CPU info.- Celeron 2.4 vs Intel P4

I did some research on the internet about the CPU's in question. I see that
the Celeron is a cheaper CPU than the P4.

Do anyone know the story behind the Celeron?

Has anyone seen a big difference between a Celeron 2.4 vs a Intel P4 PC?

Are there any Con's to having a Celeron over a P4?

Is there a big difference between a Celeron 2.4 vs 2.5?

"Taishi" wrote in message
.. .
I did some research on the internet about the CPU's in question. I see
that
the Celeron is a cheaper CPU than the P4.

Do anyone know the story behind the Celeron?

Has anyone seen a big difference between a Celeron 2.4 vs a Intel P4 PC?

Are there any Con's to having a Celeron over a P4?

Is there a big difference between a Celeron 2.4 vs 2.5?



the celeron has a smaller internal cache

so it depends on what you will be using it for


if you are going to be playing solotaire and checking you email
get the celeron

running photoshop? i;d go for the P-IV


as far as the difference between a 2.4 and a 2.5ghz

the only noticable difference would be in the wallet

The Celeron 2.4 GHz is less efficient and has one quarter of the on board
cache memory of the P4 2.5 GHz. In other words, the Celeron is slower, as
you can guess by just looking at the difference in prices...

--
DaveW



"Taishi" wrote in message
.. .
I did some research on the internet about the CPU's in question. I see
that
the Celeron is a cheaper CPU than the P4.

Do anyone know the story behind the Celeron?

Has anyone seen a big difference between a Celeron 2.4 vs a Intel P4 PC?

Are there any Con's to having a Celeron over a P4?

Is there a big difference between a Celeron 2.4 vs 2.5?

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 08:18:01 GMT, "Taishi"
wrote:

I did some research on the internet about the CPU's in question. I see that
the Celeron is a cheaper CPU than the P4.

Well, why anyone at all, for any purpose at all, buys
(P4-core)Celerons is only due to ignorance, and the _VERY_ false
assumption that GHz is speed.

Do anyone know the story behind the Celeron?

Celeron is the trademark for Intels cheaper cpus. The old
(PII-PIII-core) Celeron was nice enough, but the P4 architecture is so
abyssmally inefficient that newer Celerons are disasters.

Has anyone seen a big difference between a Celeron 2.4 vs a Intel P4 PC?

Yes. Though all older P4s are slower than 'P4Cs' and AthlonXPs, in
particular P4A and Celerons are very slow indeed. I would say the
difference is gruesome. Have a look at these pages, to see much
cheaper Duron and AthlonXPs outclass Celerons and P4A.

price comparision:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=2

business winstone2004:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=4

content creation winstone2004:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=5

div x encoding:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=6

3D-rendering:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=7

VisualC++ compile times:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=8

various game benchmarks:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=9
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=10
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=11
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=12
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=13
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=14
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=15
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=16
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=17

Notice how AMDs 1.6GHz Duron stomps all over Intels 2.6GHz Celeron.
1GHz slower clock, but 30% faster!

Are there any Con's to having a Celeron over a P4?

Yes, as you might see from the participating 1.8GHz P4.
It's damn slow too, but at least it's significantly faster than the
Celerons.

Is there a big difference between a Celeron 2.4 vs 2.5?

- ? No they're the same, they're slow. If that P4-Celeron was 6.5 GHz
it would still be slow.


ancra

I use Celerons often and have no problems - including video editing. they
are a bit slower in the benchmarks. but not noticeable in the "feel" of the
system. regardless of what you use be sure to use good quality ram - 512 mb
is a nice number.
"Taishi" wrote in message
.. .
I did some research on the internet about the CPU's in question. I see
that
the Celeron is a cheaper CPU than the P4.

Do anyone know the story behind the Celeron?

Has anyone seen a big difference between a Celeron 2.4 vs a Intel P4 PC?

Are there any Con's to having a Celeron over a P4?

Is there a big difference between a Celeron 2.4 vs 2.5?

Here's a comparison...

Celeron 2.0Ghz..... 512mb PC133RAM

One Setiathome work unit.... 15 hours

P4 2.0Ghz..... 512mb RAM PC133 RAM

One Setiathome work unit 5 hours

P4 2.0Ghz 1Ghz PC2100 RAM

One Setiathome work unit 3.2 hours

No, I'm never even contemplating a Celeron procesor ever again.

Cari
www.coribright.com

"andrew2000" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I use Celerons often and have no problems - including video editing. they
are a bit slower in the benchmarks. but not noticeable in the "feel" of
the
system. regardless of what you use be sure to use good quality ram - 512
mb
is a nice number.
"Taishi" wrote in message
.. .
I did some research on the internet about the CPU's in question. I see
that
the Celeron is a cheaper CPU than the P4.

Do anyone know the story behind the Celeron?

Has anyone seen a big difference between a Celeron 2.4 vs a Intel P4 PC?

Are there any Con's to having a Celeron over a P4?

Is there a big difference between a Celeron 2.4 vs 2.5?

More anti-Celeron info:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927

Anandtech's benchmarks show that a Celeron 2.6 GHz is slower than a P4 1.8
GHz in practically all tests.

"Cari" wrote in message
...
Here's a comparison...

Celeron 2.0Ghz..... 512mb PC133RAM

One Setiathome work unit.... 15 hours

P4 2.0Ghz..... 512mb RAM PC133 RAM

One Setiathome work unit 5 hours

P4 2.0Ghz 1Ghz PC2100 RAM

One Setiathome work unit 3.2 hours

No, I'm never even contemplating a Celeron procesor ever again.

Cari
www.coribright.com

"andrew2000" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I use Celerons often and have no problems - including video editing.
they
are a bit slower in the benchmarks. but not noticeable in the "feel" of
the
system. regardless of what you use be sure to use good quality ram - 512
mb
is a nice number.
"Taishi" wrote in message
.. .
I did some research on the internet about the CPU's in question. I see
that
the Celeron is a cheaper CPU than the P4.

Do anyone know the story behind the Celeron?

Has anyone seen a big difference between a Celeron 2.4 vs a Intel P4
PC?

Are there any Con's to having a Celeron over a P4?

Is there a big difference between a Celeron 2.4 vs 2.5?

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:41:19 -0800, "Cari"
wrote:

Here's a comparison...

Celeron 2.0Ghz..... 512mb PC133RAM

One Setiathome work unit.... 15 hours

P4 2.0Ghz..... 512mb RAM PC133 RAM

One Setiathome work unit 5 hours

P4 2.0Ghz 1Ghz PC2100 RAM

One Setiathome work unit 3.2 hours

No, I'm never even contemplating a Celeron procesor ever again.

Cari
www.coribright.com



Not a realistic comparision of the CPUs though, only of SETI
performance, which is atypical. It would be fair to consider SETI
performance only if that is the only thing the system ever does... as
soon as it does something else, too, the results drastically differ...
SETI just happens to exploit some of the larger L2 cache, but only if
it STAYS in the cache.

Using a system normally will show much less performance penalty from a
Celeron, but certainly one doesn't belong in a system being built to a
mid or high-end price-point, but frankly, I wouldn't even consider a
P4 except for a high-end build, as the Athlons are much better bang
for the buck.

kony wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:41:19 -0800, "Cari"
wrote:

Here's a comparison...

Celeron 2.0Ghz..... 512mb PC133RAM

One Setiathome work unit.... 15 hours

P4 2.0Ghz..... 512mb RAM PC133 RAM

One Setiathome work unit 5 hours

P4 2.0Ghz 1Ghz PC2100 RAM

One Setiathome work unit 3.2 hours

No, I'm never even contemplating a Celeron procesor ever again.

Cari
www.coribright.com



Not a realistic comparision of the CPUs though, only of SETI
performance, which is atypical.

SETI times are not atypical of CPU benchmarks. I have a book where I write
down benchmarks of every system I build. They include SETI times, CPUMark
and PC Mark 2002 among others. The CPU benchmarks show a distinct
correlation with SETI times. I suppose that you could say all synthetic
benchmarks are atypical.

It would be fair to consider SETI
performance only if that is the only thing the system ever does... as
soon as it does something else, too, the results drastically differ...
SETI just happens to exploit some of the larger L2 cache, but only if
it STAYS in the cache.

I (well, my g/f and I) have a Barton clocked at 2.2GHz and a Tbred at
2.1GHz, 512Kb and 256KB of L2 cache respectively, and the SETI times are
within 10% of each other, as are CPU Mark (210 and 195) and PC Mark 2002 CPU
benchmark (6,789 and 6,334). Even running SETI CLI while the machines are
being used for other things (including gaming) this 10% rule seems to remain
constant.

I benchmark every system I build, run Prime95 for 24 hours, run Prime and
SETI concurrently for 24 hours, then run SETI alone for 24 hours. Nothing
goes out of my door until it has done that error-free and maintained a
reasonable CPU/case temp. I *could* build a system and have it out the door
in hours but I hang onto them for nearly a week, until I'm satisfied, before
I let them go. That includes systems built from recycled parts or upgraded
sytems.

One caveat, I haven't built a P4-based Celeron machine. And won't. The last
Celeron system I built was a Tualatin. With the P4-based Cellys I believe
the slowness has a lot to do with cache latency as well as cache size.

Using a system normally will show much less performance penalty from a
Celeron,

If you consider gaming 'normal' then I'd have to disagree with you.

but certainly one doesn't belong in a system being built to a
mid or high-end price-point, but frankly, I wouldn't even consider a
P4 except for a high-end build, as the Athlons are much better bang
for the buck.

Agreed, especially the Barton 2500+, 90% of them run fine on a 200FSB using
the standard HSF (as long as case-cooling is set up properly) for XP3200+
speed. Some need a slight vcore boost, some will do 2.2GHz with no vcore
adjustment. I've only had one that wouldn't do 2.2GHz Prime95-stable at a
reasonable vcore.

The only time I would consider a P4 is for a dedicated video-editing machine
(SSE2). Not the sort of thing I build machines for ayway.
--
~misfit~

~misfit~ wrote:

.... snip ...

I benchmark every system I build, run Prime95 for 24 hours, run
Prime and SETI concurrently for 24 hours, then run SETI alone for
24 hours. Nothing goes out of my door until it has done that
error-free and maintained a reasonable CPU/case temp. I *could*
build a system and have it out the door in hours but I hang onto
them for nearly a week, until I'm satisfied, before I let them
go. That includes systems built from recycled parts or upgraded
sytems.

How does one contact you?

--
Chuck F ) )
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
http://cbfalconer.home.att.net USE worldnet address!