where can I find a chart showing performance comparison of Intel CPU's from early Celeron to current spec

Hi

Does anyone know where I might be able to find a chart or graphic which
shows the performance increase in steps from their early processors all the
way up to current spec?

I'm particularly trying to find out how much of a performance increase a
1Ghz Pentium III would give compared to a Celeron 600Mhz (in % terms or
other)

Thanks for any info

Ian

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 18:59:22 +0100, "Ian Roberts"
wrote:
Does anyone know where I might be able to find a chart or graphic which
shows the performance increase in steps from their early processors all the
way up to current spec?

I'm particularly trying to find out how much of a performance increase a
1Ghz Pentium III would give compared to a Celeron 600Mhz (in % terms or
other)

Doesn't quite go up to current specs, but this is probably the best
your going to find in terms of a single-source comparison:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/index.html

Yeah, it's Tom's, I'm not a big fan of the site, but at least they
seem to mostly avoid making TOO many ridiculous conclusions based on
limited data. It should also be noted that actual system performance
of the old systems would be considerably lower in reality, since they
really beefed them up for this review (how many Pentium 100 systems do
you know of that had 512MB of memory and a GeForce4 Ti4600 AGP video
card in them?). Still, pretty interesting look at where we've come in
the last 8-10 years.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca

"Tony Hill" wrote in message
.com...
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 18:59:22 +0100, "Ian Roberts"
wrote:
Does anyone know where I might be able to find a chart or graphic which
shows the performance increase in steps from their early processors all
the
way up to current spec?

I'm particularly trying to find out how much of a performance increase a
1Ghz Pentium III would give compared to a Celeron 600Mhz (in % terms or
other)

Doesn't quite go up to current specs, but this is probably the best
your going to find in terms of a single-source comparison:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/index.html

Yeah, it's Tom's, I'm not a big fan of the site, but at least they
seem to mostly avoid making TOO many ridiculous conclusions based on
limited data. It should also be noted that actual system performance
of the old systems would be considerably lower in reality, since they
really beefed them up for this review (how many Pentium 100 systems do
you know of that had 512MB of memory and a GeForce4 Ti4600 AGP video
card in them?). Still, pretty interesting look at where we've come in
the last 8-10 years.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca


Hi Tony

Thanks a lot for the link. This is perfect - just the sort of thing I was
looking for.

Thanks also for pointing out how beefed up the older systems were. Youre
absolutley right they'd be much slower in real life.

I wanted these charts as I have just upgraded a friends machine from a lowly
600Mhz Celeron with 64Mb to a 1Ghz Pentium III with 512Mb RAM!! This was
the max the board could handle. My friend wanted to upgrade but didnt have
much cash so I sourced the parts on Ebay and fitted them for free -
reinstalled his OS and software so its all squeaky clean and as new.

He's moaning cos he says he doesnt notice much diffrence in the speed!

Blimey I could tell the difference immediatley - even just running scandisk
and defrag. Software installation and startup was significtantly
accelerated!! I told him it all depends on what he's doing. No ones going
to notice much performance difference while writng a single page letter in
Word97!

I dont know some people are so ungrateful -after all the time I have spent
and the effort I went to in order to help him out while on a tight budget.
He just has no appreciation of what spec he has gone up to from where he
was!

I thought the charts would help back up my claims.

Cheers

Ian I^)

Ian Roberts wrote:
"Tony Hill" wrote in message
.com...

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 18:59:22 +0100, "Ian Roberts"
wrote:

Does anyone know where I might be able to find a chart or graphic which
shows the performance increase in steps from their early processors all

the

way up to current spec?

I'm particularly trying to find out how much of a performance increase a
1Ghz Pentium III would give compared to a Celeron 600Mhz (in % terms or
other)

Doesn't quite go up to current specs, but this is probably the best
your going to find in terms of a single-source comparison:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/index.html

Yeah, it's Tom's, I'm not a big fan of the site, but at least they
seem to mostly avoid making TOO many ridiculous conclusions based on
limited data. It should also be noted that actual system performance
of the old systems would be considerably lower in reality, since they
really beefed them up for this review (how many Pentium 100 systems do
you know of that had 512MB of memory and a GeForce4 Ti4600 AGP video
card in them?). Still, pretty interesting look at where we've come in
the last 8-10 years.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca



Hi Tony

Thanks a lot for the link. This is perfect - just the sort of thing I was
looking for.

Thanks also for pointing out how beefed up the older systems were. Youre
absolutley right they'd be much slower in real life.

I wanted these charts as I have just upgraded a friends machine from a lowly
600Mhz Celeron with 64Mb to a 1Ghz Pentium III with 512Mb RAM!! This was
the max the board could handle. My friend wanted to upgrade but didnt have
much cash so I sourced the parts on Ebay and fitted them for free -
reinstalled his OS and software so its all squeaky clean and as new.

He's moaning cos he says he doesnt notice much diffrence in the speed!

He probably just wants to play games - in which case he won't
be happy until he has at *least* a fast P4 or Athlon with a
Radean 9200.


Blimey I could tell the difference immediatley - even just running scandisk
and defrag. Software installation and startup was significtantly
accelerated!! I told him it all depends on what he's doing. No ones going
to notice much performance difference while writng a single page letter in
Word97!

If that is all he does, upping he RAM to 256 or 512 MB would
have been a good *stopping* point.


I dont know some people are so ungrateful -after all the time I have spent
and the effort I went to in order to help him out while on a tight budget.
He just has no appreciation of what spec he has gone up to from where he
was!


Probably everybody in this newsgroup has gone through this at least once.
Depending on just how much of a friend he is, next time you could just
say no.

Ian Roberts wrote:


I dont know some people are so ungrateful -after all the time I have spent
and the effort I went to in order to help him out while on a tight budget.
He just has no appreciation of what spec he has gone up to from where he
was!


Just went through this with my older brother. Upgraded from a AMD K6-2 300
with 64 meg of ram to an XP1700+ with 512 (at zero cost to him) and his
coment? "The pictures at ebay don't load any faster".... I give up!

--

Stacey

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 00:10:52 -0400, Stacey wrote:

Just went through this with my older brother. Upgraded from a AMD K6-2
300
with 64 meg of ram to an XP1700+ with 512 (at zero cost to him) and his
coment? "The pictures at ebay don't load any faster".... I give up!

Everybody knows you need an Intel chip to make the internet go
faster

You need to pay more attention to ads.

Cheers
Anton