Which is a better notebook cpu?

[Mer]

Athlon XP-M 3000+ 1.60GHz or Celeron 2.8Ghz

These are my two choices?

I have read reviews that mention the celeron being crippled due to the cache setup.

How do they perform? Anyone can point me to come reviews/comparison?

Much help apprectiated.

Sweetness,
Mer.

** UPDATE **

For clarification the choices I have are off the HP/Compaq notebook configuration site.
I am looking at the first option offered by the site (1.6Ghz) compared to a Celeron 2.8Ghz.
Let me know

AMD Athlon(TM) XP-M 3000+ 1.60 GHz

AMD Athlon(TM) 64 3000+ 1.80 GHz

AMD Athlon(TM) 64 3200+ 2.00 GHz

AMD Athlon(TM) 64 3400+ 2.20 GHz

 

[Hans5849]

people don't OC Celerons anymore for the most part

 

[Mik3y]

the athlon xp-m 3000+ owns the 2.8ghz celeron in every way. even a 2000+ kills it.

 

[butch84]

you must be talkint about the Athlon 64m, because the athlonxp-m runs at closer to 2.13ghz

 

[SickBeast]

There should be a sticky in the CPU forum that reads:

"Athlon XP's are always faster than Celerons, even if the Celeron is clocked twice as high."

 

[Shimmishim]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
There should be a sticky in the CPU forum that reads:

"Athlon XP's are always faster than Celerons, even if the Celeron is clocked twice as high."

i like.

 

[MDE]

Originally posted by: butch84
you must be talkint about the Athlon 64m, because the athlonxp-m runs at closer to 2.13ghz

Must be the Compaq\HP setup with an A64 based "XP."

BTW, the Celeron = litterbox liner, hell it probably sucks at that too. Get the Athlon.

 

[Falloutboy]

but in a notebook it isn't as bad as a desktop chip has 256k cache instead of 128 but I sitll would take the athlon in this case

 

[Mer]

Does anyone else have input on this topic?

Any sites to where someone has done a comparison with some benchmarks?

Any more hlpe would me much appreciated.

Sweetness,
Mer.