[Earthdog]

all the way up to P3 they were basicly the same. they both had the same amounts of L1 and L2 cache.

I think the one advantage the Duron had over Celerons was consistancy if Interface. Intel was constatnly changing the socket the CPU plugged into and AMD never changed.

You can take an 800 Duron and plug it into the same socket that a 2800xp goes into but you cant take an 800 Celeron and plug it into a P4 socket.

Consistancy of socket is one thing that people liked, and still do like, about AMD.

All up, for an economical game machine, I would go (and did) with AMD all the way.

Intel wants too much for what you get, and unless youre doing some very serious professional level video encoding, you dont need the latest Intel 3.2 ghz processor (for about $400 USD).

The AMD 2400XP (at 2.0 ghz) far more cost effective at $75 USD

LOL not a hard choice to me mate.

Plus theres the fact that the while the 2400XP costs a little more than the Celeron 2.0 Ghz ($62 USD), the XP has more cache and is a much better performer.

For gaming, AMD ownz Intel. Dollar for Dollar, you cant be the Athlon XPs. I recently read a review of the cost effectiveness of CPUS and the faster the CPU, the more each frame per second costs you. The Intel 3.2ghz was the worst in the review while the AMD 2400 XP was the most cost effective.

Forget Duron and Celeron mate.

If youre going to be forced to buy a new motherboard for whatever platform youre buying, go AMD.

Coupled with a decent video card and 512 meg of ram, youll be smokin in your favourite game.