Celeron 420 or pentium 4 531 for friends pc?

skipsneeky2

Diamond Member
May 21, 2011
5,035
1
71
I recently received a dell xps 400 which came with a pentium d 820 and other salvage parts d so i upgrade my spare computer from a pentiun 4 531 to the pentium d 820 while replacing the onboard ati x1100 video with a 7200gs.

Now i got a friend of the family who's machine i just upgraded to 4gb of memory and his machine is still sorta sucky for the basic of tasks which i could point to the celeron 420.

Question would be for daily usage like youtube,facebook emailing and online banking would the pentium 4 531 yield better overall performance over the celeron 420?
 

AsusGuy

Senior member
Dec 9, 2004
228
0
71
The 531 will be a lot better than the Celeron assuming the motherboard supports the P4 with higher 800Mhz FSB etc...
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,566
10,181
126
Nope, the Celeron 420 is actually faster. It's a Core2Duo-arch chip, with a single working core. C2D are twice as fast as a Pentium 4 at the same clock speed. So a 1.6Ghz C2D single-core, is as fast as a 3.2Ghz Pentium 4 single-core. The 531 is only a 3.0Ghz chip. So the 420 would be faster.

The 420 also draws a LOT less power. So it would be cheaper to run in the long-term too.

I built my mom a computer with a Celeron 440 in it (2.0Ghz single-core), and it works just fine for what she uses it for.

If the motherboard supports overclocking, then you could crank that CPU up to 3.2Ghz if you wanted to.
 

skipsneeky2

Diamond Member
May 21, 2011
5,035
1
71
Nope, the Celeron 420 is actually faster. It's a Core2Duo-arch chip, with a single working core. C2D are twice as fast as a Pentium 4 at the same clock speed. So a 1.6Ghz C2D single-core, is as fast as a 3.2Ghz Pentium 4 single-core. The 531 is only a 3.0Ghz chip. So the 420 would be faster.

The 420 also draws a LOT less power. So it would be cheaper to run in the long-term too.

I built my mom a computer with a Celeron 440 in it (2.0Ghz single-core), and it works just fine for what she uses it for.

If the motherboard supports overclocking, then you could crank that CPU up to 3.2Ghz if you wanted to.

Yeah i was reading about the 420 last night but most of the forums and threads were about 4 years old and i figured perhaps with stuff sorta getting more threaded the pentium 4 531 with ht would have some leverage over the single conroe core just maybe.

Heck the pentium d 820 i though would be a controversial upgrade for my spare with its bad reviews but on a vista soon to be windows 7 machine the index score went from 4.2 to 4.7 with way better overall performance.

The motherboard is oem emachines so no overclocking.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,566
10,181
126
Yes, the Pentium D 820 is a true dual-core, so it would be much faster than either one of those single-core chips.
 

janas19

Platinum Member
Nov 10, 2011
2,313
1
0
It's a Core2Duo-arch chip, with a single working core. C2D are twice as fast as a Pentium 4 at the same clock speed.

Hmm. In my mind, the C2Ds would be twice as fast as a P4 because they have two cores. I'm not sure you can say a Celeron 420 is as fast as a P4, but if you could point to any benchmarks I'd be liable to change my mind :)
 

sm625

Diamond Member
May 6, 2011
8,172
137
106
http://ixbtlabs.com/articles2/cpu/intel-celeron-420-440-page1.html

They are very close. But the P4 would most likely "feel" faster to the typical facebook/amazon/gmail/youtube computer user. Check out the performance scaling between the 420 and the 440... that is why you really want to be able to overclock. It wouldnt even be an issue if you could clock the thing at 2.6GHz or so. It would scream past any P4 or PD.
 

janas19

Platinum Member
Nov 10, 2011
2,313
1
0
http://ixbtlabs.com/articles2/cpu/intel-celeron-420-440-page1.html

They are very close. But the P4 would most likely "feel" faster to the typical facebook/amazon/gmail/youtube computer user. Check out the performance scaling between the 420 and the 440... that is why you really want to be able to overclock. It wouldnt even be an issue if you could clock the thing at 2.6GHz or so. It would scream past any P4 or PD.

Ah, there we go. Like I said, I wasn't sure, so thanks for providing a link :)
 

IonusX

Senior member
Dec 25, 2011
392
0
0
Yes, the Pentium D 820 is a true dual-core, so it would be much faster than either one of those single-core chips.
not its not. in real world benches a pentium D 820 draws with a pentium IV of slightly faster clock speed
2.9ghz pentium IV = 2.8ghz pentium D (more or less)
vs an evenly clocked IV yes the D is superior but its not by much. you get maybe 300 points in vantage and what does this cost?? only temps so hot you can cook Kraft dinner on it, and enough noise to drown out many soft voices.

the Pentium D is a joke of a CPU, celeron dual-core kicked it across the southbridge and off the board.
between the D and IV there isn't a difference for everyday computing. and in more demanding tasks like gaming its second to nothing
you forget dude the IV had hyperthreads while the D had the core but less threads. it was an experiment in computing. you need both for a good cpu. one or the other doesnt carry the day.

that didnt intend to come across upset but i owned a pentium D 820. i speak from experience. the day i moved up to a core 2 duo was the happiest day of my life..
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,566
10,181
126
not its not. in real world benches a pentium D 820 draws with a pentium IV of slightly faster clock speed
2.9ghz pentium IV = 2.8ghz pentium D (more or less)

I would expect, in anything multi-threaded, that the Pentium D would be nearly twice as fast as a P4. I guess you don't consider multi-threaded benchmarks to be "real-world"?
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,378
126
I would expect, in anything multi-threaded, that the Pentium D would be nearly twice as fast as a P4. I guess you don't consider multi-threaded benchmarks to be "real-world"?

This is epic truth. Add to that with Vista and Win7 multi-threaded balancing for all of the background stuff is hugely better with a dual core.

The PD is two P4s. So single-threaded apps will be nearly the same, multi-threaded will be much better.
 

skipsneeky2

Diamond Member
May 21, 2011
5,035
1
71
http://ixbtlabs.com/articles2/cpu/intel-celeron-420-440-page1.html

They are very close. But the P4 would most likely "feel" faster to the typical facebook/amazon/gmail/youtube computer user. Check out the performance scaling between the 420 and the 440... that is why you really want to be able to overclock. It wouldnt even be an issue if you could clock the thing at 2.6GHz or so. It would scream past any P4 or PD.

Non overclockable emachine i just have the pentium 4 531 sitting around collecting dust now and just wonder which is the better of the two better yet which would multitask better with youtube open and a couple google chrome tabs...i know 2 pieces of crap but hell waste not none:)

For those who think the pentium d is as crappy as the pentium 4 i beg to differ the swap for me yielded better boot times and start up programs just about popped open on the fly as before it sorta bogged down for a few mins as also programs opening quicker as well.

Maybe in the windows xp single core days the difference wasn't there but i can't defend a pentium d as my i3 2100 runs circles around any dual core just general observation with the swap is all :thumbsup:
 

IonusX

Senior member
Dec 25, 2011
392
0
0
This is epic truth. Add to that with Vista and Win7 multi-threaded balancing for all of the background stuff is hugely better with a dual core.

The PD is two P4s. So single-threaded apps will be nearly the same, multi-threaded will be much better.

i see your statements and raise you an x-bit labs
mainconcept.png

xvid.png

hl2.png

3dm05-3.png

yeah your not rolling out of that poor preformance in HL2 & the encode that easily mon ami..
i wish you the best of luck with that, on the hole the pentium D is jsut a pentium 4 with an extra core hastily glued onto it as a result the second core barely gets used and serves more as a space heater than anything else.. or a waste of space.
now idk about a fully updated vista but in the waking years of vista the pentium D under vista only identified one of its cores and gave the Pent. D 830 the designation pentium 4 650. after some patches it finally calls it the 830 but will still only use the 1st core.
http://www.techsupportforum.com/forums/f217/windows-vista-only-runs-on-single-core-of-pentium-d-153763.html
so in the long run going from a 4 to a D means little. and the temp hike is horrendous
when OCing the 820 for example a custom zalman cooler couldnt even keep the temps down after .5ghz more than stock
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentiumd-820_5.html
the 2nd core barely does its job. the communication between the two is wired all wrong. as a result windows and other OS's pull from the cpu expecting 2 cores and instead only get 1 respond. as a result core 1 needs to work itself stupid to meet the required demand and temp and fan noise get poor.
it also means that your "true dual core" praises fall on deaf ears. as the Pentium D gets ridden into the ground by its own Pentium IV peers.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,378
126
Xbit reviews from 2005 are accurate with 2005 operating systems and apps, but things have improved monumentally in terms of efficiency from there in both OS and application ability to utilize CPU power more effectively.

Look at encoding scaling back then with the early X2s and Opteron dual cores, it wasn't particularly impressive, but many things now (handbrake, etc) do much better on duals of equivalent IPC cores.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,566
10,181
126
i wish you the best of luck with that, on the hole the pentium D is jsut a pentium 4 with an extra core hastily glued onto it as a result the second core barely gets used and serves more as a space heater than anything else.. or a waste of space.
now idk about a fully updated vista but in the waking years of vista the pentium D under vista only identified one of its cores and gave the Pent. D 830 the designation pentium 4 650. after some patches it finally calls it the 830 but will still only use the 1st core.
http://www.techsupportforum.com/forums/f217/windows-vista-only-runs-on-single-core-of-pentium-d-153763.html

it also means that your "true dual core" praises fall on deaf ears. as the Pentium D gets ridden into the ground by its own Pentium IV peers.

Hmm. I had always assumed that the Pentium D was done much like the Core2Quad chips were - two dies connected via FSB, in the same manner as multi-proc servers, except in one socket.

That seems pretty strange to me that it would only be detected as a single core in Vista.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,378
126
Example of something that could use dual cores well back then, 3d Studio Max.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pentium-d,1006-15.html

The AMD X2s were even better, but on that scale, the Pentium D @ 3.2ghz was significantly faster than the 3.8ghz P4, which took about 50% more time to complete the same task.

That's the thing, how efficiently apps can load the cores, and how efficiently the OS is at load balancing various processes which may not be mutlithreaded at all in the background.

Most people run 40-100 processes, and on Windows Vista or 7 with 2gb of ram or more, I can guarantee you that a Pentium D is far more usable than a Pentium 4. Not that it's a great experience compared to the lowest Athlon 2, C2D, etc, but it doesn't bog down as much. Ditto Athlon X2 vs Athlon 64.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,378
126
Hmm. I had always assumed that the Pentium D was done much like the Core2Quad chips were - two dies connected via FSB, in the same manner as multi-proc servers, except in one socket.

That seems pretty strange to me that it would only be detected as a single core in Vista.

Yeah that's exactly what it was. Two completely identical dies sandwiched together. They were hot, but they were true dual cores in the sense that both cores were complete. L2 wasn't shared, which obviously would have been even more efficient.

I've seen PDs in Vista, and they were detected properly.
 

skipsneeky2

Diamond Member
May 21, 2011
5,035
1
71
Yeah that's exactly what it was. Two completely identical dies sandwiched together. They were hot, but they were true dual cores in the sense that both cores were complete. L2 wasn't shared, which obviously would have been even more efficient.

I've seen PDs in Vista, and they were detected properly.

When i did my swap vista picked up the processor and running the windows experience index my score went from 4.2 for the p4 531 to 4.7 for the pd 820.

For most the index doesn't mean much but at least it told me the processor was fully being utilized and system and everywhere else posted the correct model of the processor.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Now i got a friend of the family who's machine i just upgraded to 4gb of memory and his machine is still sorta sucky for the basic of tasks which i could point to the celeron 420.

Question would be for daily usage like youtube,facebook emailing and online banking would the pentium 4 531 yield better overall performance over the celeron 420?

If that machine works with a celeron 420 which is a 65 nm chip, then there is a whole bunch of Core 2 Duo chips that will probably work but you need to check the specs on that board first.
 

skipsneeky2

Diamond Member
May 21, 2011
5,035
1
71
If that machine works with a celeron 420 which is a 65 nm chip, then there is a whole bunch of Core 2 Duo chips that will probably work but you need to check the specs on that board first.

Not worth putting money into such a old ati chipset motherboard and socket for $50 i could get a celeron g530 which would run circles around any 800fsb core 2 duo.

Hell for $50 i could buy a microatx 775 motherboard drop in a e8200 i got sitting in a full atx mobo doing nothing, modify the front panel connectors in this emachines case and swap out the old for the new.:thumbsup:

Maybe i will be a nice guy and do that for him and youtube myself smashing the p4 531:D
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Not worth putting money into such a old ati chipset motherboard and socket for $50 i could get a celeron g530 which would run circles around any 800fsb core 2 duo.

Hell for $50 i could buy a microatx 775 motherboard drop in a e8200 i got sitting in a full atx mobo doing nothing, modify the front panel connectors in this emachines case and swap out the old for the new.:thumbsup:

Maybe i will be a nice guy and do that for him and youtube myself smashing the p4 531:D

Well there ya go. What the hell are you asking us advice for?
 

skipsneeky2

Diamond Member
May 21, 2011
5,035
1
71
Well there ya go. What the hell are you asking us advice for?

Cause the idea just came to me today.

Also the pentium 4 531 is just sitting collecting dust and IF i do decide not to invest into a 775 platform, which is still the better of the 2 the p4 or the celeron 420...

So the original question still is pretty valid but yeah answers so far put them in the same area of performance and i believe it now.:thumbsup:
 

alyarb

Platinum Member
Jan 25, 2009
2,425
0
76
24 dollar shipping? That is a joke.

It should be closer to $5 to ship. My point was that vastly superior CPUs are available for chump change. For me it's a pointless, perhaps even sadistic act to agonize or speculate over the possible perils of a hopelessly imbalanced dual core vs. a more efficient single core when 2.2 GHz conroes are going for $25 or less.
 
Last edited: