![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Celly 2.4's
- Thread starter Glow
- Start date
Go read Budget CPU Shootout: Clash of the 'rons at Anandtech. That pretty much explains my opinion of P4 based Celerons.
IceDigger
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2001
- Messages
- 12,089
ouch
Smooth_Criminal
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2002
- Messages
- 381
Keep in mind that those tests were at stock speeds. I have a Celeron 2.0 @ 3.0 GHz that totally kills my 1.6 duron. Mostly in video encoding, but the difference is unbelievable...
P4s usually destroy AMDs in video encoding though... dummy tasks like that don't require cache.
But a 1600MHz Duron is damn overclockable
At least 2GHz, and at 2GHz, the 3GHz Celly has something to fear! And even if it's overclocked so far... the cellies are lagging behind in gaming performance..
Smooth_Criminal
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2002
- Messages
- 381
My 1.6 duron has nothing on my cely even on games this is most likely due to me not being able to OC the duron, mobo sucks. This is from real life experience not some benchmark.
Well benchmarks provide a quantitative difference in performance. As long as they're not synthetic benches, they provide an accurate view of performance. I doubt you can see the differences more precisely than the computer. Celerons are weak compared to the current AMD offerings. The Thorton AXP and Duron dominate the low end market perfomance-wise.
I can get 14.5k in 3dmark on a OC'd to 3.6ghz celeron. Games take a big hit. Same MHZ P4 i can get 22k.
You take a beating on FSB. Im using a 2.8 celeron 28 multi, 129fsb!!! hehe. Even with the memory @ 3:4 it isnt much, not that the celery needs that much memory bandwidth.
You take a beating on FSB. Im using a 2.8 celeron 28 multi, 129fsb!!! hehe. Even with the memory @ 3:4 it isnt much, not that the celery needs that much memory bandwidth.
JackNapier
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2004
- Messages
- 70
Celerons are WEAK. Which to me, is sad....considering I loved my 266, 300A, 333A, 366A, 400A, 600, etc.
JackNapier
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2004
- Messages
- 70
What vidoeocard Ted? I get close to 12,000 with no explorer tweaks or anything on a Athlon XP 2000+ [1700+ overclocked](155 fsb), MSI SiS 745 Ultra board, 1024 mb of DDR at 310 2-5-2-2, Radeon 9600 Pro at 529 core-351 mem.
9800 pro. Celerons are dogs on 3dmark .like i said. I can easily out do it with a new duron or any xp1700 i have here.
3dmark doesnt report the new celerons right, They show as P4's but notice the fsb of 125X28, no tweaks an a crappy 125fsb also figure in.
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7466605
it does shine in my shuttle TV/DVD burning rig though on encoding. It will outdo even my Duallie AMD rig @ 2250mhz X 2 chips.
Plus i got it on intels IPD program for cheap!!!
3dmark doesnt report the new celerons right, They show as P4's but notice the fsb of 125X28, no tweaks an a crappy 125fsb also figure in.
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7466605
it does shine in my shuttle TV/DVD burning rig though on encoding. It will outdo even my Duallie AMD rig @ 2250mhz X 2 chips.
Plus i got it on intels IPD program for cheap!!!
I wholeheartedly agree that the current Northwood128-based Chubberon processors are indeed crappled. But not all Celeries are so sucktacular: Remember the 300A MHz Celeron? It was just barely slower in overall performance than a 300MHz regular Pentium II processor at stock speeds - and yet when the 300A Celery was overclocked to 450MHz by simply raising the FSB to 100MHz, it could embarrass even the 450MHz PII that costed many, many times more $$$!
Yes, those were the days in which the "regular" PII had 512K of off-die L2 cache that ran at just half the processor's core speed - and the 300A Celery had 128K of on-die L2 cache that ran at full core speed. And the larger, off-chip, half-speed L2 cache on the PII actually had much greater latency than the Celeron's smaller but on-chip and full-speed L2 cache. This explains the fact that the PII of its day could barely outperform the lowly A-series Chubberon at the same core speed and FSB speed.
Yes, those were the days in which the "regular" PII had 512K of off-die L2 cache that ran at just half the processor's core speed - and the 300A Celery had 128K of on-die L2 cache that ran at full core speed. And the larger, off-chip, half-speed L2 cache on the PII actually had much greater latency than the Celeron's smaller but on-chip and full-speed L2 cache. This explains the fact that the PII of its day could barely outperform the lowly A-series Chubberon at the same core speed and FSB speed.
Phoenix '97
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 4, 2000
- Messages
- 4,539
Any estimates on how the Prescott Celerons will shape up to be? With overclocking of course.
I might want to upgrade this year, not too big of a fan of AMD, not too rich either, I'm still using a 1.2 Celeron (256KB L2).
I might want to upgrade this year, not too big of a fan of AMD, not too rich either, I'm still using a 1.2 Celeron (256KB L2).
Mark Larson
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2002
- Messages
- 3,177
Restricting your choice of processor to the garbage bin because of misplaced loyalty has to be the most stupid thing i've ever seen. Its just beyond belief.Originally posted by Phoenix '97
Any estimates on how the Prescott Celerons will shape up to be? With overclocking of course.
I might want to upgrade this year, not too big of a fan of AMD, not too rich either, I'm still using a 1.2 Celeron (256KB L2).
I've got a celeron 2.4, it's slower then the P4, but to be honest i don't notice that much of a difference between that and my overclocked p4 [email protected] except in overall transcoding times.
Transcoding takes loger (i.e. compressing movies) on the celeron, but it does work, and for the small amount of $$ i paid for the chip, i'll get another for my file server in the garage (since i yanked that P4 2.4 outta it for another desktop).
$65 versus $135 for me, a celeron is fine for what the machine does.. if it's your main rig, i'd go with a 2.4 northwood and overclock it =) or just leave it stock and it will still rock.
Guess it's all up to what your using it in and what type of motherboard your running.
I use everything from a 500mhz intel Piii laptop to a 3.3ghz desktop, they all have a purpose, just depends what ya wanna do with it and how deep your pockets (and patience) are.
just my 2 cents =) get what ya like
Transcoding takes loger (i.e. compressing movies) on the celeron, but it does work, and for the small amount of $$ i paid for the chip, i'll get another for my file server in the garage (since i yanked that P4 2.4 outta it for another desktop).
$65 versus $135 for me, a celeron is fine for what the machine does.. if it's your main rig, i'd go with a 2.4 northwood and overclock it =) or just leave it stock and it will still rock.
Guess it's all up to what your using it in and what type of motherboard your running.
I use everything from a 500mhz intel Piii laptop to a 3.3ghz desktop, they all have a purpose, just depends what ya wanna do with it and how deep your pockets (and patience) are.
just my 2 cents =) get what ya like
I bought my Mom a 2.4 GHz Celeron for her computer upgrade. I gave her a case, motherboard, and 512 MB of memory so her total upgrade cost was only $100 for the chip and a cheap 32MB video card. She upgraded from a K6-2 350 with 192 MB memory and 4 MB integrated video.
After I put it together I decided to run it at 133 MHz FSB (3.2 GHz) and it ran fine, but my Mom doesn't need that power and I wanted to make sure it was stable all the time so it's running stock.
After I put it together I decided to run it at 133 MHz FSB (3.2 GHz) and it ran fine, but my Mom doesn't need that power and I wanted to make sure it was stable all the time so it's running stock.
MetalDwarf
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2002
- Messages
- 1,072
ive got a 2.4 celery itsa decent little chip i paid 90 bucks canadian for it a couple months ago it runs stock voltage and HSF at 3ghz granted thats only about as fast as say a 2ghz p4 but its cheap and best part about it is if i break it (like i did to my tbird 1.2, palamino 1.4, p4 1.6A) i wont give a rats ass
it was purely a choice of cost when i bought it. im still on a i845D chipset so to make a 2.4c worthwile i would have needed a new mobo and ram not to mention the CPU. so i went ultra cheap
i will wait till all the fancy new toys arive latter this year before my enxt upgrade (BTX, a64 939, intel LGA, tejas, pic express) once all those goodies are out then i will spend the big bucks again and upgrade
it was purely a choice of cost when i bought it. im still on a i845D chipset so to make a 2.4c worthwile i would have needed a new mobo and ram not to mention the CPU. so i went ultra cheap
i will wait till all the fancy new toys arive latter this year before my enxt upgrade (BTX, a64 939, intel LGA, tejas, pic express) once all those goodies are out then i will spend the big bucks again and upgrade
MemoryInAGarden
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2003
- Messages
- 4,067
I don't think the Prescott celerons will be much. Their cache is equal to that of a P4 Williamette and their bus speed is slightly faster. So they will probably perform somewhere between the Willy and Northwood
Libast
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2002
- Messages
- 1,065
Calling out someone on their personal choice should take the cake for the stupid statement.
But hey, free country I guess...