Celeron > 2000+ xp

[clarkey01]

Easy everyone, iv know someone who?s got a Celeron 900 or a 933 ? I aint to sure what core it is but he seems to think a 900 Celeron is a mainframe in it self, he?s needs bringing down a few pegs, seeing as he thinks his 900 Celeron is as fast an athlon 2000+
Could you pls put the Celeron in its place please

Thank you

 

[xSauronx]

tell your friend hes a retard

This will show your friend a 1.7GHZ celeron getting kicked in the nuts by a 1600+ Athlon XP...that should be enough

dont be so lazy, AnandTech reviews everything and archives it

 

[Gamingphreek]

That friend is full of crap. That Athlon XP would kill a 2GHZ celeron. the Celerons have really low amounts of cache 4k and 64k i think where as that Athlon XP has 16k and 256k.

 

[RussianSensation]

Tell your friend to start reading from this Page and On

And see Celeron 2.6ghz get CRUSHED by everybody

Also, starting from HERE you can see Celeron 1.1 and higher getting absolutely DESTROYED by any XP processor at ANY speed, that means 2000xp will make it cry and cuddle up and run away into its dark cave.

The reason Celerons are NOT REVIEWED too often is because they are an EXCUSE FOR A PROCESSOR.

 

[Mik3y]

the reasons why celerons are the number 1 selling processors because everyone thinks that if intel makes em, then their the best you can get.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Xplaya91
That friend is full of crap. That Athlon XP would kill a 2GHZ celeron. the Celerons have really low amounts of cache 4k and 64k i think where as that Athlon XP has 16k and 256k.

Uh, the Celeron has 16KB of L1 cache and 128KB of L2, compared to the Athlon's 128KB of L1 and 256KB of L2.

 

[pspada]

Originally posted by: xSauronx
tell your friend hes a retard..<snip>...

Actually, that pretty much describes a Celeron processor....The P4's retarded little brother, you know, the one the family doesn't like to talk about. But I much perfer to call them the "Death to Performance" option.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: pspada

Originally posted by: xSauronx
tell your friend hes a retard..<snip>...

Actually, that pretty much describes a Celeron processor....The P4's retarded little brother, you know, the one the family doesn't like to talk about. But I much perfer to call them the "Death to Performance" option.

Haha, I'd have to agree.

 

[Hyperfocal]

Celeron 900 is about the same as a PIII 733.

Not unusable, but easily 1/3 the speed of an XP2000+

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: pspada

Originally posted by: xSauronx
tell your friend hes a retard..<snip>...

Actually, that pretty much describes a Celeron processor....The P4's retarded little brother, you know, the one the family doesn't like to talk about. But I much perfer to call them the "Death to Performance" option.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[rogue1979]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Xplaya91
That friend is full of crap. That Athlon XP would kill a 2GHZ celeron. the Celerons have really low amounts of cache 4k and 64k i think where as that Athlon XP has 16k and 256k.

Uh, the Celeron has 16KB of L1 cache and 128KB of L2, compared to the Athlon's 128KB of L1 and 256KB of L2.

The Celeron 900 is based on the Coppermine core (P3), 32K of L1 cache. Way slower than the 2000+ Athlon of course. But if you compare it to a Duron 700MHz, it's not that bad. Crippled by lack of bandwidth on a 100MHz fsb with SDRAM, the Duron beats it handily. But some of the 900 Celerons would actually overclock to a 133MHz fsb for 1200MHz, getting a much needed boost in the memory bandwidth department. At these speeds it was actually slightly faster than a 1GHz P3.

It was actually a competive cpu for it's day if you overclocked it, not nearly as crippled in comparison as it's more modern P4 counterpart. I have a Celeron 1.1a (Tualatin) that overclocks to 1670MHz at a 152MHz fsb. In cpu arithmetic benchmarks it actually gets very close to a stock Athlon 2000+. But of course as earlier mentioned, the limiting factor is the single-pumped fsb coupled with SDRAM. Any benchmarks or application needing memory bandwith leaves the Tualatin far behind the Athlon.