AMD Athlon 1.33GHz Review

By Tom Bramwell Published 10 April, 2001

Review - the cream of the processing crop, but is it really worth it?

Version tested: PC

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (7) Latest comment 6 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Martin #1 8 years ago

    Yeah, seriously. I was kinda flabbergasted to find myself posting the first comment to this article, talking about my since loooong gone system.

    I did get a Duron 1200 MHz a couple of years ago. It was only a couple of months ago though I bought a new videocard, an ATI Radeon 9600 XT.

    I have also bumped up my RAM to 768 MB, although it's the old PC133 variety so I need to get a completely new system soon anyhow.

    Good thing EG stopped reviewing CPU's though, otherwise they would have very little time left on their hands reviewing games. 8)

  • Errol #2 8 years ago

    ahh ... those were the days.

  • Reaper2K3 #3 8 years ago

    wanders down memory lane and then looks at the P4 3.2 on his desk and the 64-bitters on the nearest mag......

    yeah those were the days, and we're still not that much faster.

  • Pirotic #4 8 years ago

    something i never understood about progress:

    Windows 95 needed 16mb ram, windows 98 needed 32mb, 2000 neaded 128mb and XP needs a minimum of 256mb.. yet i can't see any reason why, i realise you have a few more services running on XP than you did on 98 - but it still doesn't feel right :p

  • Angel_Treats #5 8 years ago

    I had a laptop running for a while with XP on 128MB. It worked but was ridiculously slow, I shudder at the memory.

  • #6 6 years ago

    My old pc has this chip and I can confirm that it does indeed 'rock'.

    I recommend it highly, especially if you want to play Quake 2 on high graphical settings.

  • Furbs #7 6 years ago

    Better than Halo \o/

    So would a 1.4 be a 10/10?

  • #8 6 years ago

    Furbs I swear you spend too much time in the comments section ;)

    Erm, did they ever review my pentium 4 3.4ghz chip? I want to know if it will play Quake 3 at more than a zillion frames per second.

  • Furbs #9 6 years ago

    I just follow you around Mappy. 3.4? OMGOMGOMG!! Better than HL2!!

    11/10. COTY.

  • #10 6 years ago

    It's that comments balloon, that's what's causing all the problems. I'm coming over to your house shortly because I want to educate you in the proper use of a 2x4 piece of wood, with nails embedded in the end, pointy side outwards.