• 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.

Celeron 1.4 vs Pentium 4 1.7, 512K

R

rcwalters

Junior Member
What's the difference, in real life use? I'm looking to publish a book using Adobe Framemaker, and am a bit concerned that the max RAM I can get in this particular Celeron box is 512Mb.

Or are these two about the same?
 
Did Intel make a 1.7A w/512K? I can't find one.

Anyhow, if you're not going to overclock, stay with the Celeron, IMHO. The 1.4's are nice processors and will genrally out perform a stock 1.6-1.8 P4.

If you're planning to overclock, the go with a P4 1.6A or 1.8A. I don't know about the 1.7 you speak of.


Intel's P4 1.7 Specs
 
I can't find a 512K either, actually. But that's what's advertised. So I guess they're pulling on over on me--er, trying to. But still--the Celeron only runs on 100Mhz FSB, while the P4 is running on a 400. Is that important?
 
Bus speed is important, and depending on the apps you run, you might notice it.

I do lots of java development, and I use a Celeron 1.3 overclocked to 1.4. It seems to do the trick although on extremely I/O intensive tasks like building large projects, I really notice the lag. The SiSoft Sandra benchmarks seem to say that the CPU is a good performer, thanks to the 256K of cache, but kinda lousy when it comes to memory throughput (as expected on my aging Abit BF6)

I guess another way to look at it is upgradability. A P4 rig is going to be a lot more upgradeable. But like you, I'd be very suspicious of the advertised 1.7 you speak of.

Good Luck.
 
Yeah, there is no such thing as a 1.7A, sounds very suspicious. The memory bandwidth will be much better for the p4, go for that.
 
I think he's talking about a comparison of
Pentium 3 based Celeron 1.4Ghz (100Mhz FSB) vs Pentium 4 Based Celeron 1.7Ghz (400 Mhz FSB)

The p4 based celeron is just like a P4, with a smaller cache (128kb, I believe)
the p3 based celeron is basically a .13u process version of the coppermine p3, with 100Mhz FSB and 256kb cache

I had a 1.3Ghz and a 1.2Ghz Celeron chips, man did they overclock, yet the temps stayed in the low 30's under load
 
Yeah, I think we're all a little confused about this setup.

I have a Celeron 1.3, and it seems to be a good overclocker. Add in the 256K cache, and boy, it's a smart performer for the price.

Cheers.
 
I have a Celeron 1.3, and it seems to be a good overclocker. Add in the 256K cache, and boy, it's a smart performer for the price.
Click to expand...
Also the Tualatin-Celeron is much faster than the P4-Celeron...pull it up to 1.7 GHz and you top the integer/float performance of an AthlonXP 2000+ 😀
 
The P4 Celeron's are garbage because their limited to only a measly 128KB L2 Cache and 64KB L1. a 1.4GHz P4 Celeron will probably equal in performance with a 700MHz Pentium 3.
 
The you're running basic surfing and microsoft office stuff, it should be about 10% slower than regular 1.7 ghz p4(if they exist).
sysmark 2002 benchmarks

I haven't used adone framemaker before, but if it has any 3D in it, it would be bad to use the 1.7 ghz celeron.

When it comes to 3d graphics and games,
the chip, like rIpTOr said, is garbage.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top