Jump to navigation

AMD Athlon 1.33GHz Comments by Tom Bramwell

10 April, 2001

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

Read entire article.

Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!

Comments: 1-8 of 8 in total

1-8
Poster
Comment Low-scoring comments hidden. Log in to see them!
disc
04/07/04 @ 13:30
#1
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
:)
I bet you can find that at a better place than a 3 year old review of an AMD chip...
Martin
04/07/04 @ 13:38
#2
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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
04/07/04 @ 16:16
#3
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
ahh ... those were the days.
Reaper2K3
04/07/04 @ 16:28
#4
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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
04/07/04 @ 17:08
#5
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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
04/07/04 @ 17:11
#6
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I had a laptop running for a while with XP on 128MB. It worked but was ridiculously slow, I shudder at the memory.
Furbs
08/01/06 @ 16:17
#7
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Better than Halo \o/

So would a 1.4 be a 10/10?
Furbs
08/01/06 @ 16:27
#8
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I just follow you around Mappy. 3.4? OMGOMGOMG!! Better than HL2!!

11/10. COTY.

Comments: 1-8 of 8 in total

1-8

Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!

Advertisement
Statistics
SwapGame
About Eurogamer
The Network

X View gallery