> I don't want to replace the machine i have now. What i am now on,(the celeron
> 333) is the *family* computer. I wanted to build one for myself... so i wanted
> yer advice on what was better to buy... celeron or AMD..
> > if you want to buy this new machine to replace the celeron 333 you
> > should probably consider not buying it...
> > Celeron-333 should be quiet enough for internet browsing and a
> > bit of programming too. If you want to spend some money you can as well
> > add
> > some memory to it or buy good scsi drive.
> > > Hello. I'm am going to build a new computer within the next few months,
> > > and i would like to get the most for my money(who wouldn't?). Right now
> > > i'm on a celeron 333. and it's great. I can make world in 2 hours flat.
> > > That is a lot bette than my p133 that took 6 hrs.. Now, If i build
> > > another computer at the moment, i'd either buy the celeron 433, or the
> > > AMD K6-2 450. Which do you guys think would preform better? Btw, i'm not
> > > building this for any type of server, just for normal every day, get on
> > > the internet, do a bit of programing type of machine, Thanks..
> > > Scott
At present the Celerons are the "Best Buy". They are cheaper than AMD
faster than the Pentium II by 8-10%. Go figure! The floating point is
the best (same as Pentium II) so * is superior and many Unix apps
use this feature. Pesonally I have Cyrix MII's at the moment but when I
am able a 2x4** Celeron machine is what I am after. If you get a good
motherboard like a Soyo SY-6BE+ that accepts Pentium II and Celerons
up to say 660MHZ you are covered for future upgrades for a while. AMD
just came out with a 475Mhz which beats the Pentium II (450) but like
is far short on the floating point. So if 3D and graphics are a
consideration go Intel. The final word. AMD and Cyrix are still low cost
alternatives *not* high-performance alternatives. This is changing
however. The Celeron 333 can be overclocked to 400 and 433 with no
trouble. This is a common practice and the reason Celerons beat the II's
is because the 128k cache runs at clock speed not bus speed so the cache
is instantly accessable to the processor.