CPU info.- Celeron 2.4 vs Intel P4

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 07:07:50 GMT, "andrew2000"
wrote:

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.

(remember that people are looking for advice here)
There's no sane rational reason to ever buy a Celeron.

P4-core Celerons are slow in extreme. They are also, if possible,
doing even worse in 'real life' than on benchmarks, so it's the other
way 'round.

One thing to remember here, is that older PII-core and Tualatin-core
Celerons did quite well. - You can't judge the abyssmal modern
Celerons by earlier experiences! I wouldn't be surprised if the old
1.4GHz still sweeps the floor with all them 2.6-2.7GHz Celerons.


ancra

Whenever I have really much to do, I get so busy,
there's not really any time left to get anything done...

CBFalconer wrote:
~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?

I'm in New Zealand and don't build machines commercially, just for friends
in the gaming community.

I can be reached at misfit at orcon dot net dot nz.
--
~misfit~

~misfit~ wrote:
CBFalconer wrote:
~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?

I'm in New Zealand and don't build machines commercially, just for
friends in the gaming community.

Thanks. Wrong part of the world for me. I like your attitude
though, especially if you install ECC memory.

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

CBFalconer wrote:
~misfit~ wrote:
CBFalconer wrote:
~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?

I'm in New Zealand and don't build machines commercially, just for
friends in the gaming community.

Thanks. Wrong part of the world for me. I like your attitude
though, especially if you install ECC memory.

Thought it might be. :-)

Thanks, I install ECC memory if I can talk whoever I'm making the PC for
into it.
--
~misfit~

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 13:15:26 +1100, Barry OGrady
wrote:


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?

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.

The main difference is that the Celeron has only a 128K cache.

...., and the FSB speed, which is a bit backwards if trying to get similar
performance, since the smaller the L2 cache is more drastically impacted
by a low FSB & Memory bus speed.

True enough, a Celeron is plenty fast enough to run a windows box GUI,
basic office apps/email/etc, but then so is an old 800MHz Celeron. That
video editing may even "seem" ok to someone using the Celerons, until they
start looking at doing it realtime with compression, or overall job times
for filtering & compression, then the Celeron starts to look pitiful

kony wrote:
....
The main difference is that the Celeron has only a 128K cache.
....

In Q2 '04 there will be Celerons with 256K cache
- http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1948 -
thus becoming a true alternative to Pentiums again.

Roy


--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,
and confers no rights.

I think about to a Dell notebook for my daughter this year, first year in
college. I believe the laptop is slow anyway so is it worth to pay $100-150
more P4 ? For school work I believe Celeron should be good enough? Any
suggestion?

Thanks

Hai
"Barry OGrady" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 03:35:04 GMT, kony wrote:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 13:15:26 +1100, Barry OGrady
wrote:


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?

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.

The main difference is that the Celeron has only a 128K cache.

..., and the FSB speed, which is a bit backwards if trying to get similar
performance, since the smaller the L2 cache is more drastically impacted
by a low FSB & Memory bus speed.

I upgraded from a K6/2/500 with PC100 memory to a Celeron 2.4 with a 400
Mhz FSB
and DDR 333 memory. The new machine is several times faster converting AVI
to MPEG.
My moboard can use a P4 to beyond 3 Ghz and a 533 Mhz FSB so I can
upgrade.

True enough, a Celeron is plenty fast enough to run a windows box GUI,
basic office apps/email/etc, but then so is an old 800MHz Celeron. That
video editing may even "seem" ok to someone using the Celerons, until
they
start looking at doing it realtime with compression, or overall job times
for filtering & compression, then the Celeron starts to look pitiful

I knew when I bought it that the celeron is slower than most, but I got a
good price.


-Barry
========
Web page: http://members.optusnet.com.au/~barry.og
Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.

You get what you pay for.
The Celeron is a total dog.
The newer celeron is based on the
exact same northwood core as the
P4. Intel just leaves a mask step
out when they produce the chip
and you come out with a P4 with
most of the L2 cache disabled.
It cannot be enabled, I recently
built a new rig based on a 2gigahertz
celeron. 2gig is pretty fast at this time
but when I tried to game on it Bf1942
the lag in multiplay would bring
the frame rate down to 6 and 7fps
on servers with 50 players or more.
I got ****ed built a new machine
with a 2600AMD with a Barton core.
Now I get no lag on 64slot servers
an lots of people will be screaming
about the lag while I walk up and cap
them cause they are lagged to a standstill
and I am free of any lag
Amazing what 640k of L2 cache will do
for performance.
I would not upgrade the laptop unless
you are going to game on it.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.656 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 4/9/2004

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 20:41:19 -0400, "Hai Pham"
wrote:

I think about to a Dell notebook for my daughter this year, first year in
college. I believe the laptop is slow anyway so is it worth to pay $100-150
more P4 ? For school work I believe Celeron should be good enough? Any
suggestion?

Thanks

Yes, it could be good enough.
But, if a 2.4 Celeron is "ok", then so is a lot of stuff.
What I mean is that if you're running applications where the
impressing _slooowwnessss_ of the P4-Celeron is not really a problem,
like a bit of an office kit, web, email, etc, - then you can also get
away with a lot of old things, like PIIs, K6s, PIIIs, older Celerons.
And actually, a late PIII, or late 1 - 1.4GHz old Celeron is probably
just as fast.

An interesting observation he The slowest available AMD cpu, the
1.6GHz Duron (some $30), is _faster_ than fastest 2.8GHz P4-Celeron.

But In favor of a new machine (Celeron), would be the rest of the
specs, - hd, ram, graphics, display, OS. Also, you should have better
media performance in that Celeron than in older cpus.

Adding some confusion, is that Intel intends to market Centrino core
cpus as "Celerons" (just for mobile). I wouldn't do that if I were
head of Intel marketing, because the Celeron name is a bit damaged by
now. Anyway, these Centrino-Celerons will probably rock! I've seen
some preliminary benchmarks, and they were quite good. The
Centrino-Celeron doesn't look like it will give much away to the
normal Centrino.

ancra

P.S. personally, I'd never buy either a P4-Celeron or a Dell, but
never mind, that decision is probably based on things you wouldn't
consider.

ancra,

Please tell me more why not a Dell? Which one you prefer for around $700-800
(college already cost a lot).

Thanks

Hai Pham


wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 20:41:19 -0400, "Hai Pham"
wrote:

I think about to a Dell notebook for my daughter this year, first year in
college. I believe the laptop is slow anyway so is it worth to pay
$100-150
more P4 ? For school work I believe Celeron should be good enough? Any
suggestion?

Thanks

Yes, it could be good enough.
But, if a 2.4 Celeron is "ok", then so is a lot of stuff.
What I mean is that if you're running applications where the
impressing _slooowwnessss_ of the P4-Celeron is not really a problem,
like a bit of an office kit, web, email, etc, - then you can also get
away with a lot of old things, like PIIs, K6s, PIIIs, older Celerons.
And actually, a late PIII, or late 1 - 1.4GHz old Celeron is probably
just as fast.

An interesting observation he The slowest available AMD cpu, the
1.6GHz Duron (some $30), is _faster_ than fastest 2.8GHz P4-Celeron.

But In favor of a new machine (Celeron), would be the rest of the
specs, - hd, ram, graphics, display, OS. Also, you should have better
media performance in that Celeron than in older cpus.

Adding some confusion, is that Intel intends to market Centrino core
cpus as "Celerons" (just for mobile). I wouldn't do that if I were
head of Intel marketing, because the Celeron name is a bit damaged by
now. Anyway, these Centrino-Celerons will probably rock! I've seen
some preliminary benchmarks, and they were quite good. The
Centrino-Celeron doesn't look like it will give much away to the
normal Centrino.

ancra

P.S. personally, I'd never buy either a P4-Celeron or a Dell, but
never mind, that decision is probably based on things you wouldn't
consider.