Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Odd!x]

Well, since starting this thread I'm more confused than ever.  At least this is all quite interesting at the same time

On the bright side, it seems that the intel plays TF2 better than my old Toshiba, but I wonder why I get such terrible lags on DF with this computer compared to my old one though...

[Thief^]

Just to check, you're not comparing DF 2010 to DF 40d are you? 2010 is significantly slower.

[Odd!x]

both versions are significantly slower than they were on my Toshiba.

[Blacken]

If it's a modern celery then it won't be too god-awful. Some digging does make it look like it should be comparable to that Turion.

The Celeron 900 is a Penryn derivative. It's also single-core and not faster (clock-by-clock) than a Turion X2.

It's not "10%" as a well-meaning clueless person said, but it is significantly slower.

[Thief^]

I couldn't find out conclusively whether it was a dual-core originally, but now I have, on wikipedia: "Intel initially listed the Celeron 900 as Dual-Core [...] in its Processorfinder and ARK databases, which caused confusion among customers."

So it isn't. I also don't deny that it is slower per clock than a Turion (it's a celery after all), but it's also got more clocks (15% more). It's Core 2 based, so it shouldn't be that slow. This benchmark claims it should be ~10% slower than the Turion in question (presumably only comparing one core of the Turion). That shouldn't equal 90% less DF performance, so we're still missing something.

[Volatar]

Bloatware?

[eerr]

graphics incompaitibilities?

[Lord Shonus]

That's the likeliest cause. Intel's drivers tend to be less polished than the two giants.

[Volatar]

That's the likeliest cause. Intel's drivers tend to be less polished than the two giants.

This is an extremely true fact.