celeron d 330 2.66 ghz vs athlon 1.4

[homestar]

right now, i have a 4 year old (almost) athlon 1.4 with 512 megs of ram and its been serving me well...my parents just got a kinda new compaq (yuck) with one of the new celeron d's in it, the 330 clocked at 2.66 ghz...my question is, should i trade them my old athlon? i cant do any tests right now because im home for thanksgiving, but id like to hear your thoughts. oh, this machine also has 512 megs of ram, im just worried about the celeron d being a 'budget' processor

 

[MDE]

The Celeron should be faster. They sure do suck, but there's no way the Athlon will make up the 1200 MHz gap.

 

[MiranoPoncho]

Compaq*shudder* celly d*shudder* How high can you oc your athlon rig? good luck on that, but hopefully it's not on the 845g chipset. I feel your pain.

 

[homestar]

thats not encouraging...im using it now and it seems ok, but im not in 3ds max or something...photoshop...come to think of it, does neone know if hte celeron d's perform well in those kind of apps? i use em a lot for workk...i would wipe this computer clean and get rid of the compaq crap, itd be ok then right?

 

[Zap]

The Delerons (Celeron D) are better, clock for clock, than the previous P4 based Celerons because they run at a higher FSB and have double cache. Lack of cache was always the Achilles Heel of the Celeron. In all other ways they are IDENTICAL to a P4 at the same core type, FSB and MHz, only lacking cache.

 

[xSeongminx]

Originally posted by: MDE
The Celeron should be faster. They sure do suck, but there's no way the Athlon will make up the 1200 MHz gap.

Originally posted by: MiranoPoncho
Compaq*shudder* celly d*shudder* How high can you oc your athlon rig? good luck on that, but hopefully it's not on the 845g chipset. I feel your pain.

Just wondering but do you guys personally own Celeron D processors? Obviously you guys don't cause the new Celeron D's are the best budget chips out there. They are very overclockable, and run great, similar to P4 performance. For instance, I have a 2.4 Celeron D (320) clocked at 200fsb (3.6) and it flies, beating top end P4's, as well as AMD processors (according to Sisoft). Seriously, just because you guys have experience with prior Celeron cpu's doesn't mean that you have to criticize the new ones that runs awesome... Jeez...

 

[dguy6789]

Yes the Celly Ds are faster then previous cellys, but you have much to learn. Sisoft SANDRA is only useful comparing performance of similar cpu/chipsets at different settings. If you go and change cpu and such, the test loses all acuaracy. Currently, the Athlon XPs are still way better bargain chips then the Celleron Ds, especially if you get a mobile.

The Celeron 2.66Ghz would be faster then a 1.4ghz athlon. A 2.66ghz Celeron would be comparable to an Athlon xp 2000+ in most applications. I hate to burst your bubble, but your 3.6Ghz Celeron D performs on par with a P4 2.4C at best.

 

[no crap]

THATS BULL,SURELY THE CELERON RUNNING AT 3.6 HAS IMPROVED BANDWIDTH OF THE PCI/AGP BUS
LETS SEE IF the P4 2.4C CAN MUSTER 122MPS DATA RETREIVAL FROM A SIMPLE 02 RAID SETUP WITH ITS PISSY 33MGHZ PCI SPEEDS EH?HECK MY CELE 128KB @ 3.0 RIVALS+OUTPERFORMS that 2.4G P4 (512) IN EVERY AREA OTHER THAN A FEW 3D GAMES,THEN AGAIN THERES MORE TO PC THAN QUAKE BENCH MARKS ,MORESO THAT 3.6 CELE WILL MATCH IT WITH ANY P4 @3.0GHZ (512-1024 L2 CACHE)
IN EVERY RESPECT AND AS FOR THE ATHLONS I ASSUME THE 64BIT VERSIONS MORESO APPLY TO THE STATEMENT.OTHERWISE IF HIS ATHLON 1.4G POWERED PC HAS A DECENT RAID,GRAPHICS ETC SETUP WITH HIGHER PCI/AGP BANDWIDTH I BETYA IT WILL MAKE THAT NEWER COMPAQ SEEM PALE IN COMPARISON.
(there is more to speed than mghz +cache alone,sur it all helps but let adrees the real bottlenecks of
pc performance = HDD SPEEDS)


(IF YOU HAVE THE SPEED ,YOU CAN SHIFT THE DATA)
(IF YOU CAN SHIFT THE DATA THEN YOU HAVE THE SPEED)

 

[21stHermit]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
A 2.66ghz Celeron would be comparable to an Athlon xp 2000+ in most applications. I hate to burst your bubble, but your 3.6Ghz Celeron D performs on par with a P4 2.4C at best.

Really, I guess that depends on what you define to be "most applications". In media encoding, a 320 Cele-D @ 3.6 is comparable to A64's, by test. GRAPH

Would you care to back up your statement?

 

[ZobarStyl]

no crap - Welcome to AT - now buy a keyboard without a broken shift key.

And that link is to a media encoding bench that doesn't even list what it is, so it's kinda a toss up of what to make of it. At least from that graph we see that even at the best thing Intel does, you are looking at a 3.6 celly D being slightly less than a 3.2 Prescott. Moving into games, you see the Delerons get hosed when it's seriously CPU intensive; they compete decently at 2.8 vs an Athlon XP 2600+, but then when you look at the UT Botmatch (i.e. very processor dependent) you see the 2.8 Delly between an AXP 2400+ and 2200+. I'm sorry, but even at 3.6, you're still talking barely equivalent to a Sempron 3100+, unless you are talking media encoding and you don't buy a Celly D to do media encoding.

Would you care to not link to useless benches on unknown sites in Portugeuse?

 

[InlineFive]

Hard to say.

My Athlon XP 2500+ beats a 2.53Ghz Celeron-D.

 

[TStep]

An athlon 1.4 is more or less a 1700+ XP which would be more or less a Sempron 2200+ (if they even make it). Read here. and here. The CeleronD's don't do too bad. I'd take the Celeron, but the Compaq I'm sure has no real overclocking abilities to make it shine.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: dguy6789The Celeron 2.66Ghz would be faster then a 1.4ghz athlon.

Hey, you just answered the original poster's question. Why everyone is arguing now over merits of various CPUs and platforms, dunno.

Originally posted by: TStepThe CeleronD's don't do too bad. I'd take the Celeron, but the Compaq I'm sure has no real overclocking abilities to make it shine.

I'd make the same choice for these reasons:
- Even though it uses a Prescott core, at default speeds the Deleron 330 would run cooler than the Tbird 1.4 (maybe, am I wrong?)
- The Deleron would be on a newer board with newer technology. Just having USB 2.0 is worth it if you ever use external hard drives or thumb drives.
- Applications that take advantage of SSE2, etc. would benefit from the Deleron.
- What RAM does the Tbird 1.4 use? If it is still on SDRAM, that's another point in favor of the Deleron.

Originally posted by: no crapTHATS BULL,SURELY THE CELERON RUNNING AT 3.6 HAS IMPROVED BANDWIDTH OF THE PCI/AGP BUS
LETS SEE IF the P4 2.4C CAN MUSTER 122MPS DATA RETREIVAL FROM A SIMPLE 02 RAID SETUP WITH ITS PISSY 33MGHZ PCI SPEEDS EH?

WTF? Can you say "baka" in English? Both Deleron 320 at 3.6GHz and P4 2.4C at default speed on the same motherboard/RAM setup would have the exact same PCI/AGP/FSB/RAM speeds. The hard drives would both be running at the same speeds on the same speed interface. What the heck are you trying to say?

 

[Appledrop]

zap, enlighten yourself

 

[Stormgiant]

Originally posted by: ZobarStyl
Would you care to not link to useless benches on unknown sites in Portugeuse?

I there,

First, the pic is from the biggest hardware and OC forum in BRASIL.
Second, the Celeron D @ any speed will always be faster than the Athlon 1.4
Third, I've been playing with many Intel chips on the last year, and now started to do some simple reviews on them.. http://www.stormgiant.net/testes/CeleronDvsP4.htm It's very simple, but you get the point.

Ah, and i'm Portuguese... If you don't understand the language, maybe you can follow the graph's in there

 

[cubeless]

ummm, i would ask a secondary question here, and that is "what's the vid card u r running?"... the compaq is probably onboard sh1t... if u have upgraded the athlon box to a tnt2 it will probably kill intel onboard... my trusty 1.4 tbirds (at 1.5) with ti4200's (at 300/600) still whoop hell out of the dells that the neighbors buy for their kids (17k aquamark)... and the compaq may not even have an agp slot...