Having read this article:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/0 [...] index.html
and luckily many others on budget CPUs aside from having many personal experiences, in the name of all the conscious members of these forum and for the sake of the many students, kids and overall people on a tight budget reading reviews to find themselves the best solution, I am kindly asking you to complete the article since very differently from your other reviews it TOTALLY lacks benchmarks of:
-Games
-File compression/encoding (other than WinRar)
-Rendering
-Multitasking
Aside from evading the most important, real life benchmarks which give the real value of a system and concentrating on largely irrelevant synthetic benchmarks, you also build the Celeron system on a $60 celeron, that being a good 20% more expensive than the $50 sempron, while the CPUs could, and should have been within a much tighter price margin.

Gaming benchmarks with onboard video. Good idea!

Many games are playable on an onboard video card, but if for you synthetic and single sided benchmarks is a better idea

The best thing, what I am hoping for, is that they retrieve and rewrite it with the full set of benchmarks, because it depicts a totally inverse situation on price and performance; on the average, the Sempron is cheaper and performs better than the CeleronD (at least that is what agreed by all other reviews). But casual readers are unlikely to follow our threads to find the answer.

... i think you have to take into account the market group they are preaching to...... who would want to build a $300 system when they have budget gaming in mind. for $300 you probably cant build even a decent minimal requirements gaming system. the only thing you can do with a system like this is play older games, player newer games like crap, and do basic home and work stuff like internet browsing and word processing. If it can only run windows vista basic what does this tell you about the onboard video? it tells you that you cant expect much when it comes to performance. So the $300 system in this article is obviously geared towards people looking to get a new computer with basic needs in mind.

Yes, but wouldn't it be better that this people is really shown the best PC, not just the best 'Intel' PC for their needs?! Benchmarks are about performance and if you run them, you'd better run them all, no just those you need to say that the Celeron is the best choice.
On the other hand, if all they care about is a cheap home PC (but forget about upgrading it), the Socket 754 Sempron 2600+ has no rivals in price/performance and it's boards are cheaper, DDR400 is dropping like a stone.

Ask the question how much does Intel "donate " to THG every year? While it may not be the Billions that Michael Dell received to be sure it was substantial.
There has long been a recognizable bias in THG Forums, which seems to be fathered by THG itself. Many of my friends do not frequent THG Forums because of this perceived bias. I am neither an Intel or AMD fanboy but from my observations AMD will never get a fair shake. All of you Intel fanboys out there are free to flame me, which is what you seem to do best, when the question of bias arises. AMD doesn't buy business as Intel does. Where do you think all that money they paid out in bribes to buy the business came from. Charging way too much for an inferior product, in other words from you . I do have much more respect for AMD, than I do for Intel because AMD earned the business they have did not have to buy it. Flame away.

Please direct your thoughts to this section, seeings as it is more appropriate to the discussion at hand. I haven't read the article in question, but your best bet would be to PM RobWright, who happens to be a THG editor with your name along with the names of others who feel that this issue should be revisited in a, "less biased", and, "more precise" manner.
Regards,
Ninja

I think the article needs to be rewritten too. I was doing something similar (for my brother and a computer class) but for a $500 computer. This includes OS, Monitor, Keyboard, Mouse, graphics card (even though the one I would have used had on board), and speakers. Got it to $515, not including shipping and taxes. It use the most budget of AMD Sempron, mainly because I have heard of less instability and over heating issues then with a Celeron. When I was doing this I checked to see the advantages of going with dell, and really, I couldn't build the same configurations, but I did find that when I matched mine up to it's I saved about $50, even if I calculated the shipping and tax on the parts, and not figuring tax on the dell (no shipping for $500 or more I think). The only difference was that the dell had a one year warranty. The only question I might have had was if the X1300 is a graphics card that you can use for Vista premium's features. Everything else, in the build, could handle it. It looks like the artical was rushed.

Highly biased article comparing an 102$ Asus P5LD2-VM with an 52$ K8M890M2MA-R2SH ... talking about comparing apples to apples, pleeease! Celeron 57$, Sempron 70$ so 13$ diff on CPU and 50$ on MB?

An Intel Celeron will never beat an AMD Sempron the same price. The Sempron has better perf/$.

Also "Winrar Beta 3"? since when is it ok to use beta software for benchmarking purposes ? even if it is the greatest application on earth. The only non syntetic bench where Cleron wins is Winrar Beta 3 I wonder how much someone has struggled to find that app.

I too think TH is biased, and I've found that out by pure observation...later I've found others to share the same opinion.

While I agree with you, and believe THG should have completed the full range of benchmarks, I think (and obviously I have no way to back this up) THGs intent was not to put together a do-it-all machine. Both systems would suck at running current games and rendering software. I have little doubt that any of the current gaming/rendering benchmarks THGs uses would bring both machines to their 'knees'. However, as entry level web browsing/word processors/email machines for poor students, non computer inclined octogenarians on social security, single moms on tight budgets etc, these machines would clearly fill the bill better than an FX or EE based machine. I mean cmon now M25, would you honestly try to play a game or render anything on those systems with the video cards and ram they used? Personally, I'd rather try writing a book using stone, hammer and chisel.

Wow you guys made a post to remove the article - THG rocks! Its their business how and what to write. There is nothing wrong with the article - THG articles are usually the best.


The price difference in chips is only $4-5 dollars. When i look at the systems and they are all amd - you guys are pitiful - this thread is sad.

Well THG if do rewrite it please run avg and spysweeper while you test so we can see who works in the real world. They will both grind to a crawl.

Also - as long as we are making requests - i wish for a gaming test with avg on and a cd running. A lot of gamers Im, do muisc and game so how about a gaming test with avg, IM and a music playing.

Both systems should be tuned for peak performance and speed to make it fair.

I suggest do forgot the 805 to make it fair at $75 i am sure it will make quiet a nice $300 pc. As far as amd chips i let the rest of you guys vote for which chip you think THG should run.

You really think the board is the issue - here? Do think if they used a old out dated cheaper board the bench marks would be better?

I can guarantee there would not be much difference!

Found a $40 sempron, not as fast as the $70 one and the $70 was the one dell used, but both were OEM, so about $10 for a heat sink. I found Case, mobo, and 400W power supply for $90 for the AMD, so I really think the artical was rushed.