• 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 2.0 ghz or XP 2100+?

Y

YoungChowFun

Member
Hi. Im helping my friend build a comp and he is choosing between a celeron 2 giger and an xp 2100+ (tbred.) I know the xp is a better overall performing chip, in games, appz, etc. However, my friend does a lot of ripping of dvds. He does the whole converting files to video files thing and that takes a while. I was just wondering, if we overclocked the celeron to 2.66 gigs (133fsb) or even 3.0 gigs (150fsb,) would the celeron be good in the whole dvd ripping application thingy? He doesn't play games at all (his video card is an ati xpert 98 8mb for goodness sake!!!!) and he only uses microsoft office on a computer. So, for the whole dvd ripping and converting scenario, celeron 2.0ghz oc to 2.66 or even 3.0ghz, or a famous 2100+ tbred b?
 
The Celeron 2.0 will do at least 2.7 at default vCore with the stock HSF. I have tried 3 and they all do 2.7, one will do 2.8 at default vCore. Got to love them for $85 shipped. The XP2100 is a great processor but has marginal overclock potential. You will have to crank up the vCore, then you have to deal with the heat and get a good HSF.

If you plan to overclock, I would go with the Celeron. If your not going to overclock, the XP will beat the pants off the Celeron 2.0.

My humble opinion.

Loou
 
Personally I would get the 2100xp over the celeron. Since the 2100xp is a tbred you can probably OC it to a 2600xp. Which is a lot faster than any celeron. And also the XP has 256kb of cache and the celeron only has 128bk. So get the AMD 🙂
 
Originally posted by: LouPoir
The Celeron 2.0 will do at least 2.7 at default vCore with the stock HSF. I have tried 3 and they all do 2.7, one will do 2.8 at default vCore. Got to love them for $85 shipped. The XP2100 is a great processor but has marginal overclock potential. You will have to crank up the vCore, then you have to deal with the heat and get a good HSF.

If you plan to overclock, I would go with the Celeron. If your not going to overclock, the XP will beat the pants off the Celeron 2.0.

My humble opinion.

Loou
Click to expand...

Damn dude, you must've slept through the T-bred B 2100+ release.

Yeah, you can OC a Celeron to 2.7GHz, and it'll perform as a T-bred 2100+ does at stock speeds of 1.73GHz.

Or,

You can get a 2100+ and OC it to 2.3GHz and have it perform better than a P4 at 3.06GHz.

Not a real tough choice IMO. 🙂

Chiz
 
No doubt that if you can get the XP to 2300, that's the better choice. But what are the odds of o'clocking form 1.73 to 2.3 with an XP2100.

Lou
 
If you have the right board and good ram you can for sure get 2600xp with the tbred b 2100. My tbred b 1800xp hits 2400xp with 1.75v and 768mb crucial pc2100 @ 166fsb.
 
Yes, i do know how well the 2100+ xp outperforms the celeron 2.0 in just about almost every case. But since the pIV is better on media encoding and stuff like that, and since the 2.0ghz celeron is based on the northwood core, my friend and i were just wondering how the celeron would do in that area. Thats all he uses his comp for. So, for the whole media encoding stuff, celeron or xp?
 
Since you are planning ripping and encoding DVDs the XP would still be better. Since it is a faster chip it would encode the files faster than the celeron due to a larger cache. But if you are on a budget I would go with the cheaper chip.
 
The celery is crap, go look at Anand's and THG article with the celery over 2.5GHZ vs. a XP1600. I'd get a 0302 stepping Tbred B XP2100 chip from excaliber pc for $100. These chips hit over 2.3-2.5ghz with ease on good air cooling. Mines is doing 2.35GHZ (XP2926).
 
Thanks for all the tips. Ive checked reviews, and MAN!!! That is pathetic, vs. an xp1600 (which is only at 1.4 i believe?) The choice is made, 2100+ for the media encoding. Overclock to a good 2.1 or 2.2 ghz and he'll be good from there. Thanx again.
 
For the person who really wants to push the processor to its limits: 2.66 instead of 2.0 GHz (533 rather than 400 MHz FSB) should not present any real problems in practice, and 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.
Click to expand...
Tom's Hardware: Celeron 2.0 GHz, with 0.13 µm
They don't compare it directly to an XP 2100+ but do show results from defalt 2.0, "almost guaranteed" 2.66 and a nice 3.0 (which I could not get stable with my own chip). As expected, it scored really low in all the gaming benchmarks but did surprisingly well in the Content Creation, MP3 Lame, PCMark 2002 and DivX 5.02 encoding. That's exactly what your friend wants it for, right? You/he should reasonably be able to expect 2.66GHz using the retail boxed HSF on a decent 845PE chipset motherboard. In encoding, the XP2100+ TbredB will probably be better if overclocked on an Nforce2 board, but the board ends up costing more and an adequate HSF ends up costing more. If your friend was going to pay more money anyways, he'd probably be getting a Pentium 4 2.4B in the first place, right?
 
I think if he is encoding anything stablity is key. Running an OCed CPU might not be the best for that. ie my last Tbird rig was 1.65ghz but when I was editing video I ran stock 1.4 because OCing itself raises the rate on crashes and doing labor intensive aps and haveing your puter crap out is pretty crummy. Make sure your Buds OC is Super stable before handing over. a few mhz is not worth a crash...

AMD vs Intel I'd take AMD but I'm biased

but

Stabilty over a bragging rights for an OC? i'll take stability
 
Originally posted by: LouPoir
No doubt that if you can get the XP to 2300, that's the better choice. But what are the odds of o'clocking form 1.73 to 2.3 with an XP2100.

Lou
Click to expand...
Actually getting 2.4 right here with only a small voltage bump, thank you very much 🙂

And the current celly sucks the big one...
 
Well think about it, 266/333 FSB vs 400/533 MHz FSB. I would opt for a 533 MHz FSB Pentium 4, more bandwidth. You'd pay just as much if you were to get an Athlon XP 2100+. Dont get me wrong, but AMD Athlons rock, but the FSB sucks on them. I cant wait for the 400 MHz FSB on the Athlon to come out sometime this year. That will be great and will probably replace my current AMD setup.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top