• 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.

Athlon XP 2000+ vs Celeron 1.7 GHz

D

DWW

Platinum Member
I can buy either:

ECS Elite board (K7S5A Pro)
Athlon XP 2000+

or

Asus board (P4S533-X)
Celeron 1.7 GHz.

both setups are the same price. The AMD route would limit me to a board that could not support future CPU upgrades really (end of its road). But it DOES support both SDRAM and DDR. However I am gunna recycle PC133 SDRAM and WONT buy DDR later on to replace it on the AMD setup. OR I could buy the Intel setup and have a board that supports P4 3.06 AND hyperthreading. So 2 years from now when those sell for $50 I can make a nice upgrade. It too, has both DDR and SDRAM support. Initially I will be just using PC133 SDRAM, but if, two years from now, I upgrade to a 3.06 HT enabled P4, I will pickup some DDR333 (PC2700) that works with it.

Any suggestions? Will I see a huge performance degredation going the Intel route for now? I do game, but mostly older games (counter-strike)... yet I don't want to rule out new games completely. Is the 1.7 GHz celeron a whole lot worse performance than the Athlon XP 2000+?

Thanks for any suggestions.
 
The Celeron 1.7, especially paired up with PC133 instead of DDR, will be annihilated by the AthlonXP in gaming, and most other conceivable situations too. Don't do that to yourself. The K7S5A loses 0% to 10% of its performance when used with PC133 (my actual test results) but will still be a solid performer.

My advice, do it right the first time and get some DDR and an nForce2/AthlonXP or else a Pentium4 Northwood and at least an i845PE board that has 800MHz support, or possibly an i865 or i875 board.
 
Originally posted by: nick1985
athlon 2000 > celery 1.7
Click to expand...

Yeah, either a northwood core now and ddr ram with it, otherwise athlon 2000. For that too, I would get some DDR RAM, its awfully cheap now, isn't it? I would just pick some up from a place like newegg.com
 
That XP 2000+ will demolish the 1.7 GHz Celeron so much that it won't even be funny.

I doubt even a 3 GHz Celeron could beat a 2000+.
 
If you DO decide to go with Intel (whatever your reasoning, not important here) Be sure to either get:

Celeron 2.0 because of its newer Northwood core (which is a smaller die and overclocks MUCH better!)
Runs everything great except games, where the XP would perform much better. Check out Tom's Hardware and the Celeron 2.0 review here.

Or go P4. Again, Northwood preferred. I know it's more money, but it's a niiiice processor. 🙂

That's just the Intel info. For AMD, these guys know more. Stick with AMD XP "+" processors and you can't really go wrong. And don't spend too much and think it'll last that much longer than a cheaper board... all new stuff will be released in a year... better to spend less on a "decent" setup than a whack of cash for a "bleeding-edge" setup.
 
Forgot to mention... ECS isn't the best brand for motherboards.... some love it, some hate it. Try and find an nForce2 board that's not too expensive. Find one with onboard sound and video and you can justify its larger price by thinking, "I'm getting a video and sound upgrade at the same time."

Provided yor video and sound are currently unimpressive. 😉
 
Originally posted by: snidy1
Never buy a celeron
Click to expand...

^^
rolleye.gif
 
The 2000. As said above it will absolutely annihilate the celeron. Also, I just did 2 ECS K7S5A pro setups, and they are much improved over my two regular ones. I even did one with an XP1700 on a 250 watt cheapo PS (deer ??) and it worked fine. and unless I read wrong, 10 USB ports ? I hooked up two to the from panel and there are four in the back. I don't know if the other two are duplicated by the back panel, the manual was not clear on that (USB1 & 2 on the MB)

Dang spelling....
 
Oddly enough, my Celeron 1.4 is faster than a Celeron 1.7 at most things.

Both would be destroyed by a Athlon XP 2000+, however.
 
Originally posted by: Eug
Oddly enough, my Celeron 1.4 is faster than a Celeron 1.7 at most things.

Both would be destroyed by a Athlon 2000+, however.
Click to expand...

Heck even a Duron 1.3ghz would beat it. lol
 
Originally posted by: Budman
Originally posted by: Eug
Oddly enough, my Celeron 1.4 is faster than a Celeron 1.7 at most things.

Both would be destroyed by a Athlon 2000+, however.
Click to expand...

Heck even a Duron 1.3ghz would beat it. lol
Click to expand...

I saw a benchmark where a 1.2ghz Duron was competing equally with a 1.8ghz (I think) Celeron.

If i could only find it :|
 
Originally posted by: DannyBoy
Originally posted by: Budman
Originally posted by: Eug
Oddly enough, my Celeron 1.4 is faster than a Celeron 1.7 at most things.

Both would be destroyed by a Athlon 2000+, however.
Click to expand...

Heck even a Duron 1.3ghz would beat it. lol
Click to expand...

I saw a benchmark where a 1.2ghz Duron was competing equally with a 1.8ghz (I think) Celeron.

If i could only find it :|
Click to expand...
lol......the current celerons suck
 
Originally posted by: bgeh
Originally posted by: DannyBoy
Originally posted by: Budman
Originally posted by: Eug
Oddly enough, my Celeron 1.4 is faster than a Celeron 1.7 at most things.

Both would be destroyed by a Athlon 2000+, however.
Click to expand...

Heck even a Duron 1.3ghz would beat it. lol
Click to expand...

I saw a benchmark where a 1.2ghz Duron was competing equally with a 1.8ghz (I think) Celeron.

If i could only find it :|
Click to expand...
lol......the current celerons suck
Click to expand...

I disagree totally by what you have just said.












The word "Suck" does not begin to describe how poor they are 😉 😛
 
Originally posted by: DannyBoy
Originally posted by: bgeh
Originally posted by: DannyBoy
Originally posted by: Budman
Originally posted by: Eug
Oddly enough, my Celeron 1.4 is faster than a Celeron 1.7 at most things.

Both would be destroyed by a Athlon 2000+, however.
Click to expand...

Heck even a Duron 1.3ghz would beat it. lol
Click to expand...

I saw a benchmark where a 1.2ghz Duron was competing equally with a 1.8ghz (I think) Celeron.

If i could only find it :|
Click to expand...
lol......the current celerons suck
Click to expand...

I disagree totally by what you have just said.












The word "Suck" does not begin to describe how poor they are 😉 😛
Click to expand...

lol...............got a better word for it😉😛

the old celerons were good
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top