POLL Celeron 700 or slot P3 550
- Thread starter nick1985
- Start date
The Celeron is quite a bit faster than the slot P3 550, if it was a 550E then it might win but a slot 1 P3 will get trashed by a Celeron 700
Actually the 300a - 466 were good because of the fast cache, but 500 - 766 were crippled by the 66 MHz bus. They got decent with 800 - 1 GHz with the 100 MHz FSB, and the tualatin1.0a - 1.4 were actually good.
Unfortunately, the 700 is in the crippled range -- I benched a Cel 667 against a P3 550e on my old Abit BF6, and the 550e was about 40% faster at compiling a large (multi-MB) VC++ project. I'd guess the 550e is 25%-33% faster for many apps than the celly 700.
> The Celeron is quite a bit faster than the slot P3 550, if it was a 550E then it might win but a slot 1 P3 will get trashed by a Celeron 700
My slot 1 550 was a 550e coppermine. I still have it, and the box
Unfortunately, the 700 is in the crippled range -- I benched a Cel 667 against a P3 550e on my old Abit BF6, and the 550e was about 40% faster at compiling a large (multi-MB) VC++ project. I'd guess the 550e is 25%-33% faster for many apps than the celly 700.
> The Celeron is quite a bit faster than the slot P3 550, if it was a 550E then it might win but a slot 1 P3 will get trashed by a Celeron 700
My slot 1 550 was a 550e coppermine. I still have it, and the box
In any case, the Celeron is better.
The P3 550 is the Katmai with 512K half-speed cache. The P3 550E Coppermine with 256K full-speed cache. All Celerons above 533 MHz had the Coppermine-128 core with 128K full-speed cache.
The P3 550E is faster than the regular P3 550, it would be difficult to find a benchmark where it beat the Celeron 700.
The P3 550 is the Katmai with 512K half-speed cache. The P3 550E Coppermine with 256K full-speed cache. All Celerons above 533 MHz had the Coppermine-128 core with 128K full-speed cache.
The P3 550E is faster than the regular P3 550, it would be difficult to find a benchmark where it beat the Celeron 700.
StrangerGuy
Diamond Member
- May 9, 2004
- 8,443
- 124
- 106
and so does this article though you have to guess for the 550, the 550e is probably faster than a celeron 766.
Celeron has 27% clock advantage but 33% bus disadvantage.
Celeron has 100% faster L2 cache but it is 75% smaller.
I'd have to pick the P3 as a better performer overall. The Celeron will win a few benchmarks but it's a crippled solution.
Celeron has 100% faster L2 cache but it is 75% smaller.
I'd have to pick the P3 as a better performer overall. The Celeron will win a few benchmarks but it's a crippled solution.
I didn't realize that the Celeron 800 was the first 100 MHz FSB Celeron. In that case, it would be much closer.
Note that none of those benchmarks you guys listed are relevant.
The Celeron 766 also beats the P3 600EB by a significant margin in both the encoding benchmarks.
Note that none of those benchmarks you guys listed are relevant.
That's very interesting, seeing as the article you linked doesn't even have any Katmais in it. The slowest P3 that article has is a P3 600EB. OBVIOUSLY the Coppermine 600 with a 133 MHz bus is faster. I'm very surprised it's only 20% faster than the Celeron 700 with a 66 MHz bus.
That article also doesn't list a Celeron 700 or a P3 550. I don't understand where this guess of yours comes from. The benchmarks do show that a Celeron 766 is faster than a P3 500E in every benchmark except Quake.
The Celeron 766 also beats the P3 600EB by a significant margin in both the encoding benchmarks.
I have an old Katmai Core P3-500 and a Coppermine Celeron 633. The Celeron feels faster and for sure does better in a few games I tried on both systems. If it was a 550 Coppermine core it would probably be faster.
Tostada is right from all the systems I have worked with.
Tostada is right from all the systems I have worked with.
The P3 is just faster, i know it would be.
unless you have a Celeron 800 or up, they are crap... (in my experience)
I started to use Celerons for low-end PC's at work a few years back when the 800/100 came out.. that's a much better CPU.
unless you have a Celeron 800 or up, they are crap... (in my experience)
I started to use Celerons for low-end PC's at work a few years back when the 800/100 came out.. that's a much better CPU.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
You may get more than 700mhz out of that celeron if you want to. If it's a true slot P3 (not a coppermine in a slocket) you aren't going to see much difference between the two.
nick1985, what is the point of this poll. Are you seriously considering one of these. I mean, do have these cpu's laying around as spares or something? Or are you just curious about what others think about outdated poop? I would suggest placing these two cpu's at a considerable distance from one another and then count the flies swarming around each one. The one with the least amount of flies is the winner.
800Cel desktop vs. a Gateway Solo pIII 450
desktop can?t play high quality Divx (it ?stutters? )
the laptop can
Same OS
Desktop has more RAM
more or less same HD
I don?t care what hypothetical benchmarks say
Celerons are crap vs. any other CPU in their range
desktop can?t play high quality Divx (it ?stutters? )
the laptop can
Same OS
Desktop has more RAM
more or less same HD
I don?t care what hypothetical benchmarks say
Celerons are crap vs. any other CPU in their range
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
Something is wrong with the desktop... I can play divx smoothly on a p2-300, and previously on a celly566. Maybe dma was disabled or something... or the movie was on a scratched cd.
They are both slow junk. Today you need at least a 1Ghz processor. You can probably purchase a used Tulatin Core PIII with 256k L2 Cache for peanuts.
You have to remember that a Pentium III 550MHz based on the .18 "coppermine" core easily clocks to 733Mhz but switching the FSB to 133MHz....At that speed, it will beat almost all p3 based celerons.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
You have to remember that a Pentium III 550MHz based on the .18 "coppermine" core easily clocks to 733Mhz but switching the FSB to 133MHz....At that speed, it will beat almost all p3 based celerons.
----------------
But not if it's a katmai katmai, and it sounds like this one is the older, half-speed cache model.
These aren't blazing fast chips, but for a straight internet/email/msoffice sort of machine, they more than get the job done, and will run XP acceptably. Just don't expect to game/edit video/CAD/etc...
And at 733, the coppermine would not beat celleron-T processors at all, though it would certainly beat a 700 celeron.
----------------
But not if it's a katmai katmai, and it sounds like this one is the older, half-speed cache model.
These aren't blazing fast chips, but for a straight internet/email/msoffice sort of machine, they more than get the job done, and will run XP acceptably. Just don't expect to game/edit video/CAD/etc...
And at 733, the coppermine would not beat celleron-T processors at all, though it would certainly beat a 700 celeron.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter