The 2GHz P4 Celeron [mobile] is just as fast as the 2GHz Williamette P4 right?

[CZroe]

The 2GHz P4 Celeron is just as fast as the 2GHz Williamette P4 right?

I mean, it has the same amount of L2 cache (256k, half that of the Northwood)...

Is anything different about it?! The L1 cache maybe?

 

[Sunner]

Actually they have 128 KB of L2 cache.
They're slow as $hit, granted, fast enough if you're only gonna be doing some office type work and such, but if all you're after is a cheap box, an AXP based box will be a better option IMO.

If you want performance, go P4 or higher end AXP's.

 

[CZroe]

I could have sworn that someone said 256k, half the current P4's 512k

Damn. Thnx for the info

 

[PrivatePickle]

Originally posted by: Sunner
Actually they have 128 KB of L2 cache.
They're slow as $hit...

I can attest to that, my 1.4GHz XP 1700 benchmarks faster than a 2GHz Celery at work, it gives them both a PR rating of 2127.

 

[0roo0roo]

my 1.5ghz tually celeron(p3) benches fast as a p4 2ghz p4 cellies are a joke.

 

[Link19]

The Pentium 4 is a very good CPU along withg the Athlon XP. The Celeron absolutely SUCKS!!!!! I would bet that a Pentium III 500 MHz would perform just as well as any Celeron rated at any speed. If you are paying any more than $15 for the latest Celeron, I think you are getting ripped off.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Originally posted by: Link19
The Pentium 4 is a very good CPU along withg the Athlon XP. The Celeron absolutely SUCKS!!!!! I would bet that a Pentium III 500 MHz would perform just as well as any Celeron rated at any speed. If you are paying any more than $15 for the latest Celeron, I think you are getting ripped off.

Maybe a little over exagerated over there, but it depends what you're doing with it. If your not goig to use it for gaming, you can get away with something like that and still have pretty decent speed.

 

[Jhhnn]

P4 cellies aren't a good buy at the box building level. For the same money, an XP system will slap a celeron system out into the weeds. If you get in on one of the Dell hot deals when buying a basic net surfing & word processing box, they're fine, but the Dell is actually cheaper than you can build one...

 

[PrivatePickle]

Originally posted by: Link19
The Celeron absolutely SUCKS!!!!!.

Thats why people call them "celery".

 

[xSauronx]

i love my axp, cheap, easy to oc (and this is a palomino, t-breds are even nicer) and fast

$50 for an axp, 30 for a hsf, 100 for a good mobo that will oc nicely

hell, you can get a 2400+ axp for under easily 100 bucks if youre not into oc'ing, no reason what so ever to get a celeron, unless you have to make a box for someone you dont like

 

[nweaver]

The Celeron absolutely SUCKS!!!!! I would bet that a Pentium III 500 MHz would perform just as well as any Celeron rated at any speed

Actully, my old Celly 366@550 was a spiffy rig for it's time. would smoke a p3 500 in most games. BUT, that was possibly the last good celly.


Besides, cheap, stable AMD MoBO=50 buck, 1.2 G Duron=40 bucks, for 90 bucks you can push cheap performance, and the Duron slaps the celery around still.

 

[CZroe]

I have two O/Ced to those speeds in an Abit BP6 dual Celeron board

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: nweaver

The Celeron absolutely SUCKS!!!!! I would bet that a Pentium III 500 MHz would perform just as well as any Celeron rated at any speed

Actully, my old Celly 366@550 was a spiffy rig for it's time. would smoke a p3 500 in most games. BUT, that was possibly the last good celly.


Besides, cheap, stable AMD MoBO=50 buck, 1.2 G Duron=40 bucks, for 90 bucks you can push cheap performance, and the Duron slaps the celery around still.

Depends which P3..it couldn't touch a P3 Coppermine @ 500MHz..........a P3 Katmai, probably b/c of its 1/2 speed cache.

Chiz

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: xSauronx
i love my axp, cheap, easy to oc (and this is a palomino, t-breds are even nicer) and fast

$50 for an axp, 30 for a hsf, 100 for a good mobo that will oc nicely

hell, you can get a 2400+ axp for under easily 100 bucks if youre not into oc'ing, no reason what so ever to get a celeron, unless you have to make a box for someone you dont like

Or you could buy my Athlon XP1700 T-Bred A for $40

 

[vegetation]

The 2GHz celeron is pretty fast for stuff that doesn't recirculate the same data over and over (i.e. games). Video and sound compression is one example where it differs little from an equivalent P4. Also, the Celeron 2GHz will easily overclock to 2.6 even on poor MBs, many can hit 3GHz on a decent MB.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: nweaver

The Celeron absolutely SUCKS!!!!! I would bet that a Pentium III 500 MHz would perform just as well as any Celeron rated at any speed

Actully, my old Celly 366@550 was a spiffy rig for it's time. would smoke a p3 500 in most games. BUT, that was possibly the last good celly.

Wrong. The .13 micron 1.2 Ghz Tualatin Celeron is basically an "improved" PIII- Coppermine that will really give a 2.0 Willy P4 a run for it's money as it is overclocked to 133FSB.

 

[MoreSpeed]

Not All P4 Celery's are stuck with the 128K L2 Cache. Only the desktop ones are. I know that that is the one you are all talking about, but to clear things up the mobile P4 Celery's are indeed 256K L2 Cache. Just check the Intel site. But for the home system well its going to be all that you get. If you are looking ot save some money, get a t-bred AXP 1600+ and bring the FSB to 166MHz. I had very good luck with that on an MSI KT3 Ultra. I'm sure you can even do better with another board.

 

[BmXStuD]

if u need something like a celly for a budget get a Duron 1300 and u can overclock it to about 1400mhz ;0

 

[CZroe]

Originally posted by: MoreSpeed
Not All P4 Celery's are stuck with the 128K L2 Cache. Only the desktop ones are. I know that that is the one you are all talking about, but to clear things up the mobile P4 Celery's are indeed 256K L2 Cache. Just check the Intel site. But for the home system well its going to be all that you get. If you are looking ot save some money, get a t-bred AXP 1600+ and bring the FSB to 166MHz. I had very good luck with that on an MSI KT3 Ultra. I'm sure you can even do better with another board.

I thought so! So in effect, these are 100% identical to P4 Williamette performance? Or is the L1 cache not the same?

 

[PrivatePickle]

Originally posted by: CZroe

Originally posted by: MoreSpeed
Not All P4 Celery's are stuck with the 128K L2 Cache. Only the desktop ones are. I know that that is the one you are all talking about, but to clear things up the mobile P4 Celery's are indeed 256K L2 Cache. Just check the Intel site. But for the home system well its going to be all that you get. If you are looking ot save some money, get a t-bred AXP 1600+ and bring the FSB to 166MHz. I had very good luck with that on an MSI KT3 Ultra. I'm sure you can even do better with another board.

I thought so! So in effect, these are 100% identical to P4 Williamette performance? Or is the L1 cache not the same?

You want to spend extra money on a Celery-M? Just get an Athlon XP for cheaper, and if you really Intel stuck, (which it seems), just get a Pentium4 2.4B.

 

[CraigRT]

Originally posted by: Sunner
Actually they have 128 KB of L2 cache.
They're slow as $hit, granted, fast enough if you're only gonna be doing some office type work and such, but if all you're after is a cheap box, an AXP based box will be a better option IMO.

If you want performance, go P4 or higher end AXP's.

exactly... the P4 celly's are crap.. unless you are too die-hard Intel... AXP is a much better choice... XP1700+ is the price of a Celeron 1700 and the AXP is about 2x the performance (and overclocks great too)

 

[Redviffer]

It really depends on what you want to do with it:

It performs the same as a regular P4 in Office applications, web surfing, general use.
It performs slower than a regular P4 in multimedia, games, etc.

Although it does perform slower, it's sill fast. Tomshardware compared a 1.7 P4 vs. 1.7 Cel P4, the regular P4 was doing 200 FPS and the Cel was doing 165 FSB, benchmarked was QIII @ 1024x768. Not too shabby and still very playable. Don't take those numbers as gospel, but the fact remains that, while the P4 Cel is slower, it still fast.

On his 65 cpu shootout, the fastest Tualatin cpu @ 1.4 GHz did 180 at the same benchmark.

This is, of course, only one benchmark. But it pretty much performs that same way in all the rest. Another thing is he did a comparison with the 1.7 Cel and the 2.0 Cel and there wasn't much of a difference, except he could overclock the 2.0 Cel to 3.0 GHz fairly easy. I would think that you would pretty much get a 2.0 GHz Cel P4 to 2.66 GHz easy, and gain a respectable performance increase.

Also, the P4 Cel 2.0 is around $80, the P4 2.4-2.5 is around $160. Double the price.

The really nice thing is that you can go "big" with your motherboard, and save money on the processor, then as the regular P4's drop you can upgrade to them with the same building base.

So: If your a gamer, don't get a P4 Cel (unless your a gamer on a budget).

Also, yes, the internal cores are the same, the only difference is the L2 cache is only 128kb vs. 256/512kb.

 

[SpeedFreak03]

I have a 333Mhz Celeron, and I'd say it's faster than my 450MHz K6-2(those are a joke). Once I buy a decent HSF for it (hard to find/expensive - it's a slot 1) I'll overclock it. It makes a great web surfing/music playing/internet gateway/file server system though with Windows 2000 SP3! A friend has a 350MHz P-2 that KILLS my celeron in benchmarks, but you get what you pay for (wait a minute, I got mine for free ; it's great to have friends that work in places where they trash computers daily!).

The Pentium 4 is a very good CPU along withg the Athlon XP. The Celeron absolutely SUCKS!!!!! I would bet that a Pentium III 500 MHz would perform just as well as any Celeron rated at any speed. If you are paying any more than $15 for the latest Celeron, I think you are getting ripped off.

Link, can you hook me up with one of those $15 celeron's?

-SpeedFreak03

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Redviffer
It really depends on what you want to do with it:

It performs the same as a regular P4 in Office applications, web surfing, general use.
It performs slower than a regular P4 in multimedia, games, etc.

Although it does perform slower, it's sill fast. Tomshardware compared a 1.7 P4 vs. 1.7 Cel P4, the regular P4 was doing 200 FPS and the Cel was doing 165 FSB, benchmarked was QIII @ 1024x768. Not too shabby and still very playable. Don't take those numbers as gospel, but the fact remains that, while the P4 Cel is slower, it still fast.

On his 65 cpu shootout, the fastest Tualatin cpu @ 1.4 GHz did 180 at the same benchmark.

This is, of course, only one benchmark. But it pretty much performs that same way in all the rest. Another thing is he did a comparison with the 1.7 Cel and the 2.0 Cel and there wasn't much of a difference, except he could overclock the 2.0 Cel to 3.0 GHz fairly easy. I would think that you would pretty much get a 2.0 GHz Cel P4 to 2.66 GHz easy, and gain a respectable performance increase.

Also, the P4 Cel 2.0 is around $80, the P4 2.4-2.5 is around $160. Double the price.

The really nice thing is that you can go "big" with your motherboard, and save money on the processor, then as the regular P4's drop you can upgrade to them with the same building base.

So: If your a gamer, don't get a P4 Cel (unless your a gamer on a budget).

Also, yes, the internal cores are the same, the only difference is the L2 cache is only 128kb vs. 256/512kb.

or u can get a 2700+ athlon xp for 160 dolllars intel doesn't giveu much bang for buck lately. if u get a 1700+ and overclock it up to 2700+ for 50 dollars like many people it blows intel away

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Redviffer
It really depends on what you want to do with it:

It performs the same as a regular P4 in Office applications, web surfing, general use.
It performs slower than a regular P4 in multimedia, games, etc.

Although it does perform slower, it's sill fast. Tomshardware compared a 1.7 P4 vs. 1.7 Cel P4, the regular P4 was doing 200 FPS and the Cel was doing 165 FSB, benchmarked was QIII @ 1024x768. Not too shabby and still very playable. Don't take those numbers as gospel, but the fact remains that, while the P4 Cel is slower, it still fast.

On his 65 cpu shootout, the fastest Tualatin cpu @ 1.4 GHz did 180 at the same benchmark.

This is, of course, only one benchmark. But it pretty much performs that same way in all the rest. Another thing is he did a comparison with the 1.7 Cel and the 2.0 Cel and there wasn't much of a difference, except he could overclock the 2.0 Cel to 3.0 GHz fairly easy. I would think that you would pretty much get a 2.0 GHz Cel P4 to 2.66 GHz easy, and gain a respectable performance increase.

Also, the P4 Cel 2.0 is around $80, the P4 2.4-2.5 is around $160. Double the price.

The really nice thing is that you can go "big" with your motherboard, and save money on the processor, then as the regular P4's drop you can upgrade to them with the same building base.

So: If your a gamer, don't get a P4 Cel (unless your a gamer on a budget).

Also, yes, the internal cores are the same, the only difference is the L2 cache is only 128kb vs. 256/512kb.

or u can get a 2700+ athlon xp for 160 dolllars intel doesn't giveu much bang for buck lately. if u get a 1700+ and overclock it up to 2700+ for 50 dollars like many people it blows intel away