Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Intel Celeron M 3.0GHz Beats AMD Athlon 64 FX-60




  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    pa usa
    Posts
    264

    Default Intel Celeron M 3.0GHz Beats AMD Athlon 64 FX-60

    Superior Overclocking Potential of 0.065micron Celeron M Processors
    http://www.xbitlabs.com/web/display/20060418124251.html

    i was impressed :0

    http://www.coolaler.com/


    pentium4 dual core 2.8 to 4.6ghz!!! using 4x512 corsair 6400 sticks
    http://www.coolaler.com/modules/news...hp?storyid=406 almost a p4 10ghz box wo0t!!!!!
    Last edited by bf2nut; 04-30-2006 at 06:30 AM.
    Stacker830 Watercooled
    windows7 ultimate 64 bit!!!
    Heatkiller waterblock on intel 2500k @4.5Ghz @1.32volt
    8 gigs Gskill Ripjaw ddr3 2133 @ 1.5 volts
    Swiftech p655 pump,1\2 tygon
    13x120 sunnons on lamptron fc3 controller,
    (2)triple 120mm rads.single raptor 150(reliable)
    biostar TP67XE(this mobo is amazing)
    xfi-xtrememusic,klipsch ultras 5.1/500 watt amp,
    sen hd-595s headphones,logitech stick mic
    co0lermaster-1250 watt real pro powersupply = 99ampz!
    Evga Hydro Gtx 590 on 24"Sony FW-900 at 2304x1440 80 hz = 80 solid fps 16:10 black ops!
    Hi quality CRTS are built for gaming!!!O.L.E.D is the future,not Liquid Crap Displays(lcds)!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,525

    Default Re: Intel Celeron M 3.0GHz Beats AMD Athlon 64 FX-60

    You're to easily impressed seeing as the first is totally based on SuperPI and the second only adds 3DMark into the mix. I'd be wanting a lot more results before posting about them.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Minnesota, United States
    Posts
    4,543

    Default Re: Intel Celeron M 3.0GHz Beats AMD Athlon 64 FX-60

    Agreed. I'm not especially impressed by a couple synthetic benchmarks. I'm certainly impressed by the overclock, but it'll take more than that to convince me that it's faster than a FX-60. It's also worth mentioning that Celeron Ms are not dual-core (and the FX-60 is). Besides, you can take a single-core socket 939 Opteron and a cheaper overall system than the Celeron M will need and get it to 3GHz on air. In other words, this is at best a more expensive equivelent to doing that.

    What is exciting is the potential for Conroe. If you can overclock the Conroe "low-end" (there won't really be a low-end to start with) past 3GHz and the numbers that people got from the Intel systems are accurate, it would be really impressive.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Intel Celeron M 3.0GHz Beats AMD Athlon 64 FX-60

    I'm not surprised by the outcome. The M's have always been on par with AMDs FX clock for clock. The FX-60 is a dual core, so throw some multi-threaded tests in there and it will probably be a different story.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •