Celeron D or Pentium 4?

[fire400]

Originally posted by: Hard Ball

Originally posted by: fire400
Celeron D will run fine and isn't a slow processor. In fact, Intel fixed lag issues with the Celeron D by adding more cache than the usual 128k that Celeron's previosly received in older generations. In addition to the new instructions its received, it will perform just as well as a Northwood and even some Prescott CPU's of the Intel generation CPU sets. Because of the new architecture, you can match performances of an Intel Extreme Edition if you decide to OC the Celeron D over 3 GHz.
Personally, a Celeron D would be the better move since Pentium 4's are still overpriced and do not offer that much better performance over a Celeron D processor.
What socket are you talking about, specifically?

Not really, Celeron D's are built on the Prescott revision of the netburst core. Having an extremely long pipeline with 31 stages will make branch prediction errors, and cache misses extremely costly. The typcial Celeron D has only 256kb of L2 cache, and 12+16kb of L1, That is less L1 than the 64+64kb of L1 of the Sempron, which have the same amount of L2 cache.

For equivalent P4 E (prescott) and A64, the P4 typically needs much larger cache to come close to A64 in performance. That's why single cored P4 typically have 1-2MB of L2 cache, while A64 has 512kb - 1MB L2; and A64 will still suffer less due to cache misses because of the much shorter 12/17 stage split pipeline.

The Prescott Celerons (Cel. Ds) compared to the Sempron, typically will fare worse than the comparison between P4 and A64, because of the discrepency in cache size. The L2 of the Celeron D needs to be much larger, at least 512kb, to have a chance to even catching similarly rated Semprons in performance. The older Northwood based Celerons were actually much better, with a 20 stage pipeline, somewhat more efficient IPC, and lower heat output as well. Celeron D's are probably the worst performing chips on the market with exception of the odd Via integrated chips or the extremely low power Transmeta chips and such.

don't feed on bullcrap, bench mark a Celeron D with a Northwood Celeron. You can already tell by installing a version of Warcraft III on both systems with similar specs and you will figure it out for yourself. ofcourse a Sempron would be a good choice, but he's asking whether a P4 vs a Celeron D would make the difference. you are clearly discriminatory towards Intel.

 

[lopri]

Not sure how to state this.. Well, even though I've been enjoying my A64 journey and totally satisfied with how my rig came out, it wasn't without a handful of troubles. Of course overclocking was one of the major factors for (against?) stability. When I built Intel system, somehow, yes somehow, it was easier and more hassle-free, or so i remember. So to me, Intel rig is like Apple Mac - just works - eespecially for d*mmies. I don't think Athlon platform is less stable than Intel system in any way, but I still tend to suggest Intel rig to my cousins/friends. For some reason I think that I won't be annoyed as much.

 

[gwag]

Originally posted by: lopri
Not sure how to state this.. Well, even though I've been enjoying my A64 journey and totally satisfied with how my rig came out, it wasn't without a handful of troubles. Of course overclocking was one of the major factors for (against?) stability. When I built Intel system, somehow, yes somehow, it was easier and more hassle-free, or so i remember. So to me, Intel rig is like Apple Mac - just works - eespecially for d*mmies. I don't think Athlon platform is less stable than Intel system in any way, but I still tend to suggest Intel rig to my cousins/friends. For some reason I think that I won't be annoyed as much.

And the reason you won't be annoyed so much is your clueless.

 

[Compellor]

Originally posted by: lopri
Not sure how to state this.. Well, even though I've been enjoying my A64 journey and totally satisfied with how my rig came out, it wasn't without a handful of troubles. Of course overclocking was one of the major factors for (against?) stability. When I built Intel system, somehow, yes somehow, it was easier and more hassle-free, or so i remember. So to me, Intel rig is like Apple Mac - just works - eespecially for d*mmies. I don't think Athlon platform is less stable than Intel system in any way, but I still tend to suggest Intel rig to my cousins/friends. For some reason I think that I won't be annoyed as much.

That's because the NVIDIA/VIA/other chipset platform still isn't up to par with Intel. It's gotten much better but there are still quirks with these chipsets.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: lopri
Well, even though I've been enjoying my A64 journey and totally satisfied with how my rig came out, it wasn't without a handful of troubles. Of course overclocking was one of the major factors for (against?) stability. When I built Intel system, somehow, yes somehow, it was easier and more hassle-free, or so i remember.

You've put it in a nutshell. Don't you think that the current A64/Sempron systems would be more stable without overclocking? Thing is that these A64 setups generally can OC better than Intel setups and people are pushing them harder, thus the problems (in addition to more settings like HT multiplier, bit width, etc). Here are the Intel Prescott chips I've gotten in the past 1½ year...

Celeron D 320
Overclocked to 3.6GHz in a case with good noisy ventilation and an XP-120. Changed cases to a quieter one and the XP-120 wouldn't fit... behold, couldn't keep the overclock because it would overheat. Asus P4P800 Deluxe board has a FSB "hole" so 165-199MHz FSB wouldn't work, thus dropping the overclock to pathetic levels.

Celeron D 330
Wouldn't work at 4GHz. Killed an MSI "Platinum" motherboard trying to OC this CPU (the one with black PCB and 865PE chipset). Even with good cooling, didn't seem to go as high as the 320.

Pentium 4 2.4A
Chip #1 would work at 3.2GHz in my Abit IS7 until it overheated (with XP120). Had to run at about 2.8-2.9GHz to keep it cool enough in a "quiet" system.

Pentium 4 2.4A
Chip #2 didn't do as well as #1.

Pentium 4 3.2E
DOA.

If you get a Celeron D and don't overclock, then they'll run acceptable temperatures. For best performance get a board that uses dual channel memory. The Intel chips get more out of dual channel than the AMD chips.

And as everyone else said, Prescott Celeron > Northwood Celeron. I had a Celeron 2GHz overclocked to about 2.9GHz a few years back and though it made for a nice budget gamer (CPU with MSI 645E Max board for $99 at Fry's) it wasn't super fast even at near 3GHz.

The Celeron D makes a decent alternative to the Pentium 4 except for lack of HyperThreading.

That being said, are you sure you don't want to do a nice Sempron 2800+ with a Geforce6100 motherboard? That $130 combo kicks arse plus the CPU will run almost room temperature and stability should be excellent. We're talking no overclocking, right?

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Compellor

Originally posted by: lopri
Not sure how to state this.. Well, even though I've been enjoying my A64 journey and totally satisfied with how my rig came out, it wasn't without a handful of troubles. Of course overclocking was one of the major factors for (against?) stability. When I built Intel system, somehow, yes somehow, it was easier and more hassle-free, or so i remember. So to me, Intel rig is like Apple Mac - just works - eespecially for d*mmies. I don't think Athlon platform is less stable than Intel system in any way, but I still tend to suggest Intel rig to my cousins/friends. For some reason I think that I won't be annoyed as much.

That's because the NVIDIA/VIA/other chipset platform still isn't up to par with Intel. It's gotten much better but there are still quirks with these chipsets.

I absolutely disagree with respect to the Nforce 4 platform.
The problem here is that we are dealing with perceptions and not facts...
It's very common that someone will remember the problems of Nvidia's first or second chipsets, and attribute those same problems to all Nvidia chipsets because that perception remains...
What lopri indicated is that overclocking was much simpler on an Intel platform, and he's right. The AMD platform certainly is more complex...but that's why it's superior. It has Hypertransport, onboard mem controller, etc...and when you overclock this it's far more difficult to tweak than the simple FSB increase on the Intel platform.

 

[Markfw]

Intel OC's easier ? HA ! maybe in the old days. I spend days trying to get my 820D to 3.43 due to heat and a lot of other factors. All my X2's got to their OC in 20 minutes (I don't spend hours on a max OC, I get 90% in 20 minutes and call it good)

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: scca325is
but I build Intel for friends.

Friends don't build friends Intel systems in 2005

If you are on a budget you could always just get A64 3000+ venice and s939 or S754 with PCIe slot (processors are really cheap for S754), or even a sempron. Don't go Celeron.. Spending a bit more for S939 might be worth it since you could later upgrade to dual core.

 

[Leper Messiah]

seriously, don't bother with the celeron Ds. They're slower than sin. I've installed about 130 Celeron D 2.66GHz with 1GB DDR2-533 and they aren't nearly as responsive as you'd expect. They lag a little bit while installing adobe reader and surfing the internet for christsakes, I don't even want to imagine putting them under some kind of heavy load. Get a s939 sempr0n with 256k cache, a 2800 or 3100 if you're not OCing, if you are get the slowest 256K part you can find and take it up to like 8x300 or something. Seriously though intel has very little going for it on the desktop market right now.

 

[Hard Ball]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: Hard Ball
The L2 of the Celeron D needs to be much larger, at least 512kb, to have a chance to even catching similarly rated Semprons in performance. The older Northwood based Celerons were actually much better, with a 20 stage pipeline, somewhat more efficient IPC, and lower heat output as well. Celeron D's are probably the worst performing chips on the market with exception of the odd Via integrated chips or the extremely low power Transmeta chips and such.

Show me one review where they recommended a Northwood 128KB Celeron over a Prescott 256KB Celeron.

AT Review

Clock for clock, with the same FSB/Multiplier, the Celeron-D outperforms the Celeron by over 10% on average (2% - 25%). If you bother to read the review, the Celeron-D at 2.66Ghz is on average about 25% faster than the Celeron-2.6Ghz, sometimes up to over 50% faster. Instead of mixing around a couple of cool techno lingo to make your statement sound truthful, how about you actually learn something first?

Anyways, if you do get a Sempron, just make sure you get the A64 variety. The K7 based ones are significantly slower (the PR rating is useless).

The review shows much less than 10% of difference between 2.0GHz and 2.6GHz NW Celeron; sometimes hardly any difference at all; and lags behind 1.7GHz P4A and AXP; something does not look quite right here.
I'll take the IPC statement about Celeron D compared to older Celerons back for now, and read some more reviews, since that may not be correct according to the AT review; I will read some more reviews and then get back on this. Although I'm still not convinced that that the figures for the NW celerons in the review is correct.

Anyway, my original point was that Celeron D compares to Semprons unfavorably, more so than does P4 compared to A64. The comparison between Celeron D and Sempron has dropped compared to older Celerons vs. AMD chips of its day; which was my main point.

 

[Hard Ball]

Originally posted by: fire400


don't feed on bullcrap, bench mark a Celeron D with a Northwood Celeron. You can already tell by installing a version of Warcraft III on both systems with similar specs and you will figure it out for yourself. ofcourse a Sempron would be a good choice, but he's asking whether a P4 vs a Celeron D would make the difference. you are clearly discriminatory towards Intel.

So, I take that you have bench marked them rigorously, care to share the results?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: Zebo
I don't understand paying more for less. Totally illogical to my mind.

Totally OT, but I'd wager quite a few people would be commenting on why you'd pay for a Domestic (Big-3) automobile

That's easy if you understand symbiotic relationship in economics. See that "overpaid" detriot/kentucky autoworker buys big homes here , eats at steakhouses, pays big taxes for nice neighorhoods improving quality of life for home builders, resturant owners, and their community here where I live. Send that money to asia, mexico or germany it does the same for germans/asians where I don't live. Not to mention it dilutes our wealth - we are currently in big hawc to foriegn markets both govermental and consumer debt to sustain our quality of life which wont last forever. In essence it pays you to buy american or even local.


The Asians undertand that an will be cold day in hell before they buy american product - To rectify the massive trade imbalance they smartly buy assets like companies and instruments of debt with all that money we give them for disposable trinkets.- Germans understand that too.. Even Mexicans over here understand that - shopping at mexican markets and tacorias when possible - Only Americans are dumb enough to succum to short sighterd thinking and economic altruism..

Besides I like big and comfortable and they treat me just fine.

My 2001 F-350 has 160K miles and get 22MPG on hwy.
My 2002 Towncar has 45K and is like riding on a leather lazy boy.

That's one thing that pisses me off about AMD - made in germany but intel is pumping out chips in china so it's a wash.

Edit
Damn I was just thinking about how old my cars are - need to go check out the new DTS.

 

[Brunnis]

Originally posted by: phaxmohdem
If you're hell bent on getting Intel chips, the Celery D is a good choice. There is nothing really wrong with it.

Actually there is: power consumption.

The Celeron D consumes horrible amounts of power for the performance it gives. This link should make any potential Celeron D buyer think twice:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron-3000_9.html

So, even though the performance of the Celeron isn't that much worse and the price for this lower performing CPU isn't that much higher, the power consumption is what should really make one choose the Sempron instead.

I might add that I recently built a Sempron 2800+ system for my brother. I have overclocked it to 2.2GHz, which makes it perform on par with an Athlon64 3000+. It has yet to crash or do anything else stupid.

I might also add that I've built eight AMD systems to friends and family in the past two years and none of the buyers have complained about a single problem yet (well, except spyware...). I used to think like you when it came to building AMD systems, but experience from those past couple of years put any doubts to rest.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Hard Ball

Originally posted by: fire400
Celeron D will run fine and isn't a slow processor. In fact, Intel fixed lag issues with the Celeron D by adding more cache than the usual 128k that Celeron's previosly received in older generations. In addition to the new instructions its received, it will perform just as well as a Northwood and even some Prescott CPU's of the Intel generation CPU sets. Because of the new architecture, you can match performances of an Intel Extreme Edition if you decide to OC the Celeron D over 3 GHz.
Personally, a Celeron D would be the better move since Pentium 4's are still overpriced and do not offer that much better performance over a Celeron D processor.
What socket are you talking about, specifically?

Not really, Celeron D's are built on the Prescott revision of the netburst core. Having an extremely long pipeline with 31 stages will make branch prediction errors, and cache misses extremely costly. The typcial Celeron D has only 256kb of L2 cache, and 12+16kb of L1, That is less L1 than the 64+64kb of L1 of the Sempron, which have the same amount of L2 cache.

For equivalent P4 E (prescott) and A64, the P4 typically needs much larger cache to come close to A64 in performance. That's why single cored P4 typically have 1-2MB of L2 cache, while A64 has 512kb - 1MB L2; and A64 will still suffer less due to cache misses because of the much shorter 12/17 stage split pipeline.

The Prescott Celerons (Cel. Ds) compared to the Sempron, typically will fare worse than the comparison between P4 and A64, because of the discrepency in cache size. The L2 of the Celeron D needs to be much larger, at least 512kb, to have a chance to even catching similarly rated Semprons in performance. The older Northwood based Celerons were actually much better, with a 20 stage pipeline, somewhat more efficient IPC, and lower heat output as well. Celeron D's are probably the worst performing chips on the market with exception of the odd Via integrated chips or the extremely low power Transmeta chips and such.

The reason why it has 31 pipelines is to help with the cache misses. The celeron D has a better branch predictor than the Northwood cpus, and also I beleive Intel implemented something where pipe stages would be skipped if they were not necessary. That combined with the extra 128 KB of cache makes the Celeron D a decent preformer compared to the old northwood based celerons. All in all a 2.8 Celeron D should be equivalent to a 2.53GHZ northwood with a 533 fsb.

The combination I would personally suggest would be Sempron 64 2800+ and the biostar 6100 motherboard. This combination will be vista ready as it has both a 64 bit processor and direct X 9 video capabilities. It will cost around 130-140 dollars IIRC, but is a stable performer. If you want to go on the cheap, then a 2600+ and the same biostar motherboard combined will be around 110-120 dollars.

Don't oc btw

 

[carlosd]

If you care about your friend build an AMD system for him, if you hate him build him an intel, this sums it all.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Hard Ball
The review shows much less than 10% of difference between 2.0GHz and 2.6GHz NW Celeron; sometimes hardly any difference at all; and lags behind 1.7GHz P4A and AXP; something does not look quite right here.
I'll take the IPC statement about Celeron D compared to older Celerons back for now, and read some more reviews, since that may not be correct according to the AT review; I will read some more reviews and then get back on this. Although I'm still not convinced that that the figures for the NW celerons in the review is correct.

Anyway, my original point was that Celeron D compares to Semprons unfavorably, more so than does P4 compared to A64. The comparison between Celeron D and Sempron has dropped compared to older Celerons vs. AMD chips of its day; which was my main point.

Besides not having enough cache to function, the NW celerons were bandwidth limited even more than the equivalent P4s by their 400mhz fsb. With so little cache and such a slow memory interface, they could have pushed the clock speed as high as they wanted and done nothing but waste cycles. Oh wait, that's what they did.

The reason the celeron-d compares badly to sempron is that the A64 architecture responds better to cutting down L2 cache than the prescott architecture. In a race between NW celeron and celeron-d, the prescott-based chip blows away the older model.

 

[Leper Messiah]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Hard Ball
The review shows much less than 10% of difference between 2.0GHz and 2.6GHz NW Celeron; sometimes hardly any difference at all; and lags behind 1.7GHz P4A and AXP; something does not look quite right here.
I'll take the IPC statement about Celeron D compared to older Celerons back for now, and read some more reviews, since that may not be correct according to the AT review; I will read some more reviews and then get back on this. Although I'm still not convinced that that the figures for the NW celerons in the review is correct.

Anyway, my original point was that Celeron D compares to Semprons unfavorably, more so than does P4 compared to A64. The comparison between Celeron D and Sempron has dropped compared to older Celerons vs. AMD chips of its day; which was my main point.

Besides not having enough cache to function, the NW celerons were bandwidth limited even more than the equivalent P4s by their 400mhz fsb. With so little cache and such a slow memory interface, they could have pushed the clock speed as high as they wanted and done nothing but waste cycles. Oh wait, that's what they did.

The reason the celeron-d compares badly to sempron is that the A64 architecture responds better to cutting down L2 cache than the prescott architecture. In a race between NW celeron and celeron-d, the prescott-based chip blows away the older model.

Yeah, but thats like saying a 2.0L honda beats a 1.6L honda. They both get pwned by say even a V6 mustang.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: Leper Messiah
Get a s939 sempr0n with 256k cache

Where can you find those except in HP and such?

Originally posted by: Zebo
The Asians undertand that an will be cold day in hell before they buy american product - .. Even Mexicans over here understand that - shopping at mexican markets and tacorias when possible - Only Americans are dumb enough to succum to short sighterd thinking and economic altruism..

LOL, sad but true.

Back to the OP... understand that today's AMD chips do not deserve the reputation you hold for them in your mind, as all the other posters will attest. That being said, the Deleron (Celeron D, term I coined) will actually do what you intend for it to be used for. My gosh, listening to the other people here will make it sound as if it actually can't do certain things. A Deleron can do anything a P4 can, just not as fast. If you're hellbent on getting one for your system build while knowing (or being told) that the current AMD chips are a viable and stable alternative, so be it. It's like buying a can of beans at one supermarket while knowing that the same can of beans is on sale for 15¢ cheaper at another supermarket. It's your money and perhaps you have better things to do than worry over getting the last bit of value on a purchase.

 

[Lyfer]

Get an Athlon 64 or Socket 754 based Sempron with an Nvidia chipset. (and use an Asus or DFI board)

If you think Intel's are more stabler than AMD, wake up, its the year 2005!