Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Dream Machine ( Build your own PC ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nemer who wrote (7216)	4/23/1999 3:51:00 PM
From: RJL	Respond to of 14778

Good points Nemer: To elaborate a little bit: Overclocking can be beneficial to many Celeron users since the the full cache Pentium II/III's are much more susceptible to the heat problems associated with overclocking. (due to the cache chips). Although overclocking will void the warranty on your CPU and can reduce the CPU's lifetime a couple of years (who cares if it lasts 8 years instead of 10?) the problem lies with the motherboard. Of the 100 blown processors I've seen due to overclocking, it was the board that originated the problem. The extra heat going through some of the motherboard components go way beyond specifications. And that kills motherboards and potentially CPU's as well. Although I think it's fun to play with sometimes, too many people think they can do it all the time. <end of rant> Once again, although I think AMD makes good CPU's the incompatibilities I've seen and current state of the non-Intel chipset market makes them a non-recommendation (word?) from me. Good note on the cache speed of the Celerons. The first Celerons that came out (with no cache) didn't fly very far except with overclockers because the lack of cache on the CPU made overclocking quite easy. The newer ones with the on-die cache run at the full CPU speed (300, 333, 366+) while the Pentium II/III's cache runs at half of the CPU speed (PII 400 cache runs at 200Mhz) The cache size/speed on the upcoming AMD K7 CPU's is supposed to be impressed. And the good old Cyrix chips...well...They work well, the early models had some difficulties with certain motherboards and early versions of Windows 95, but those incompabilities are gone. The problem is that their floating point performance sucks large. And I mean large. If you are using your system for graphics design, CAD/CAM, or gaming, you'd be insane to use one (IMO) As the old adage says you get what you pay for. Overall though, I like the PII 350's or Celeron 366's. Xeon's are nice for drawing stations too. Rich