celeron 2.2/amd2000-which is faster?

David101 · Jul 14, 2003

hey guys its me again lol. i decided to buy my 9500 128 non-pro with another combo special. i need to know if a celeron 2.2 ghz 128k cache is faster than a amd athlon 2000+ (256k cache)

im assuming amd=faster.

thanks

btw--can any1 recomend a cheap but ok heatsink? do the athlons blow up easy if i dont get a decnt one...lol

nick1985 · Jul 14, 2003

GullyFoyle · Jul 14, 2003

Originally posted by: nick1985
amd

I concur.

Budman · Jul 14, 2003

There's no comparison,2000+ will be a lot faster.

StraightPipe · Jul 14, 2003

I aggree that the amd will be better but I think it should be noted that the celeron is running at 2.2Ghz while the AMD is less( something like 1.8?)

so technically the Intel is faster...
but the AMD is more effective.

Arcanedeath · Jul 14, 2003

For cheap but good heatsinks I'd suggest the Sk-6+ +fan, SVC GC69 , or a SVC GC68 all can be found at SVC and I'd suggest pairing them w/ a Sunnon 50.2 CFM 80mm Fan for better cooling or the standard fans that come w/ the units if noise is an issue. Hope this helps....

nick1985 · Jul 14, 2003

the athlon 2000 is like 1.7 i think

cvpifreak · Jul 14, 2003

Originally posted by: StraightPipe
I aggree that the amd will be better but I think it should be noted that the celeron is running at 2.2Ghz while the AMD is less( something like 1.8?)

so technically the Intel is faster...
but the AMD is more effective.

Technically the Intel is running at a higher frequency not at a "faster" operating speed.

randumb · Jul 14, 2003

An Athlon XP 2000+ is faster than any celeron.

dullard · Jul 14, 2003

Originally posted by: Budman
There's no comparison,2000+ will be a lot faster.

It all depends on what you run. Read this or one of the many similar articles all over the web. I'll summarize the 2000+ to 2.0 GHz Celeron test in that link:

Quake 3: the 2000+ wins by a wide margin.
3D Mark 2001 SE: the 2000+ wins easilly.
Unreal Tournament 2003: the 2000+ wins big again.
MPEG-2, Main Concept 1.3: the 2000+ is far ahead.

PC Mark 2002 CPU: this would be a virtual tie between the 2000+ and a 2.2 GHz Celeron.
SiSoft Sandra 2003: this will be split with wins on either side.
File Compression, Winrar 3.1: this will be tie again.
Sysmark 2002: another tie.

mp3 Maker Platinium 3.04: the 2.0 GHz Celeron has a noticible but smallish lead.
PC Mark 2002 Memory: Celeron wins big but this is a meaningless test.

Yes if you game, get the 2000+ since Celerons are crap for gaming. But if you look at the rest of the tests, either one will do about the same overall.

DaveSimmons · Jul 14, 2003

Originally posted by: David101
thanks for all of the replies, ive made my mind for the amd system. i dunno how to delete the topic so :/

please don't do this in the discussion forums just because you're done with the thread -- you make it much harder for someone else to learn from reading the responses, especially since non-subscribers can only search on the thread titles not on the text inside the thread.

Budman · Jul 14, 2003

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Budman
There's no comparison,2000+ will be a lot faster.

Click to expand...

It all depends on what you run. Read this or one of the many similar articles all over the web. I'll summarize the 2000+ to 2.0 GHz Celeron test in that link:

Quake 3: the 2000+ wins by a wide margin.
3D Mark 2001 SE: the 2000+ wins easilly.
Unreal Tournament 2003: the 2000+ wins big again.
MPEG-2, Main Concept 1.3: the 2000+ is far ahead.

PC Mark 2002 CPU: this would be a virtual tie between the 2000+ and a 2.2 GHz Celeron.
SiSoft Sandra 2003: this will be split with wins on either side.
File Compression, Winrar 3.1: this will be tie again.
Sysmark 2002: another tie.

mp3 Maker Platinium 3.04: the 2.0 GHz Celeron has a noticible but smallish lead.
PC Mark 2002 Memory: Celeron wins big but this is a meaningless test.

Yes if you game, get the 2000+ since Celerons are crap for gaming. But if you look at the rest of the tests, either one will do about the same overall.

Ok dullard maybe I should have said, Overall the 2000+ will be faster.

David101 · Jul 14, 2003

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: David101
thanks for all of the replies, ive made my mind for the amd system. i dunno how to delete the topic so :/

Click to expand...

please don't do this in the discussion forums just because you're done with the thread -- you make it much harder for someone else to learn from reading the responses, especially since non-subscribers can only search on the thread titles not on the text inside the thread.

sorry, i fixed it now. as i was looking thorugh the threads again i saw the pinned topic : please do not post amd/intel threads here. so i didnt know what else to do afetr i got the reponses so i did that. i fixed it now.

sorry,

David.

dullard · Jul 14, 2003

Originally posted by: David101
btw--can any1 recomend a cheap but ok heatsink? do the athlons blow up easy if i dont get a decnt one...lol

They will not blow up. There is a small chance of them overheating (if there is user error) but that situation is getting better than it was in the past. Pretty much any heatsink designed for the Athlons will work. All you get by spending more on bigger/better heatsinks is the ability to overclock a bit higher.

By the way, I forgot to mention:

Welcome to Anandtech.

Budman · Jul 14, 2003

Yes David101 Welcome.

Here's a beer and a gift for you.

:beer::gift:

Ionizer86 · Jul 14, 2003

I still remember the Northwood Celery benchmarks where they overclocked a Celery 2.0 to 2.66, and it was still losing to the XP1600+ in quite a few cases.

On anything that needs lotsa cache, the celery is doomed. In the rare cacheless scene, it'll pull some P4 Northwood type performance.

magomago · Jul 14, 2003

Originally posted by: Ionizer86
I still remember the Northwood Celery benchmarks where they overclocked a Celery 2.0 to 2.66, and it was still losing to the XP1600+ in quite a few cases.

On anything that needs lotsa cache, the celery is doomed. In the rare cacheless scene, it'll pull some P4 Northwood type performance.

Actually it was a Celery 2.0 to 3GHZ...

At 3 Ghz the Celeron was just shy of the 1600+

Ionizer86 · Jul 14, 2003

Yea, they (THG) benched it overclocked to both 2666 and 3000, and in both cases, it was a pretty sad scenario for the Celery.

Sid59 · Jul 14, 2003

the AMD 2000+ is the PR rating to Intel P4 ( we all know that)
if the Celeron 2.2 had a PR rating to the P4 .. it'll prolly be the Celeron 1400+

Ionizer86 · Jul 14, 2003

Link

Wow, did the celery perform oh so terrifically well here

:sun:

pecel · Jul 15, 2003

come on, it's celery

AMD win

celeron 2.2/amd2000-which is faster?

Member

Lifer

Diamond Member

Lifer

Golden Member

Platinum Member

Lifer

Junior Member

Platinum Member

Elite Member

Elite Member

Lifer

Member

Elite Member

Lifer

Diamond Member

Lifer

Diamond Member

Lifer

Diamond Member

Golden Member