• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

1.6ghz\256\400 P4 or 2.4ghz\128\400 Celery ? Which is better ?

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day but set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.


I don't know which cpu is faster, but I'll bet that they both burn at the same rate!
 
Cerlon ?? wat model number ? Is it s core based Celeron ? If so it will spank that P4.
 
Originally posted by: bryanW1995
Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day but set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.


I don't know which cpu is faster, but I'll bet that they both burn at the same rate!
Click to expand...


Har har har -_- funny as always Bryan, you schmuck -_-
 
The Celeron will be faster. Less cache doesn't perform as well, but having more won't give the P4 anywhere near near an 800 Mhz advantage. IIRC, that Celeron should perform about as well as a 2.0 Ghz P4A.

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day but set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Click to expand...

That's about the funniest thing I've seen on these forums in a long time.:laugh:
 
The p4 will actually be faster than the celery in some things, games mostly. In some games the northwood celerons get spanked by p3 1ghz.
In pretty much everything else the celeron will be faster.
 
although the celeron has half the cache of pentium 4, but the 1.5X higher clock should compensate its weakness in cache size, it can be safely assumed that celeron is faster than the P4 for all the tasks
 
The cache is a huge killer...but I'd give the willamette celeron the nod with the 800mhz clock speed advantage. Are these CPUs just laying around?
 
Originally posted by: myocardia
The Celeron will be faster. Less cache doesn't perform as well, but having more won't give the P4 anywhere near near an 800 Mhz advantage. IIRC, that Celeron should perform about as well as a 2.0 Ghz P4A.

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day but set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Click to expand...

That's about the funniest thing I've seen on these forums in a long time.:laugh:
Click to expand...

check out dazed and confused's sig...
 
Originally posted by: Dark Cupcake
The p4 will actually be faster than the celery in some things, games mostly. In some games the northwood celerons get spanked by p3 1ghz.
In pretty much everything else the celeron will be faster.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you got the idea that 1Ghz PIII's are so fast, but they aren't, especially at gaming. And although there don't seem to be any benchmarks between 2.4 Ghz Celerons and 1.6 Ghz P4's, because of how much older the P4 is, here's a Q3 benchmark of a 1.7 Ghz P4, and here's a 2.4 Ghz Celeron doing much higher framerates in the same game.
 
Originally posted by: myocardia
Originally posted by: Dark Cupcake
The p4 will actually be faster than the celery in some things, games mostly. In some games the northwood celerons get spanked by p3 1ghz.
In pretty much everything else the celeron will be faster.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you got the idea that 1Ghz PIII's are so fast, but they aren't, especially at gaming. And although there don't seem to be any benchmarks between 2.4 Ghz Celerons and 1.6 Ghz P4's, because of how much older the P4 is, here's a Q3 benchmark of a 1.7 Ghz P4, and here's a 2.4 Ghz Celeron doing much higher framerates in the same game.
Click to expand...

Actually, cupcake does know what he's talking about. The PIII 1.13 was not beat by a P4 untill the P4 1.8ghz CPU hit the scene, even then it wasn't a unanimous winner. I think it finally took the 2ghz P4 to be able to best the PIII 1.13ghz CPU in every task. Hell, why do you think Intel took a trip down memory lane to make the Core CPU's ? The new Intel CPU's you love are all based off the idea of the PIII 🙂

I went ahead with the Celery 2.4 CPU, its based off the NOrthwood architecture as CPU-Z 1.45 says 😵
 
Originally posted by: Dazed and Confused
Actually, cupcake does know what he's talking about. The PIII 1.13 was not beat by a P4 untill the P4 1.8ghz CPU hit the scene, even then it wasn't a unanimous winner. I think it finally took the 2ghz P4 to be able to best the PIII 1.13ghz CPU in every task. Hell, why do you think Intel took a trip down memory lane to make the Core CPU's ? The new Intel CPU's you love are all based off the idea of the PIII 🙂

I went ahead with the Celery 2.4 CPU, its based off the NOrthwood architecture as CPU-Z 1.45 says 😵
Click to expand...

You should try reading the linked gaming benchmarks. A 1.7 Ghz P4A averages 196 FPS in Quake III, while a 1 Ghz PIII averages 118 in the same game. BTW, we all know how efficient the PIII architecture was. That's why the P4 couldn't even keep up with it, in non-gaming scenarios, until the P4 surpassed 1.5 Ghz, and didn't truly become an upgrade until the 1.7 Ghz P4A's (which overclocked to crazy speeds). And if you weren't an overclocker, you needed to wait until the 2 Ghz P4A's showed up, to see much of an improvement in nom-gaming apps.
 
Personally, I'd go with the Celeron. I've owned a 2.4 Northwood-based Celeron in the past. With a good cooler I was able to run that processor at 3.2 GHz.
 
Originally posted by: Nathelion
Didn't the willamettes all use Rambus memory? Are you sure both CPUs will even work in the same board?
Click to expand...

yeah, i own one of those RAMBUS 800 MHz, can't even find these days. Intel P4 march does not have IMC like AMD, so the memory support is determined by the chipset, so i think if its socket compatible and BIOS supports that CPU, it should work.
 
Originally posted by: myocardia
Originally posted by: Dazed and Confused
Actually, cupcake does know what he's talking about. The PIII 1.13 was not beat by a P4 untill the P4 1.8ghz CPU hit the scene, even then it wasn't a unanimous winner. I think it finally took the 2ghz P4 to be able to best the PIII 1.13ghz CPU in every task. Hell, why do you think Intel took a trip down memory lane to make the Core CPU's ? The new Intel CPU's you love are all based off the idea of the PIII 🙂

I went ahead with the Celery 2.4 CPU, its based off the NOrthwood architecture as CPU-Z 1.45 says 😵
Click to expand...

You should try reading the linked gaming benchmarks. A 1.7 Ghz P4A averages 196 FPS in Quake III, while a 1 Ghz PIII averages 118 in the same game. BTW, we all know how efficient the PIII architecture was. That's why the P4 couldn't even keep up with it, in non-gaming scenarios, until the P4 surpassed 1.5 Ghz, and didn't truly become an upgrade until the 1.7 Ghz P4A's (which overclocked to crazy speeds). And if you weren't an overclocker, you needed to wait until the 2 Ghz P4A's showed up, to see much of an improvement in nom-gaming apps.
Click to expand...

Here 2004 cpu charts, (I know some people here have some conspiracy theories about toms hardware, but anyway doubt anyone would care to show old p4 willamette in good light)

Even a 1.3 P4 willamette is beating the northwood celeron in most games (in quake 3 yes it gets beaten, but then i would not consider quake 3 a demanding game). In tasks where cache is not as important like encoding the celeron is miles ahead. And yes in some games a 1ghz p3 performs the same or better.
 
Originally posted by: Dark Cupcake
Here 2004 cpu charts, (I know some people here have some conspiracy theories about toms hardware, but anyway doubt anyone would care to show old p4 willamette in good light)

Even a 1.3 P4 willamette is beating the northwood celeron in most games (in quake 3 yes it gets beaten, but then i would not consider quake 3 a demanding game). In tasks where cache is not as important like encoding the celeron is miles ahead. And yes in some games a 1ghz p3 performs the same or better.
Click to expand...

You may not realize it, but Quake III was the most CPU-bound game of it's day, except of course for M$'s flight simulators. That's why nearly every single site used it as their CPU gaming benchmark. As far as the difference in benchmarks, after reading this post, I set out to find the truth, as alot of what I was basing my recommendation on at first were what the people who owned Northwood Celerons said about them at the time, and the only benchmarks that turned up on my earlier search. I never owned either, so I can't say from experience.

It seems you were right about the P4. This time I used different search terms, and came up with different results. Here's a quote from a very reliable source, sharkyextreme:

Gamers seeking a high-performance system should look at the Pentium 4 and Athlon XP processors,,,,As such, we simply can't recommend the Celeron unless you're a diehard Intel fan and can't save up the extra cash to buy a real 1.8A-2.0A GHz Northwood Pentium 4.
Click to expand...

That was after reviewing a 2 Ghz Celeron, that even overclocked to 3 GHz, couldn't keep up with either a 1.8A or 2.0A (in gaming), which is pretty sad. Here's the article that quote originated from: http://www.sharkyextreme.com/h...le.php/3261_1497501__6 Thanks for the enlightenment.
 
Those benchmarks are very convincing. Obviously, Netburst processors (with their long instruction pipelines) are VERY dependent on cache size. Perhaps the P4 is the better choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top