Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

oc-ing the chip was done to bring it up to the FX-55

frequency so it could be compared on a clock for clock basis

 

you obviously diddnt read the article i posted

and your links compare a 400fsb stock clocked chip

to an fx53-55 which operate at 2.4-2.6ghz

 

 

Did you notice all the pretty colors on the pics??? They had the Pentium M OCed, and it did fairly well, but the fact that it has to be OCed to compete with the A64 is what I'm getting it, so I guess I do win...

 

Besides, I knew I would win regardless ;):P

 

How about this thread gets dropped, and we agree that the Pentium M, and A64 are both far better than the Pentium 4???

 

Sounds like a reasonable close to me.

Edited by brandon
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Nope it doesn't, it sounds like a fanboy blind rant. ;)

 

The Pentium M was OC to Compare on a clock for clock basis.

 

Someone was conplaining that the Pentium M over at XS was OCed using LN2.. Well boo hoo Einstein, they used the same type of cooling on the FX-55 when they OC to 3GHz+.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope it doesn't, it sounds like a fanboy blind rant. ;)

 

The Pentium M was OC to Compare on a clock for clock basis.

 

Someone was conplaining that the Pentium M over at XS was OCed using LN2.. Well boo hoo Einstein, they used the same type of cooling on the FX-55 when they OC to 3GHz+.

So, 2.56Ghz compares to 2.6??? Oh yeah, I forgot that 2+2 = 5

 

Also, it's not the FX55s fault that it OCs better on LN2, than the Pentium M.

 

But, all I am is a blind fanboy, even though I have admitted many times that the Pentium M is a great processor.

 

It doesn't seem like I'm the one who's blind here... ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

That logic makes no sense, I was just pointing out that the use of LN2 cooling was not native to Pentium M OCing... genius. ;)

 

Oh yeah, I forgot that 2+2 = 5

You're grasp of mathematical concepts is sadly lacking. 2+2=4. ;) Edited by Intratech
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets see, ok the pentium m is gettin beat because it cant encode divx, but clock to clock with the fx-55, it beats it in gaming, it beats it in benchmarking, and its about 1/3 the price..., yea I know which one I would rather buy.

Edited by Crow
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets see, ok the pentium m is gettin beat because it cant encode divx, but clock to clock with the fx-55, it beats it in gaming, it beats it in benchmarking, and its about 1/3 the price..., yea I know which one I would rather buy.

Yeah, but it also gets beaten by chips that are 1/3 of the Pentium M's price *cough*3500+*cough*

 

Clock for clock, it's only slighty slower than a comparable A64 and it's damn fast no matter what. As hard as I find it not to believe, both the A64 and Pentium M are so fast, that there won't be any noticeable difference, unless you use FRAPS :rolleyes:

Edited by brandon
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, it's not the FX55s fault that it OCs better on LN2, than the Pentium M.

 

FanBoy^^^ :mrgreen:

 

 

Definition: Fanboy is a derogatory term used to describe someone who is utterly devoted to a hobby or a subject, to the point where it becomes an obsession. Fanboys are often experts on minor details regarding their hobbies, and they take these details extremely seriously.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, if you had half a brain, you would know the eye can't see over 60fps, so who's gonna notice 350fps??? Unless you use a counter....

 

 

I tend to agree with you. But those "extra" FPS, do become important if you use 3D glasses, or are recording using FRAPS. each of which will individually cut your frame rates in half. Then, if your using Track IR, you want it to run smoothly, while still having some extra clock-cycles left over to run TeamSpeak and whatever voice command software and or input/controller device. Next thing you know .... your not playing a game your just watching a slide-show.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, if you had half a brain, you would know the eye can't see over 60fps, so who's gonna notice 350fps??? Unless you use a counter....

Not true. I can see the difference between 85 and 100fps.

And not only can I see it, but games play much differently at higher fps's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FanBoy^^^ :mrgreen:

 

 

Definition: Fanboy is a derogatory term used to describe someone who is utterly devoted to a hobby or a subject, to the point where it becomes an obsession. Fanboys are often experts on minor details regarding their hobbies, and they take these details extremely seriously.

If you would have posted anything useful in this thread, then you would be able to call me a fanboy, and since all you've done is call me a fanboy, even though I backed up my statements, I will take that personally as an insult, and I would appreciate if you edit your useless posts.

 

I know I've been out of line a few times in my threads, but I don't like it when people say things, and aren't able to back up their statements that well.

Edited by brandon
Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to agree with you. But those "extra" FPS, do become important if you use 3D glasses, or are recording using FRAPS. each of which will individually cut your frame rates in half. Then, if your using Track IR, you want it to run smoothly, while still having some extra clock-cycles left over to run TeamSpeak and whatever voice command software and or input/controller device. Next thing you know .... your not playing a game your just watching a slide-show.

 

Not true. I can see the difference between 85 and 100fps.

And not only can I see it, but games play much differently at higher fps's.

The brain actually can't see anything over 60fps, well the eyes actually, but gameplay will be smoother with a higher refresh rate, but other than that, your brsin can't tell a difference.
Link to post
Share on other sites

TDP : 31 Watts

Yonah Dual Core x50 / 2.16 GHz / FSB667 / Cache L2 2M => $637

Yonah Dual Core x40 / 2.00 GHz / FSB667 / Cache L2 2M => $423

Yonah Dual Core x30 / 1.83 GHz / FSB667 / Cache L2 2M => $294

Yonah Dual Core x20 / 1.66 GHz / FSB667 / Cache L2 2M => $241

Yonah Single Core / 1.66 GHz / FSB667 / Cache L2 2M => $209

 

TDP : 16 Watts

Yonah LV Dual Core x48 / 1.66 GHz / FSB667 / Cache L2 2M => $316

Yonah LV Dual Core x38 / 1.50 GHz / FSB667 / Cache L2 2M => $284

 

Prices aren't bad, but by the time '06 rolls around, AMD will have Socket M2, and Quad core Opterons out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you would quit trying to be so technical, and try to bust someones :filtered:, you would be half decent in what you know, you have repeated yourself tons of times in this thread.

 

The Pentium M is the best chip for your money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you would quit trying to be so technical, and try to bust someones :filtered:, you would be half decent in what you know, you have repeated yourself tons of times in this thread.

 

The Pentium M is the best chip for your money.

Yeah, true, I have repeated myself a number of times.

 

The Pentium M is the best chip for your money in laptops, because nothing can touch it's performance there, I'll give it that, but it has alot of cheaper competition on the desktop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize I've not been here in a while, and this thread is one of the reasons I quit coming here, but, I really couldnt help but post my 2 cents here..

Everyone has made very good points, but I have to agree that pound for pound , dollar for dollar,the Pentium M is the best bang for your buck chip. I really can't bring myself to take advice on computers from someone who has a BEST BUY built machine trying to tell everyone how good it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize I've not been here in a while, and this thread is one of the reasons I quit coming here, but,  I really couldnt help but post my 2 cents here.. 

Everyone has made very good points, but I have to agree that pound for pound , dollar for dollar,the Pentium M is the best bang for your buck chip.  I really can't bring myself to take advice on computers from someone who has a BEST BUY built machine trying to tell everyone how good it is.

I'm laughing all the way to the bank ;)

 

The only reason I had that thing built at Best Buy was because I didn't know how to build computers at the time, but now I've rebuilt mine twice, so you're point is moot.

Edited by brandon
Link to post
Share on other sites

if you would quit trying to be so technical, and try to bust someones :filtered:, you would be half decent in what you know, you have repeated yourself tons of times in this thread. 

 

The Pentium M is the best chip for your money.

hows it the best chip for your money. what kind of upgrade potentional does it have? If u dont already one one u have to buy a outdated motherboard thats not gonna work with anything else. ( that can keep up with whats highend right now) Edited by wsrider
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...