ti200 64Mb Detonators v42.70". I had to go all the way down to "Geforce 3Ti200" to get a usable hit out of google. The hit that I found most interesting was at fadainc [fadainc.com] where the reviewer noted that when he updated the AGP drivers his system went from 2000 on 3DMark200

  • AMD? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 26, 2003 @12:39PM (#5815050)
    ok. So option one:
    buy a 2.2 ghz celeron for $70 and get a computer that performs like a 1.5ghz p4

    Option two:
    buy an AMD for $70 and get a 1.8ghz chip that performs like a 2.2ghz p4

    I think he should have mentioned this in his article. AMD affors excellent alternatives if price is an issue!

  • Why the 3d Tests (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 1nsane0ne ( 607735 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @12:44PM (#5815066) Journal
    Pardon my ignorance here but why the 3d tests? It says right in the article that this is not the CPU to get for gaming. Wouldn't it make more sense to compile some software or something of that nature and see the differences? Anyone know of a hardware review site that has useful benchmarks for those of us who don't care about pc gaming? I want to see kernel compile times or something. Something I can relate to.

  • whats up with the product comparisions (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gobbligook ( 465653 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @01:04PM (#5815140)
    Why do people insist on comparing a celeron to a P4 or athlon?

    These cpus are targeted to different markets. Thats like comparing a P4 to a Xeon.

    A 2.2ghz celeron is definately a good thing, and the performance is quite good for the price. These are entry level economical chips. My experience is all celerons work on pentium boards of the same class. So if you burn out a P4, why bother spending more money on a P4 when you could cheaply limp your computer on a celeron till the P5 comes out? Then spend the money you saved and get a P5 board too.

    The other thing to note here too is that I know for a lot of people who don't have much money, especially kids on student loans, or perhaps even low income families, without the celeron chips, they couldn't get into modern computing. I aplaud intel and amd for coming out with cheaper chips. So what it doesn't compare to a P4? who cares, the consumer is buying it for the price and performance of THAT chip, not because it is slower than a P4.

    • It is no longer possible to purchase anything close to the minimum processor required to "get into modern computing". Processors go off the market far before they're obsolete. And the only real thing driving processor upgrades is Windows bloat and video games. Windows bloat can be easily avoided using a real operating system. Hopefully someday the console manufacturers will get their act together and I can stop trying to play games on my workstation.

      Transmeta and Apple have the right approach: increasing

    • You start: "Why do people insist on comparing a celeron to a P4 or athlon?"
      You end: explaining why the P4 is in a different class.
      My $0.02: Why not compare *similarly* priced AMDs to Celerons? The fact that the AMD is functionally in a different class shouldn't matter if one is first and foremost price conscious. Why pay the same price for less?
    • "Why do people insist on comparing a celeron to a P4 or athlon?

      These cpus are targeted to different markets."

      Not when an Athlon XP 2100+ is only $80. Same as a Celeron 2.0 ghz.

      And the Athlon 2100+ wastes the Celeron 2.0 ghz.

  • My 2Ghz celery (Score:5, Informative)

    by Kegetys ( 659066 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @01:10PM (#5815161) Homepage
    I have a 2 GHz Celeron here, overclocked to 2,6 GHz using the retail fan with 7 volts (12v default). Although its not the best numbercruncher out there, its definately worth the money I paid for it plus the heat generation is so low that it allows me to overclock it and still run the retail fan with a lower voltage than default to keep my system very silent. Comparing to my old 566 Mhz Celeron which I ran at 850 Mhz its fast; using a software called PiFast to calculate 4194304 digits of pi took about 85 seconds with the old CPU and now it takes about 39 seconds with this CPU, although the biggest difference in this benchmark propably comes from the increased memory bandwidth, thanks to the DDR memory. I do some gaming with it too, and im happy with it.

    • My 1.6 GHz XP... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by LFS.Morpheus ( 596173 )
      This is an XP 1700 (1.46GHz), easily but poorly overclocked on a ECS K7S5A (not an O/C-friendly motherboard) to 147 * 11 = 1647 MHz. For reference, BIOS recognizes it as a XP 2000, and I have DDR memory, not SDRAM (this board supports both).

      Total computation time : 32.03 seconds

      I paid $50 for this CPU several months ago. I don't use the retail fan for my 10% overclock, since I have much higher goals in time. This CPU is extremely cool at stock, I'm sure 10% on a retail sink would be fine.

      Here is the meth

  • Terrible review (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @01:15PM (#5815173) Homepage
    All the benchmarks are, as others have pointed out, bottlenecked on graphics. I'd like to see traditional MIPS numbers or LINPACK benchmarks for these CPUs.

    A realistic graphics benchmark would be a program that drew more and more polygons until the frame rate started to drop. That would actually tell you something useful. That's what you care about, after all.

    It's amusing how much weight people give to those "refreshes faster than the framerate" benchmarks. NVidia drivers used to spinlock when waiting for vertical sync, instead of blocking. That didn't affect game benchmarks, but that CPU hogging forced OpenGL programs to 100% CPU utilization. I spent some time convincing NVidia's developers that they should block when waiting for vertical sync. The convincing argument was that benchmarkers turned off wait-for-sync, so it wouldn't affect benchmarks. NVidia then fixed it.

    Multithreaded game programs speeded up, too.

    As for the review, do the grey letters on a black background indicate that it's addressed to an audience that likes "shades of black" games?

  • You can pick this cpu up for 80 bux and it overclocks like mad if that is your desire. If you don't want to overclock then you still have chip that walks all over a 2.2ghz Celeron. Pair this cpu with a NForce2 motherboard and you get the bets bang for the buck any day of the week.

    • Re:Athlon XP 2100+ is a better deal (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      yeah but what if you want to use your computer for something other than cooking your sausages on?
      • My Athlon 1800+ reaches only 105F (sorry, I'm a Yank, I don't parse metric very well) when stressed.(Stressed meaning rebuilding the kernel three times or running UT with 4X anti-aliasing at 1024 x 768, max detail, for a couple of hours) This is using the stock retail AMD fan that comes with the chip in the retail package. That will *not* cook sausages to edible temperature. Can you say Trichinosis? I knew you could. Can you say "wake up and smell the benchmarks, Intel fanboy?" I knew you could.
  • When the only thing you might ever notice in a real system is slightly faster play in a high-end graphics-intensive game. Does anyone really care if their spreadsheet opens up a few milliseconds faster? I sure don't! These days the best deal in town is the so-called 'low-end' Celeron or AMD, which by yesterday's standards are not low-end at all. Hell, even 98% of the game players out there wouldn't notice the difference between a 1.7 GHz celeron and a 3GHz P4. I use all the money I save to buy more ram
    • ...
      obviously you meant a 1.7GHz P4 and a 3GHz Celeron, right? :p

      theres a huge difference in processors...i've never gone anywhere near a celeron.
    • I disagree. Put a good graphics card in there so it isn't the bottleneck and they'll be a very obvious difference between a Celeron and P4 of that speed.

      Games are simply getting more advanced. The more CPU power we've got, the more complicated games will become. Better AI, better graphics, better sound, larger levels, etc etc.
  • Intel's trademark thuggery [boston.com].

  • You don't need a new power supply (Score:3, Informative)

    by DeadBugs ( 546475 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @01:38PM (#5815311) Homepage
    One of the nice things about the ASUS P4B266 [asus.com] Motherboard is the "EZ Plug" which allows you to use a standard ATX 12V Plug (The same one you would use for a hard drive). Instead of having to upgrade to a power supply with the new P4 support plug.

  • What about a faster P3? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Bowling Moses ( 591924 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @02:17PM (#5815475) Journal
    Seriously, if the point is an upgrade for cheap and the applications you want to run are similar to those in the review, why not just pop out the old "slow" 700 Mhz P3 and pop in a faster one? A 1.2 Ghz P3 goes for $99 on pricewatch which is going to be far cheaper than any other upgrade (providing your MB will take it of course). It seems that if the 2.2 Ghz Celeron was only about a third faster on the applications tested then a 1.2 Ghz P3 with its near doubling of the old P3's clock speed should be slightly faster than the Celeron, at least for these applications.

    Of course I think shelling out a couple hundred bucks for a 1/3 performance boost in Quake is asinine, but then I also just retired my P120 after seven years of regular use.

  • Retarded Review (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hirschma ( 187820 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @02:18PM (#5815480)
    This had to be one of the very worst reviews I've ever read. The lack of critical thinking is astounding.

    First, if you're going to have to replace the motherboard to use a Celeron, you're going to have to replace the memory to avoid regressing in performance. Run that Celeron on the same SDRAM that you had from the P3, if you can even find a motherboard to do that, will result in a substantial performance DOWNGRADE.

    But since the author is presenting the idiotic scenario of upgrading by getting a $100 budget processor, along with $200-$300 in new motherboard and new PC133 memory (since PC133 costs more than DDR these days), why not consider other alternatives?

    As many others have pointed out, if you're going through the trouble of replacing a motherboard, and therefore, the memory, too, why not just go AMD? Clearly a much better value.

    Even better yet - why not just get a faster P3 off of eBay or a clearance outfit, and get a speed boost past the Celeron without the expense and difficulty of pulling the motherboard, reinstalling operating system and/or drivers, etc?
    And hey, you'd have enough left over to buy a really hot video card, too.

    Bad enough that you have these sites that are trying to be the next Anandtech without the brains. Worse that Slashdot would link to this drek and therefore help support it.

    jonathan
  • Finally, I have a reason to dust off my dual processor celeron board (no, that is not an oxymoron).

    That thing ran circles around my 2 GHZ P4M with just dual 650 celerons!

    Woot!
    http://bp6.com
  • Since I'm not in the mood to get in a fight with you guys,I'll be short and to the point: 1.I don't want to be the next Anandtech.They are large,they have money they get samples.I do with what I have. 2.I'm not getting any money for this by the way,since I'm in the Mediterranean,and I'm writing for a site in the UK.I'm helping out a friend,I have a day-job. 3.Whoever said that you have to get SDRam for the Celeron?If you even bothered to read the whole review,I'm pointing readers to DDR ram prices and a DD
  • I picked up a dell inspiron LAPTOP with an NVIDIA GeForce 4go, 15" lcd, 512 MB DDR, and a 1.6 GHZ celeron on the cheap. I've got RH9 on it and it rocks. This thing plays games much faster than my 1.4 ghz athlon system... I shit you not. I can run q3, rtcw, ut, ut2003,etc,etc,etc all at 1024x768 @ +40 fps (well, quake 3 + rtcw run much faster than that ;). I will admit that it probably has something to do with the GFX card. Maybe an equiv AMD would be a faster choice, but for the price that I got this
  • Tom's Hardware has tested a bunch of processors [tomshardware.com] from 100 MHz to 3 GHz (and it's not just game benchmarks). Almost makes other processor articles redundant.

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close