Performance Rating of a 2Ghz+ Celeron

L

liquidzyklon

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 31, 2001
Messages
167
Hello, quick question about Celerons. I know they suck for gaming and so on, but for a laptop with mobile Celeron it's cheaper than mobile P4. So here's my question, how fast is a 2.6 Ghz compared to a 1.2 Ghz Athlon (my current setup)? I just need to know because when I program and do big calculations I need some speed and not a snail :p TIA
 
it has half the cache, I think thats about it (the FSB is lower as well I believe, from 533 to 400)
 
It has one quarter of the P4 lvl2 cache (128kb) and half the bus speed, i suspect that the Celeron 2.6 Ghz is about 20-40% faster than your Thunderbird.
 
i just got finished overclocking a celron 2.0 to 2.8 and it was pulling scores far below my p4 willamete 1.7. The cache makes a huge differece in games. it may a good office apps general usage processor but gaming is not its forte.
 
i just got finished overclocking a celron 2.0 to 2.8 and it was pulling scores far below my p4 willamete 1.7. The cache makes a huge differece in games. it may a good office apps general usage processor but gaming is not its forte.
Click to expand...
By scores you mean fps? or you mean other scores?

Yeah, I know the cache is halved and so on. Anyone how it would pit in calculating? How about PiFast or stuff like that?
 
can someone please find that review of Celerons vs durons and show how the duron 1.6 is handing a celeron its ass with a 1ghz deficit?

i beleive it was at anandtech.

i think the diff b/w the thunderbird 1.4 (if using nforce2 chipset) would be close to about 5-10% against a 2.6ghz celeron.
 
Originally posted by liquidzyklon
By scores you mean fps? or you mean other scores?

Yeah, I know the cache is halved and so on. Anyone how it would pit in calculating? How about PiFast or stuff like that?
Click to expand...


dunno i only ran game benchmarks. it would be ok in other things but for cache intensive situations such as in gaming the celron is going to be worse than pretty much everything else. the celron i was using had pretty dismal scores at stock speeds it took nearly another whole ghz to make the chip perform half way decently. i had the chip at 3ghz but was pretty unstable in 3d, in windows it seemed fine. at 3ghz it still was beaten by my willy 1.7. celron's are in no way shape or form a chip that should be used when performance is a necessity.
 
Originally posted by Exocet956
dunno i only ran game benchmarks. it would be ok in other things but for cache intensive situations such as in gaming the celron is going to be worse than pretty much everything else. the celron i was using had pretty dismal scores at stock speeds it took nearly another whole ghz to make the chip perform half way decently. i had the chip at 3ghz but was pretty unstable in 3d, in windows it seemed fine. at 3ghz it still was beaten by my willy 1.7. celron's are in no way shape or form a chip that should be used when performance is a necessity.
Click to expand...

Thats really hard to believe.. I know its bad and all but I cant imagine a celeron @ 3gig with a 150mhz fsb losing to a stock shitty 1.7 willy...

Even though it sure wouldnt stomp it... Have any screenies?
 
If it's a real mobile Celeron, it comes with 256KB L2 cache. Not as bad as the desktop Celeron (128KB L2) and it should be about as fast as a same clock Willamette P4 (also 256KB L2 and 400MHz FSB). IOW, pretty decent, but not as fast as a Northwood P4.

Some of the cheapest model laptops use a desktop Celeron and those will only have 128KB L2.
 
Originally posted by Big Worm
Thats really hard to believe.. I know its bad and all but I cant imagine a celeron @ 3gig with a 150mhz fsb losing to a stock shitty 1.7 willy...

Even though it sure wouldnt stomp it... Have any screenies?
Click to expand...

i never said it was stock.;) its a p4 willy eng sample at 133 or 166 fsb:D i was pretty amazed myself. but i was able to duplicate the results with both my eng sample p4's (both willys). never actually tried them stock. i never saw the need for screen shots as i never imagined i would have to prove myself to anybody else however i can give you some numbers.

celron @ 2.6 3dmark 2k1 5859 @ 1024 default
celron @ 2.9 3dmark 2k1 6255 @ 1024 Default
celron @ 2.6 ss1 metro coop 64 fps avg
celron @ 2.6 ss2 Catheral 36.1 fps avg
celron @ 2.6 ss2 valley 40.6 fps avg


heres the p4 @ 1.73 (13x133fsb) 166 ddr (4:5 ratio)
3dmark 2k1 6613
ss1 metro coop 76 fps avg
ss2 cathederal 52.5 fps avg
ss2 valley 53.5 fps avg


I also ran q2 and q1 benchmarks to test raw opengl speeds. all tests were made using a gf3 with the latest drivers. i tried my other rig and was able to get the same results even swaping the celron out and puting the p4 in the same rig gave the sapme results. go figure. i was very suprised myself.

edit: if you want the q1 and q2 results i can provide them.
 
Well if your saying the willy was overclocked with a 133 and 166 mhz fsb then yeah I believe you, actually its not a big suprise...


But a celeron at 3gig getting beat by a regular 1.7 willy... That aint gonna happen.

But yeah the P4 willies were FSB deprived, so a boost in fsb really helps it out.
 
Very interesting about the 1.7 P4 kicking the Celeron's butt. But that's the desktop model.

If it's a real mobile Celeron, it comes with 256KB L2 cache. Not as bad as the desktop Celeron (128KB L2) and it should be about as fast as a same clock Willamette P4 (also 256KB L2 and 400MHz FSB). IOW, pretty decent, but not as fast as a Northwood P4.
Click to expand...
Now how would I know if the laptop is holding a desktop Celeron or a mobile Celeron by using only WindowsXP and no other software. This is for me to find out when I check it out at BB or Futureshop. Thanks
 
i got a athlon xp-m 2400 in my emachines laptop and i compared it with benchmarks from a celeron running at 3.3ghz and my laptop could hang with it.
 
Originally posted by liquidzyklon
Very interesting about the 1.7 P4 kicking the Celeron's butt. But that's the desktop model.

Now how would I know if the laptop is holding a desktop Celeron or a mobile Celeron by using only WindowsXP and no other software. This is for me to find out when I check it out at BB or Futureshop. Thanks
Click to expand...
Personally, I'd tell them exactly what's going on.
Bring CPUZ with you on a floppy, let them check it if need be, and tell them this will determine whether you purchase the system or not, dependant on how much L2 cache the CPU has.

May work, may not. Its worth asking.

First tho, might ask them for full system specs. Detailed specs should state the L2 cache size.
 
I like to bring quake3 demo along on a cd, helps give me a feel for what the system can do, is free(no licensing issues), and can run from the cd if need be.
 
Originally posted by Juan Sanchez
just look for a duron based laptop.
Click to expand...
Why? The "Mobile Duron" topped out at 1.3GHz 2 years ago. The newer desktop Durons (1.4/1.6/1.8GHz) are not low power.

I can understand someone recommending an XP-M laptop, but it make no sense to recommend a Duron or Mobile Duron laptop. I don't think any company has ever released a faster than 1.1GHz (mobile) Duron laptop.
 
Originally posted by pxc
Why? The "Mobile Duron" topped out at 1.3GHz 2 years ago. The newer desktop Durons (1.4/1.6/1.8GHz) are not low power.

I can understand someone recommending an XP-M laptop, but it make no sense to recommend a Duron or Mobile Duron laptop. I don't think any company has ever released a faster than 1.1GHz (mobile) Duron laptop.
Click to expand...


i have a 1.1 ghz duron laptop and it gets its ass handed to it by my 733 PIII setup with the same amount of ram. might be the fact that HP is fucking INCAPIABLE OF PUTTING THE HEATSINK ON SO IT KEEPS OVERHEATING DESPITE THE NUMEROUS RMAS AND "RESEATINGS" THEYVE DONE but its pretty slow...

A64 laptop is the way to go ;)
 
According to Intel's website any mobile Celeron 2.0 GHz and over will have 256K of L2 cache. It should perform identical to a Willy at same clock speeds with less heat output (.13 v .18 micron) and scale better. It would be nice if Intel sold cheap mobile Celerons in s478 format!

A laptop with a mobile Celeron above the 2.0 GHz mark is not bad IMO...
 
Why dont you check out the new Celeron Ms? I hear those are supposed to be really kick ass. Dont know if any is out as of this post. Search around and see what you dig up on em :cool:
 
Originally posted by 2phastPRO
Why dont you check out the new Celeron Ms? I hear those are supposed to be really kick ass. Dont know if any is out as of this post. Search around and see what you dig up on em :cool:
Click to expand...
Check out Dell's Latitude D505, which has the Celeron M. About $250Cdn cheaper than the 1.4 Pentium M. Performance-wise, t0mshardware.com has a review recently. Battery life is average of 3 hours, just do a quick read to see some benchies and so on.

Would this make the Celeron M 1.3 = P4 2.0 Ghz now? :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top