Celeron 1.4 performance = Celeron 2.4 performance?

[Eug]

My GF needs a computer and she was thinking either an OS X iBook or a Windows desktop. Now, a 1 GHz iBook (at the next update) isn't particularly fast, but she likes the form factor and overall design. But to get to my point... when I started looking at the P4 Celerons I was surprised at how crippled they are compared to the P4s. ie. They aren't terribly fast either. If we go with a Windows desktop, it's gonna be P4C/E or nothing.

Whaddya think... Is my old Celeron 1.4 Tualatin about as fast as a Celeron 2.4?

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Eug
My GF needs a computer and she was thinking either an OS X iBook or a Windows desktop. Now an 1 GHz iBook (at the next update) isn't particularly fast, but when I started looking at the P4 Celerons I was surprised at how crippled they are. If we go with a Windows desktop, it's gonna be P4C/E or nothing.

Whaddya think... Is my old Celeron 1.4 Tualatin about as fast as a Celeron 2.4?

Not "as fast" but certainly close. If you bump up the FSB (if you're comfortable with that) it should be able to handily "Rick James" the cacheless P4 Celeron.

- M4H

 

[MDE]

If it's just for internet\email\word the 1.4 Celeron is more than enough.

 

[InlineFive]

If it helps my 1.4Ghz Athlon XP beats the crud out of my 2Ghz Celeron at work.

-Por

 

[apoppin]

Ah, the Tualatin Celeron . . . the only thing holding it back was it's 100FSB . . . . and PC100/133 . . . O/C'ing this CPU revealed it's potential . . . my 1.2Ghz could run at 1.5Ghz at stock voltage and at 1.6Ghz with some overvolting . . . it has found new life in my neighbor's (non-o/c'd) box and is fine for anything in the business/net-surfing world.

The Tualatin Celerons had a lot more in common with the PIII than with the castrated version of what a celeron is today . . . the tualatin 1.4 might be close in performance to a 2.4 Celeron today . . .

 

[Eug]

Thx. BTW, I wasn't planning on giving her my Celeron 1.4. She'd want a new computer with the warranty and everything. I was just wondering the comparable performance. Considering the minor cost differences (averaged over the entire computer), it seems better to just go with a P4 2.6 with 533 MHz bus for a desktop (although it may be moot now since she seems to be pushing for the iBook, with wireless).

I was just surprised at how bad the current Celerons are, and wasn't sure if I was just reading the wrong reviews or something, considering how nice the PIII Celerons can be (Coppermine and Tualatin), compared to their PIII brethren.

BTW, when I got it I was considering a Celeron 1.1A and then overclocking it but then decided it wasn't worth it to go BX133, esp. since I'd have to overclock the AGP. And I won't run the PCI busses off-spec anymore.

 

[mooojojojo]

Eug, I have a 2GHz Celeron at home running at 2.66. It's not a slow machine. It's MUCH faster than the P3-933 I have at work with comparable specs (the one at home is 512MB DDR333 + Radeon9000pro, the one at work is a 512MB PC133 + Radeon9100).

In Windows and all the applications I work with (mainly Photoshop, Illustrator and Flash) the Celeron is much much faster. I don't game a lot but the only thing I tested and the machine was choking is Unreal2. Warcraft III, Alice, Quake 3, NFS6 (I know they're not really taxing games) all run fine. Even UT2003 at medium details runs good.

So I wouldn't say a Celeron 1.4 is as fast as a Celeron 2.4. As much as people on this board don't like the P4 Celeron and love to make up jokes about it, their opinions are based mainly on synthetic benchmarks.

I like the CPU - mind you it's not too fast, but if you want an Intel and you're on budget, it's not bad.

 

[Serp86]

i remember reading that 2.0ghz celerons were crazy overclockers that could reach 3.2ghz+ easily, but were still beated by the P3 1.4ghz....

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: mooojojojo
Eug, I have a 2GHz Celeron at home running at 2.66. It's not a slow machine. It's MUCH faster than the P3-933 I have at work with comparable specs (the one at home is 512MB DDR333 + Radeon9000pro, the one at work is a 512MB PC133 + Radeon9100).

In Windows and all the applications I work with (mainly Photoshop, Illustrator and Flash) the Celeron is much much faster. I don't game a lot but the only thing I tested and the machine was choking is Unreal2. Warcraft III, Alice, Quake 3, NFS6 (I know they're not really taxing games) all run fine. Even UT2003 at medium details runs good.

So I wouldn't say a Celeron 1.4 is as fast as a Celeron 2.4. As much as people on this board don't like the P4 Celeron and love to make up jokes about it, their opinions are based mainly on synthetic benchmarks.

I like the CPU - mind you it's not too fast, but if you want an Intel and you're on budget, it's not bad.

Yeah, but a Celeron 1.4 is way faster than a PIII 933 as well.

 

[mooojojojo]

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: mooojojojo
Eug, I have a 2GHz Celeron at home running at 2.66. It's not a slow machine. It's MUCH faster than the P3-933 I have at work with comparable specs (the one at home is 512MB DDR333 + Radeon9000pro, the one at work is a 512MB PC133 + Radeon9100).

In Windows and all the applications I work with (mainly Photoshop, Illustrator and Flash) the Celeron is much much faster. I don't game a lot but the only thing I tested and the machine was choking is Unreal2. Warcraft III, Alice, Quake 3, NFS6 (I know they're not really taxing games) all run fine. Even UT2003 at medium details runs good.

So I wouldn't say a Celeron 1.4 is as fast as a Celeron 2.4. As much as people on this board don't like the P4 Celeron and love to make up jokes about it, their opinions are based mainly on synthetic benchmarks.

I like the CPU - mind you it's not too fast, but if you want an Intel and you're on budget, it's not bad.

Yeah, but a Celeron 1.4 is way faster than a PIII 933 as well.

Even if it is faster, although I wouldn't say way faster I don't think it's as fast as a Celeron 2.4. My first experience with the P4 Celerons actually was with my neighbour's PC - a Celeron 1.7 with 256DDR. It also was considerably faster (very noticable indeed) than my work machine. And that's with half the RAM.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: mooojojojo
Eug, I have a 2GHz Celeron at home running at 2.66. It's not a slow machine. It's MUCH faster than the P3-933 I have at work with comparable specs (the one at home is 512MB DDR333 + Radeon9000pro, the one at work is a 512MB PC133 + Radeon9100).

In Windows and all the applications I work with (mainly Photoshop, Illustrator and Flash) the Celeron is much much faster. I don't game a lot but the only thing I tested and the machine was choking is Unreal2. Warcraft III, Alice, Quake 3, NFS6 (I know they're not really taxing games) all run fine. Even UT2003 at medium details runs good.

So I wouldn't say a Celeron 1.4 is as fast as a Celeron 2.4. As much as people on this board don't like the P4 Celeron and love to make up jokes about it, their opinions are based mainly on synthetic benchmarks.

I like the CPU - mind you it's not too fast, but if you want an Intel and you're on budget, it's not bad.

Remember your O/C'd Celeron at 2.66 is much faster than a stock 2.4 . . . and a O/C'd Tualatin Celeron is MUCH faster than your stock 933PIII.

If I "guess", I'd say the "stock" 1.4 Tualatin Celeron performs close to a stock 1.8 P4 or a stock 2.2 Celeron . . . O/C'ing changes all the variables. The 2.4 Celeron is NOT a "slow" machine for a non-gamer (non-encoder).

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: mooojojojo

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: mooojojojo
Eug, I have a 2GHz Celeron at home running at 2.66. It's not a slow machine. It's MUCH faster than the P3-933 I have at work with comparable specs (the one at home is 512MB DDR333 + Radeon9000pro, the one at work is a 512MB PC133 + Radeon9100).

In Windows and all the applications I work with (mainly Photoshop, Illustrator and Flash) the Celeron is much much faster. I don't game a lot but the only thing I tested and the machine was choking is Unreal2. Warcraft III, Alice, Quake 3, NFS6 (I know they're not really taxing games) all run fine. Even UT2003 at medium details runs good.

So I wouldn't say a Celeron 1.4 is as fast as a Celeron 2.4. As much as people on this board don't like the P4 Celeron and love to make up jokes about it, their opinions are based mainly on synthetic benchmarks.

I like the CPU - mind you it's not too fast, but if you want an Intel and you're on budget, it's not bad.

Yeah, but a Celeron 1.4 is way faster than a PIII 933 as well.

Even if it is faster, although I wouldn't say way faster I don't think it's as fast as a Celeron 2.4. My first experience with the P4 Celerons actually was with my neighbour's PC - a Celeron 1.7 with 256DDR. It also was considerably faster (very noticable indeed) than my work machine. And that's with half the RAM.

IIRC, I remember seeing some benches way back suggesting that a Celeron 1.4 was in the same ballpark as a P4 1.6, and that would be much faster than a Celeron 1.7.

By the way, I have a Radeon 9100 as well, and Q3 runs fine and I can even do light UT2003 with it. It's certainly not ideal though.

EDIT: apoppin beat me to it.

Anyways, it seems the consensus is that my Celeron 1.4 might perform something like a Celeron 2.2, so I wasn't too off the mark with my Celeron 2.4 guess.

I think what the P4 Celeron needs is a 256 KB L2 cache (considering the Northwoods and Prescotts have 512/1024 KB L2), to make them more acceptable performance-wise. Then again, people probably don't notice much anyways, so Intel saves a few bux with the 128 KB L2 Celerons.

 

[mooojojojo]

Originally posted by: apoppin
The 2.4 Celeron is NOT a "slow" machine for a non-gamer (non-encoder).

Exactly! It's not like I (or anyone for that matter) would turn down a P4 upgrade, but sometimes people do want to go with Intel and they do want to stay on budget.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Eug

EDIT: apoppin beat me to it.

Anyways, it seems the consensus is that my Celeron 1.4 might perform something like a Celeron 2.2, so I wasn't too off the mark with my Celeron 2.4 guess.

I think what the P4 Celeron needs is a 256 KB L2 cache (considering the Northwoods and Prescotts have 512/1024 KB L2), to make them more acceptable performance-wise. Then again, people probably don't notice much anyways, so Intel saves a few bux with the 128 KB L2 Celerons.

Your estimate of a stockTualatin 1.4 Celeron equaling a 1.6 P4 is probably more accurate (I was thinking of my o/c'd Tualatin @1.5Ghz with a "performance rating" around 1800).

Not only Intel saves a few bux, but so does the consumer . . . isn't the 2.4 Celery ~$75? For those who eschew AMD, it's a good deal (and also a possible performance upgrade path to a P4 at a later date).

edited

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: mooojojojo

Originally posted by: apoppin
The 2.4 Celeron is NOT a "slow" machine for a non-gamer (non-encoder).

Exactly! It's not like I (or anyone for that matter) would turn down a P4 upgrade, but sometimes people do want to go with Intel and they do want to stay on budget.

That's just it. I was checking out the pricing and it turns out the P4 2.8C costs $160 at Pricewatch, and the Celeron 2.8 costs $128.

Over the cost of an entire brand new computer, a $32 upgrade seems like nothing - may as well go for the P4.

Apoppin's right about the $75 2.4 GHz Celeron, but even then it's only an $85 difference, compared to 2.8 GHz P4C. (She's looking to spend about $1000 for the computer.)

 

[apoppin]

If you go NewEggs' pricing, the P4-2.80c (which I bought last month) is ~$185; the 2.4 Celery is ~$110 less.

If you doN'T have the money NOW or NEED the performance, the Celery will do fine for a year or so until the Northwood P4s are cheap - sticking in an 0/C'd 3.x+ would be a screamin' upgrade.

edit: of course, you'd O/C that 2.4 Celeron to ~3.0Ghz and it would be a decent performer NOW.

In fact, I am looking to do a similar upgrade path next year, when 3.4Ghz is starting to seem slow . . . I am quite certain the last of the Northwoods will be cheap next year AND O/C to well over 4.0 Ghz.

 

[mooojojojo]

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: mooojojojo

Originally posted by: apoppin
The 2.4 Celeron is NOT a "slow" machine for a non-gamer (non-encoder).

Exactly! It's not like I (or anyone for that matter) would turn down a P4 upgrade, but sometimes people do want to go with Intel and they do want to stay on budget.

That's just it. I was checking out the pricing and it turns out the P4 2.8C costs $160 at Pricewatch, and the Celeron 2.8 costs $128.

Over the cost of an entire brand new computer, a $32 upgrade seems like nothing - may as well go for the P4.

Apoppin's right about the $75 2.4 GHz Celeron, but even then it's only an $85 difference, compared to 2.8 GHz P4C. (She's looking to spend about $1000 for the computer.)

You have to consider those are prices in the US. Elsewhere the difference is much higher, and in Eastern European countries $100 is not something you can earn in a day. Also I wouldn't even look at the higher than 2.4GHz Celerons when the lower ones will overclock pretty high... anyway - I do agree that the higher priced Celerons are a complete waste.

 

[Eug]

Just a few notes:

1) I'm in Canada, but the prices for CPUs are the same here as in the US.
2) There will be no overclocking whatsoever in this machine, and never will be.
3) The P4 2.8C I was talking about is the 533 MHz version - It's about $10 cheaper.
4) She's looking to spend about $1000. I'm thinking to get the P4 2.8C now would simply be a 10% price difference overall (although the CPU itself costs twice as much).
5) I'm just thinking hypothetically now anyways, since she wants the laptop.

But thx for the info.

 

[AIWGuru]

Sorry mooooojojojo but the era that your 933mhz P3 is from is the problem, not the processor itself. It's going to be stuck with a slower chipset and a hard drive from that time period (which made for a much less responsive or snappy system.) It could have been a slot 1 processor for all we know which doesn't even have on die cache.
In addition to all of the system level benefits a modern 1.4Ghz celeron has (these celerons are just like P3s - same ammount of cache) it's also got 50% more clock speed than the P3 you're comparing it to.

My sister bought herself an emachine with a celeron 1.8ghz and it's the slowest thing I've ever seen. It takes about 3 seconds to pull up the start menu. At first I attributed it to the 128MB of ram so she's up to 512MB now and it's just as bad. It could be the 5400rpm hard drive but I doubt it would make that much of a difference. This system is just dog slow and my 1ghz athlon is much, much faster.

 

[AIWGuru]

This review puts the 3ghz celeron way BEHIND an Athlon XP 1600+. That's a 3000mhz cpu being raped by a 1400mhz cpu. that's MORE than twice the clock speed. These celerons SUCK. Please don't buy one. You'd be pretty silly. review

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: AIWGuru
Sorry mooooojojojo but the era that your 933mhz P3 is from is the problem, not the processor itself. It's going to be stuck with a slower chipset and a hard drive from that time period (which made for a much less responsive or snappy system.) It could have been a slot 1 processor for all we know which doesn't even have on die cache.
In addition to all of the system level benefits a modern 1.4Ghz celeron has (these celerons are just like P3s - same ammount of cache) it's also got 50% more clock speed than the P3 you're comparing it to.

My sister bought herself an emachine with a celeron 1.8ghz and it's the slowest thing I've ever seen. It takes about 3 seconds to pull up the start menu. At first I attributed it to the 128MB of ram so she's up to 512MB now and it's just as bad. It could be the 5400rpm hard drive but I doubt it would make that much of a difference. This system is just dog slow and my 1ghz athlon is much, much faster.

There were slot1 on coppermines. I had a 550E and a 750E both slot 1 with on die cache.

 

[AIWGuru]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: AIWGuru
Sorry mooooojojojo but the era that your 933mhz P3 is from is the problem, not the processor itself. It's going to be stuck with a slower chipset and a hard drive from that time period (which made for a much less responsive or snappy system.) It could have been a slot 1 processor for all we know which doesn't even have on die cache.
In addition to all of the system level benefits a modern 1.4Ghz celeron has (these celerons are just like P3s - same ammount of cache) it's also got 50% more clock speed than the P3 you're comparing it to.

My sister bought herself an emachine with a celeron 1.8ghz and it's the slowest thing I've ever seen. It takes about 3 seconds to pull up the start menu. At first I attributed it to the 128MB of ram so she's up to 512MB now and it's just as bad. It could be the 5400rpm hard drive but I doubt it would make that much of a difference. This system is just dog slow and my 1ghz athlon is much, much faster.

There were slot1 on coppermines. I had a 550E and a 750E both slot 1 with on die cache.

Yes, but didn't they use a slocket adapter? I had a dual P3 board which used two coppermines in slocket adapters.
Anyway, the point is that for all he knows it could be an off-die cache chip.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: AIWGuru
This review puts the 3ghz celeron way BEHIND an Athlon XP 1600+. That's a 3000mhz cpu being raped by a 1400mhz cpu. that's MORE than twice the clock speed. These celerons SUCK. Please don't buy one. You'd be pretty silly. review

From "your" review:

For the person who really wants to push the processor to its limits: 2.66 instead of 2.0 GHz . . . can give this little calculating gizmo quite respectable performance. However, this is extremely dependent on the preferred area of application: if you want to compress MP3s or MPEG4 files, the processor speed plays a more significant role than the rest of the CPU architecture. In this context the overclocked Celeron offers an unbeatable price/performance ratio.

Things look very different with 3D games, because the Pentium 4 and the Athlon AP are still clearly superior. For example, when running Quake III and Comanche 4, the Celeron, overclocked up to 3 GHz, is easily beaten by the Pentium 4 at 2.26 GHz.

The conclusion to be drawn is that the Celeron, in its present form, can no longer keep pace with the Athlon XP and Pentium 4 by means of higher clock speeds.

So IT DEPENDS . . . and IF you MUST go with Intel, the Celeron is a great INTERIM solution for someone on a STRICT budget and a CHEAP UPgrade path later.

edit: Eug, "C" P4s run at 800FSB; the 2.80"B" would be the $10 cheaper 533Mhz version.

 

[AIWGuru]

from the same review:
"One thing is certain: the Celeron is no longer the hot tip that it used to be, because the entry-level processors from AMD (Athlon XP 1600+ to 1900+) offer more performance for the same money. The Pentium 4 is not even in the running here: the current models are significantly more expensive,"

 

[AkumaX]

you could get a 1700+/1800+ for like $40, that's 1/2 of a celeron 2.8

and it'll still OWN ALL j00000000000000000

edit: even the duron 1.6 in anand's review