.Sup wrote:
No, I didn't.Mint Sauce wrote:
says the guy who started the arguement..Sup wrote:
Umm you want to make a constructive post and help Panzer with his decision or do you want to argue?DeathUnlimited wrote:
Because we were comparing their CPU power? That's what benchmarks do. Heating and power consumption are totally different thing, not related to performance.
.Sup wrote:
Oh so you are comparing Celeron to the weaker Atom-1.3Ghz. I see, well i have the 1.6Ghz Atom.GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
http://laptopcom.blogspot.com/2008/05/2nd-test-atom-vs-celeron-m-353-vs-core.html
http://www.hardwarezone.com.my/articles … 4&pg=5
Yeah, sure.Sup wrote:
Its equal in CPU score but Celeron is bad in other tests. Besides it takes twice as much power and overheats 10 times more. Not a good buy imo.GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
ummm... wat.Sup wrote:
Oh so you are comparing Celeron to the weaker Atom-1.3Ghz. I see, well i have the 1.6Ghz Atom.
http://www.hardwarezone.com.my/articles … 4&pg=5
the score of 1.3ghz atom is 1159
the score of Celeron M ULV 353 900MHz is 1441
add 300mhz to the atom and the score is about the same!
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
