Choosing between PIII, P4, Celeron 478 on a $100 Budget- Please Help

I am considering building a computer. I have hard drives, case, etc.
already, the only new part would be the cpu. Ignore the price of
motherboards, etc, assume I can gather everything except the CPU. I
am on a very limited budget. I have a poor geforce gfx card and do
not play a lot of games.
The tasks that seem slowest on my current machine (Celeron 633@950 w/
768MB PC133) are Photoshop, video editing, making DVDs into SVCDs, and
scrolling from one picture to the next.

I would run the new system with approximately 512-768MB of PC2700 DDR
ram, with the ram overclocked as high as is stable. I want to spend
not much more than $100 on the CPU.
It MUST BE Intel, don't ask why or suggest AMD! I have overclocked a
lot in the past and intend to attempt to overclock whatever CPU I buy
as much as possible, using air cooling only (heatsinks and fans I
already have).

From what I have seen on web sites, I am considering one of the
following:

Pentium 4 1.8GHz 512KB Socket 478 ~ $105
or
Pentium 4 2.0GHZ 512KB Socket 478 400MHz FSB ~ $120 this is
a bit more than I want to spend but, if this P4 2.0 is likely to
overclock much better than the 1.8 I might consider it.

Pentium III 1.20GHz 256KB Tualatin 133MHz, Socket 370 ~ $ 72
(or Pentium III 1.13GHz for about same price if it is supposed to have
a better chance of hitting a higher overclocked speed for any reason)

OR

Celeron 2.0 - 2.6, 128KB 400MHz FSB ~ $ 89 - $ 64
(I would choose whichever of these is supposed to stand the best
chance of hitting the highest overclocked speed)

What chip do you believe would be the best value and end up with the
system running the best? I hear that Celeron 2.0's easily overclock
to 3.0ghz, but I also hear Celerons are horrible compared to much much
slower PIII's and P4's. I also hear that PIII's are significantly
faster than a P4 at the same clock.
You may also suggest other INTEL!! CPU's around $100, like Xeons or
different models, if you can state a good reason, if you do, please
state where they can be purchased for the price you claim. Or, if you
believe it is true, you could suggest I use the $100 to buy a RAID
controller and a 2nd hard drive, if you think that would help more
than a new CPU.

Thanks for reading this!
Contact me on this newsgroup, or by email, Thanks!

Dave Arbok wrote:
I am considering building a computer. I have hard drives, case, etc.
already, the only new part would be the cpu. Ignore the price of
motherboards, etc, assume I can gather everything except the CPU. I
am on a very limited budget. I have a poor geforce gfx card and do
not play a lot of games.
The tasks that seem slowest on my current machine (Celeron 633@950 w/
768MB PC133) are Photoshop, video editing, making DVDs into SVCDs, and
scrolling from one picture to the next.

I would run the new system with approximately 512-768MB of PC2700 DDR
ram, with the ram overclocked as high as is stable. I want to spend
not much more than $100 on the CPU.
It MUST BE Intel, don't ask why or suggest AMD! I have overclocked a
lot in the past and intend to attempt to overclock whatever CPU I buy
as much as possible, using air cooling only (heatsinks and fans I
already have).

You're not going to like the results (Duron 1.6 thrashing a Celeron 2.6),
but the following is probably what you're looking for:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=1

If you're still determined to go Intel, go the P4 1.8. Regardless of how
high you can overclock the Celeron, the P4 at stock will still put it to
shame. And the P4 1.8 will probably do better than the P3 1.2 at most
things, especially when overclocked.

[...]

--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open

You wanna save money and have the same/better performance for what you have?
AMERICAN MICRO DEVICES. Do you know how lame that sounds? I just HAVE to
SAVE $$ and it's just GOT to be intel. LOL!!!

Dave Arbok wrote:
I am considering building a computer. I have hard drives, case, etc.
already, the only new part would be the cpu. Ignore the price of
motherboards, etc, assume I can gather everything except the CPU. I
am on a very limited budget. I have a poor geforce gfx card and do
not play a lot of games.
The tasks that seem slowest on my current machine (Celeron 633@950 w/
768MB PC133) are Photoshop, video editing, making DVDs into SVCDs, and
scrolling from one picture to the next.

I would run the new system with approximately 512-768MB of PC2700 DDR
ram, with the ram overclocked as high as is stable. I want to spend
not much more than $100 on the CPU.
It MUST BE Intel, don't ask why or suggest AMD! I have overclocked a
lot in the past and intend to attempt to overclock whatever CPU I buy
as much as possible, using air cooling only (heatsinks and fans I
already have).

From what I have seen on web sites, I am considering one of the
following:

Pentium 4 1.8GHz 512KB Socket 478 ~ $105
or
Pentium 4 2.0GHZ 512KB Socket 478 400MHz FSB ~ $120 this is
a bit more than I want to spend but, if this P4 2.0 is likely to
overclock much better than the 1.8 I might consider it.

Pentium III 1.20GHz 256KB Tualatin 133MHz, Socket 370 ~ $ 72
(or Pentium III 1.13GHz for about same price if it is supposed to have
a better chance of hitting a higher overclocked speed for any reason)

OR

Celeron 2.0 - 2.6, 128KB 400MHz FSB ~ $ 89 - $ 64
(I would choose whichever of these is supposed to stand the best
chance of hitting the highest overclocked speed)

What chip do you believe would be the best value and end up with the
system running the best? I hear that Celeron 2.0's easily overclock
to 3.0ghz, but I also hear Celerons are horrible compared to much much
slower PIII's and P4's. I also hear that PIII's are significantly
faster than a P4 at the same clock.
You may also suggest other INTEL!! CPU's around $100, like Xeons or
different models, if you can state a good reason, if you do, please
state where they can be purchased for the price you claim. Or, if you
believe it is true, you could suggest I use the $100 to buy a RAID
controller and a 2nd hard drive, if you think that would help more
than a new CPU.

Thanks for reading this!
Contact me on this newsgroup, or by email, Thanks!

I think it sounds even lamer, when people tout one or the other....

-
neopolaris stood up at show-n-tell, in ,
and said:

You wanna save money and have the same/better performance for what
you have? AMERICAN MICRO DEVICES. Do you know how lame that sounds?
I just HAVE to SAVE $$ and it's just GOT to be intel. LOL!!!

Dave Arbok wrote:
I am considering building a computer. I have hard drives, case, etc.
already, the only new part would be the cpu. Ignore the price of
motherboards, etc, assume I can gather everything except the CPU. I
am on a very limited budget. I have a poor geforce gfx card and do
not play a lot of games.
The tasks that seem slowest on my current machine (Celeron 633@950 w/
768MB PC133) are Photoshop, video editing, making DVDs into SVCDs,
and scrolling from one picture to the next.

I would run the new system with approximately 512-768MB of PC2700 DDR
ram, with the ram overclocked as high as is stable. I want to spend
not much more than $100 on the CPU.
It MUST BE Intel, don't ask why or suggest AMD! I have overclocked a
lot in the past and intend to attempt to overclock whatever CPU I buy
as much as possible, using air cooling only (heatsinks and fans I
already have).

From what I have seen on web sites, I am considering one of the
following:

Pentium 4 1.8GHz 512KB Socket 478 ~ $105
or
Pentium 4 2.0GHZ 512KB Socket 478 400MHz FSB ~ $120 this is
a bit more than I want to spend but, if this P4 2.0 is likely to
overclock much better than the 1.8 I might consider it.

Pentium III 1.20GHz 256KB Tualatin 133MHz, Socket 370 ~ $ 72
(or Pentium III 1.13GHz for about same price if it is supposed to
have
a better chance of hitting a higher overclocked speed for any reason)

OR

Celeron 2.0 - 2.6, 128KB 400MHz FSB ~ $ 89 - $ 64
(I would choose whichever of these is supposed to stand the best
chance of hitting the highest overclocked speed)

What chip do you believe would be the best value and end up with the
system running the best? I hear that Celeron 2.0's easily overclock
to 3.0ghz, but I also hear Celerons are horrible compared to much
much slower PIII's and P4's. I also hear that PIII's are
significantly
faster than a P4 at the same clock.
You may also suggest other INTEL!! CPU's around $100, like Xeons or
different models, if you can state a good reason, if you do, please
state where they can be purchased for the price you claim. Or, if
you believe it is true, you could suggest I use the $100 to buy a
RAID controller and a 2nd hard drive, if you think that would help
more
than a new CPU.

Thanks for reading this!
Contact me on this newsgroup, or by email, Thanks!

--
Strontium

"It's no surprise, to me. I am my own worst enemy. `Cause every
now, and then, I kick the livin' **** `outta me." - Lit

neopolaris wrote:

You wanna save money and have the same/better performance for what you have?
AMERICAN MICRO DEVICES. Do you know how lame that sounds? I just HAVE to
SAVE $$ and it's just GOT to be intel. LOL!!!
Please get AMD's Name right thanks. (A)dvanced (M)icro (D)evices
LOL, I agree. If you want a cheaper system, and still have it do the
job, I would go with AMD.
I'm not really one to talk though, I have a P4 2.6c Running @
3.25 GHz Ture FSB (250MHz) Full buss speed is 1GHz
My ram sometimes gets a bit unstable, and causes freez ups before the
CPU would. That's what I get for buying very cheap ram.
I've tested my ram with a program, that I don't remember anymore.
But I do remember, at first the ram runs good, but after sending more
stuff to the ram, it starts to fail in speed, and slow down. Even
without overclocking it.
My point is, if you don't spend a lot on some stuff, others will fail
after a while.
Another thing you could do, is wait about a month or two.
By next month Intel is supposed to let it's sellers start selling the
Pentium 4 Prescott. I've looked into it that far, the retail sellers
already have the chips. They just cant sell them till Intel
tells them they can. Sometime after then, would be a good time to get
something like a 2.6C Like I have, I only have few problems
getting a higher overclock, but I already said why I have problems.
The Video sometimes gives me problems to.
One thing that's nice about a Pentium 4C is having two CPU's
you can do more then one job at one time, without as much of a slow
down to your other programs. You have to have something else other then
Win98 (SE) or (ME) to use Hyperthreading. Win2000 works, and WinXp
is really nice for it.


I'm not sure about all my spelling, sometimes Netscape don't tell me
when I get it wrong.

I hope this helps you.
katt :-)


Dave Arbok wrote:

I am considering building a computer. I have hard drives, case, etc.
already, the only new part would be the cpu. Ignore the price of
motherboards, etc, assume I can gather everything except the CPU. I
am on a very limited budget. I have a poor geforce gfx card and do
not play a lot of games.
The tasks that seem slowest on my current machine (Celeron 633@950 w/
768MB PC133) are Photoshop, video editing, making DVDs into SVCDs, and
scrolling from one picture to the next.

I would run the new system with approximately 512-768MB of PC2700 DDR
ram, with the ram overclocked as high as is stable. I want to spend
not much more than $100 on the CPU.
It MUST BE Intel, don't ask why or suggest AMD! I have overclocked a
lot in the past and intend to attempt to overclock whatever CPU I buy
as much as possible, using air cooling only (heatsinks and fans I
already have).

From what I have seen on web sites, I am considering one of the
following:

Pentium 4 1.8GHz 512KB Socket 478 ~ $105
or
Pentium 4 2.0GHZ 512KB Socket 478 400MHz FSB ~ $120 this is
a bit more than I want to spend but, if this P4 2.0 is likely to
overclock much better than the 1.8 I might consider it.

Pentium III 1.20GHz 256KB Tualatin 133MHz, Socket 370 ~ $ 72
(or Pentium III 1.13GHz for about same price if it is supposed to have
a better chance of hitting a higher overclocked speed for any reason)

OR

Celeron 2.0 - 2.6, 128KB 400MHz FSB ~ $ 89 - $ 64
(I would choose whichever of these is supposed to stand the best
chance of hitting the highest overclocked speed)

What chip do you believe would be the best value and end up with the
system running the best? I hear that Celeron 2.0's easily overclock
to 3.0ghz, but I also hear Celerons are horrible compared to much much
slower PIII's and P4's. I also hear that PIII's are significantly
faster than a P4 at the same clock.
You may also suggest other INTEL!! CPU's around $100, like Xeons or
different models, if you can state a good reason, if you do, please
state where they can be purchased for the price you claim. Or, if you
believe it is true, you could suggest I use the $100 to buy a RAID
controller and a 2nd hard drive, if you think that would help more
than a new CPU.

Thanks for reading this!
Contact me on this newsgroup, or by email, Thanks!






----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

-
katt33 stood up at show-n-tell, in , and
said:

snip

One thing that's nice about a Pentium 4C is having two CPU's
you can do more then one job at one time, without as much of a slow
down to your other programs. You have to have something else other
then Win98 (SE) or (ME) to use Hyperthreading. Win2000 works, and
WinXp is really nice for it.


I'm not sure about all my spelling, sometimes Netscape don't tell me
when I get it wrong.

I hope this helps you.
katt :-)

You're pretty sexy You up, for a date? :P Never could resist a computer
geek female :P


snip
--
Strontium

"It's no surprise, to me. I am my own worst enemy. `Cause every
now, and then, I kick the livin' **** `outta me." - Lit

"Michael Brown" wrote in message
...
[...]
shame. And the P4 1.8 will probably do better than the P3 1.2 at most
things, especially when overclocked.

??? "most things" - "especially when overclocked" - ???

Name *one* thing that a P3 1.2 will do faster than a P4 1.8 at stock speed.

Tony

Tony A. wrote:
"Michael Brown" wrote in message
...
[...]
shame. And the P4 1.8 will probably do better than the P3 1.2 at most
things, especially when overclocked.

??? "most things" - "especially when overclocked" - ???

Name *one* thing that a P3 1.2 will do faster than a P4 1.8 at stock
speed.

FPU-intensive non-SSE2 apps, and emulation. Of course, the P3 won't have
much headroom overclocking wise, so overclocked-vs-overclocked, it's
unlikely that the P3 will beat the P4 at anything but deliberately tilted or
unusual apps (eg: something with tight dependency chains that extensively
uses shifts and FP trig functions).

--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open

"Michael Brown" wrote in message
...
[...]
FPU-intensive non-SSE2 apps, and emulation. Of course, the P3 won't have
much headroom overclocking wise, so overclocked-vs-overclocked, it's
unlikely that the P3 will beat the P4 at anything but deliberately tilted
or
unusual apps (eg: something with tight dependency chains that extensively
uses shifts and FP trig functions).

Hmm, you're right. I knew the P4 FPU sucked, but didn't realise it sucked
that badly. In FlaskMpeg using the IEEE reference codec, my p4 1.8 beat my
p3 850 by about 23%, so I guess a p3 1.2 would beat the p4 by a bit.

Tony

Tony A. wrote:
"Michael Brown" wrote in message
...
[...]
FPU-intensive non-SSE2 apps, and emulation. Of course, the P3 won't
have much headroom overclocking wise, so overclocked-vs-overclocked,
it's unlikely that the P3 will beat the P4 at anything but
deliberately tilted or unusual apps (eg: something with tight
dependency chains that extensively uses shifts and FP trig
functions).

Hmm, you're right. I knew the P4 FPU sucked, but didn't realise it
sucked that badly. In FlaskMpeg using the IEEE reference codec, my p4
1.8 beat my p3 850 by about 23%, so I guess a p3 1.2 would beat the
p4 by a bit.

Especially as the P3 1.2 is a Tualatin core and the P3 850 is a Coppermine.
The Tualatin is the best CPU Intel ever made, bar none.
--
~misfit~