Question about mobile celerons

[Corporate Thug]

are mobile celerons just as crappy as the regular celerons? if not, how do the mobile celerons compare to the P4C's?

 

[myocardia]

Yes, they are every bit as crappy.

 

[Mik3y]

suprising, celeron notebooks are actually better then desktop celerons. they have double the L2 cache. still sux ass tho.

 

[Corporate Thug]

same L1 cache?

 

[Mik3y]

i think so, just dif L2

 

[Mingon]

They are clock for clock slower by 10% than their notebook equivalent P4.

 

[Gungnir]

I wanted to offer a different opinion, or at least clarify. Celerons based on the Pentium M core core perform almost as well as their Centrino counterparts. They get less battery savingss though. Celerons based on the Pentium 4 core do indeed suck ass.

 

[Mingon]

Originally posted by: Gungnir
I wanted to offer a different opinion, or at least clarify. Celerons based on the Pentium M core core perform almost as well as their Centrino counterparts. They get less battery savingss though. Celerons based on the Pentium 4 core do indeed suck ass.

No desktop celerons suck ass as you put it, notebook celeron are essentially 0.13 willlamette P4's and as such performance is pretty good where a 2.2ghz celeron is = 2.0ghz mobile p4, a 2.2ghz desktop celeron is equal to a 1.4ghz p4 at best.

 

[exar333]

Mobile Celerons are by no means as good at the pentium-M, but they are not bad chips. The only negative is that they don't have some of the features such as SpeedStep. One bad thing about them is that they are only marginally (~$100) cheaper for a system, so if your looking for a budget laptop, they are ok, but not a big difference if your looking at a laptop >$1500 or so...my 3 cents

 

[Matt84]

the mobile Celerons aren't as bad as mobile desktops, they only perform slightly slower at the same clock speed as a P4. Notebook speed can come from other components, and it depends on what you are going to use it for.

I'd take a notebook with a P4 based Mobile Celeron 1.8GHz+ with a 64Mb Geforce4Go 4200 or mobility Radeon 9600 anyday over the latest Pentium M based ones with Intel Extreme (ly slow) graphics. (Yes I know there are P-M's that come with fast 3Dvid but not every1 has a money tree in their back yard)

 

[slag]

i have a mobile celeron 1.6 clocked to 2.73 ghz and it benchmarks just a hair slower than a desktop 2.8b p4 processor which is not too shabby. Its one i got from Karaktu.

 

[nj]

Got a 1.6 mobile celeron clocked to 3.15, benchmarks show it neck and neck with the competition at that speed. Damn thing would go farther if I had better memory, all thanks to Karaktu

 

[piasabird]

Intel should be coming out with a 533Mhz FSB 90nm Celeron with twice the cache soon.

 

[Corporate Thug]

so its ok to buy a lappy with a mobile celeron?

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: shady06
so its ok to buy a lappy with a mobile celeron?

I say NO.

Better to get a Athlon XP-M laptop if you want cheap AND fast.

 

[FelixDeCat]

You know its kind of funny, Ive had several 6 P4s in my system since February (constant flux - by choice). Everything from 2.8 presscott to a 1.6a northwood. At this moment Im using a $60 Celeron 2.0 and while it doesnt rank up there w/the big boys its pretty decent. In fact there are some noticeable slow downs in my toughest work, like GTA Vice City and sorting java based data, but overall for the price, the Celeron is OK in my book.

And now to the mobile celeron question - while I havent tried one, Ive read several different opinions that they kick a$$ when overclocked. See the f/s tread by Karaktu for more info.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: slag
i have a mobile celeron 1.6 clocked to 2.73 ghz and it benchmarks just a hair slower than a desktop 2.8b p4 processor which is not too shabby. Its one i got from Karaktu.

I bought one and have it running at ~3.0. Doing the CPU arith test in Sandra I got scores most equatable to an AMD xp2400+ - xp2600+. Dhrystone:~7300, Whetstone: 2200/4000. Interestingly I benched it on 3D2k1 and got a score of 11.5K. My 440bx/1.2@1.5Ghz Tualeron scored ~9300 IIRC (2X AGP!). The vid card was the same GF4 ti4200.

In the real world, I now play BF42 on the highest settings, where they were on med for smoothness on the BX. BFV is now smooth on mostly all highest settings, where before it played ok on med settings before. This did not improve my scores however, I usually placed on the top 3 of my team in BF42. Now I do the same, it just looks prettier. I still dont like BFV as much as 42.


Overall I would say they're not too bad, but won't stack upto A64s or P4C's if your looking for all out performance. Karaktu's deal for mobo+mcelly for less than a "slow" p4c was a great deal , but I wouldn't sink a bunch of money into it otherwise.