Which sytem is overall better.

[F1shF4t]

Whats better of the 2 systems.

1700+ Xp polomino (could overclock it)
msi k7n2
768 mg ram dual chanell
9600xt gfx


2.4ghz Celeron D
msi 661FL
512 mg ram single chanell
9600xt gfx


I can overclock the athlon XP, i think its good up to 1.65 ghz.
Anyways whats diff will the ram make?

 

[rogue1979]

You could probably put the Celeron D on a 200MHz fsb for 3.4GHz without too much effort.

At that speed I would expect it to beat any palamino by brute force. Not to mention that a SiS 661 would have some real nice memory bandwidth on an 800MHz fsb.

 

[cmrmrc]

i think the amd system would be slightly better...first of all since it has more ram...and second of all because it is running on nforce2 while the celeron d is running on a sis chipset i think...

I have a sis 741 chipset motherboard and i can tell the difference with an nforce 2 motherboard is huge...

 

[F1shF4t]

Originally posted by: rogue1979
You could probably put the Celeron D on a 200MHz fsb for 3.4GHz without too much effort.

At that speed I would expect it to beat any palamino by brute force. Not to mention that a SiS 661 would have some real nice memory bandwidth on an 800MHz fsb.

I cant overclock the celeron, the mainboard has absolutely no overclocking options, at 200fsb it will be at 3.6ghz and it posts but needs more voltage. So its stuck at 2.4ghz. The memory is single chanell also.

Also the polomino memory bandwidth is exactly at theoretical speed, cause its ddr400 dual chanell on a 266 mhz bus. I get 2085 mg/per sec in everest tests. Plus dual chanell memory operation with 3 modules, thats just sweet.


What gonna happen is the chosen comp, my friend will use cause he does not have a comp, he might do a bit of gaming but thats about it. The other parts will be built into a file/internet server.

 

[HurleyBird]

The athlon, hands down.

 

[rogue1979]

Originally posted by: cmrmrc
i think the amd system would be slightly better...first of all since it has more ram...and second of all because it is running on nforce2 while the celeron d is running on a sis chipset i think...

I have a sis 741 chipset motherboard and i can tell the difference with an nforce 2 motherboard is huge...

Both Via and SiS chipsets are slower than Nforce2 with an Athlon.
However, SiS and Intel are pretty much equal in performance when using socket 478.

But, since he can't overclock the Celeron, then maybe the Athlon overclocked may benchmark higher in games, but not by a large margin.

In encoding and such, I think the Celeron would be ahead, but again, not by a large amount.

Also the polomino memory bandwidth is exactly at theoretical speed, cause its ddr400 dual chanell on a 266 mhz bus. I get 2085 mg/per sec in everest tests. Plus dual chanell memory operation with 3 modules, thats just sweet.


You will get no performance boost on socket A from running your memory asynch at a higher speed then your fsb. Don't trust a sythentic benchmark on that one.

On socket 478 you will get an improvement by running the memory at 400MHz DDR even if the cpu is at a 533MHz fsb.

 

[HurleyBird]

Originally posted by: HurleyBird
The athlon, hands down.

Do'h! Celeron _D_... yeah, the Celeron is faster.

 

[phaxmohdem]

From what I've seen the Celeron D competes pretty similarly with Athlon XP's of the same speed grade... Meaning a Cel. D 2.4 would be competing with an Athlon XP 2400+ winning some benches here, loosing some there... Overall I think the Athlon 2400+ is faster, but between the AThlon 1700+ and Cel 2.4, I'd say the celeron would have the slight edge... though probably not by a huge margin

 

[calguy]

Originally posted by: Dark Cupcake

Originally posted by: rogue1979


Also the polomino memory bandwidth is exactly at theoretical speed, cause its ddr400 dual chanell on a 266 mhz bus. I get 2085 mg/per sec in everest tests. Plus dual chanell memory operation with 3 modules, thats just sweet.

You can't run the memory at dual channel with three modules, you have to remove one for it work. That said dual channel wasn't terribly important for the K7

Getting back to the original question here's a review that's on Anandtech's site, that's basically saying that the Celeron D that you have is fairly competitive with a Athlon XP 2500+
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2093&p=1

 

[F1shF4t]

Yea u can and thats whats its running at, its a nforce 2 mainboard, it allows u to run dual chanell with 3 ram sticks.

Wow from those benchmarks the celeron d 2.4ghz is not that much better than the 1700+ xp, lol if i overclock the xp it should be better.

 

[Keysplayr]

Sell the 1700+ and mobo. Sell the Celeron and mobo. Buy an Nforce 4 board and a cheap A64. (Just suggestions.)

 

[F1shF4t]

well if u see my sig, i already have x2 and a64 for my rigs those things, and i need both the celeron and the athlon xp for the tasks, one for file server and the other will be used by a friend. I just need to figure out which is the better set up. I will be doing some benches of the athlon xp, and overclocking.

 

[cmrmrc]

celeron D is faster than the athlon when they are paired with the best chipsets...looking at a review, it seems that the SIS 661 chipset ain't no big difference compared to the i865...so i think now that the celeron D will be faster...

 

[F1shF4t]

Originally posted by: cmrmrc
celeron D is faster than the athlon when they are paired with the best chipsets...looking at a review, it seems that the SIS 661 chipset ain't no big difference compared to the i865...so i think now that the celeron D will be faster...

Yea i think thats what i'm sorta discovering now, in aqumark 3 the celeron system gets 28k, while the athlon gets 23k. So the athlon is in fact limiting the performance of the 9600xt.

 

[soccerballtux]

Athlon.

 

[gwag]

overclock it and find out how high it goes? 2.4ghz on a 1700+ is not unheard of just try upping the FSB to 166 should get you to 1833 from 1466 and a good boost to beat the Celeron.

 

[F1shF4t]

This 1700+ wont overclock worth cr@p, i tryed setting fsb to 166 and voltage to 1.8 (max for this mobo 1.75 is cpu stock) and it posted but thats about it.
I undervolted it to 1.6v and its running at stock, the temp droped a few degrees.

 

[blckgrffn]

In games like UT2004, that little extra ram helps out a lot. Either of the machines would feel slow to me, so I don't think that I am good one to ask advice from.

I think in the end I would give him the celeron system because he could always snag a cheap p4 later... same with the XP machine but the p4 will be faster.

Nat

 

[rogue1979]

Originally posted by: gwag
overclock it and find out how high it goes? 2.4ghz on a 1700+ is not unheard of just try upping the FSB to 166 should get you to 1833 from 1466 and a good boost to beat the Celeron.

He has a palomino core, 1800MHz is probably tops. A thoroughbred core is capable of 2400MHz.

 

[secretanchitman]

i'd say celeron...but that mobo looks like it uses a non-intel chipset. in everyday tasks in windows xp, the 512MB and the 768MB wont make much of a difference. gaming-wise you might see a bit of an improvement, and quite honestly, i have no idea what the athlon is capable of at that speed. i know for a fact that a celeron can at least keep up at minimum requirements at certain high-end games.

celeron ftw!

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: phaxmohdem
From what I've seen the Celeron D competes pretty similarly with Athlon XP's of the same speed grade... Meaning a Cel. D 2.4 would be competing with an Athlon XP 2400+ winning some benches here, loosing some there... Overall I think the Athlon 2400+ is faster, but between the AThlon 1700+ and Cel 2.4, I'd say the celeron would have the slight edge... though probably not by a huge margin

your thinking sempron.

 

[blckgrffn]

That 1700+ will be absolutely slow in todays games, although I have no idea how the celeron D will fair. The last celeron I used was a mobile northwood core @ 3.6 ghz

Nat

 

[996GT2]

Wow, this is one of those times where I'd have to say the Celeron would be faster just based on its huge clockspeed advantage. Sure, AMD's architecture is more efficient, but given that both processors cannot be OC'd (much) I'd say the Celeron has the edge here. Also, couldn't you take a stick of RAM out of the Athlon system and put it into the Celeron system if you wanted a bit more performance out of it?

 

[F1shF4t]

Originally posted by: 996GT2
Wow, this is one of those times where I'd have to say the Celeron would be faster just based on its huge clockspeed advantage. Sure, AMD's architecture is more efficient, but given that both processors cannot be OC'd (much) I'd say the Celeron has the edge here. Also, couldn't you take a stick of RAM out of the Athlon system and put it into the Celeron system if you wanted a bit more performance out of it?

Well the athlon system has 3 sticks of 256, and the celeron has 2 sticks of 256, and all the slots are filled. So no i cant change ram set up unless i buy more ram, which i'm not planing to do.

Well change of plans, lo, my bro's mainboard is dying so i will give him the one from the celeron, so i guess i'm stuck with the athlon 1700+ anyways.

Got a better heatsink for it, TT pipe 101 (only cause its one of the few ones u can find for socket A which does not need mounting holes as msi k7n2 doesnt have any)

 

[wamasters]

Bingo! Give that guy a cigar! While I too tend to favor the AMD processor, the disparity in speeds is too great (DEFINATELY giving the win to the Celeron).
BTW - Why would you use an XP1700+ when a faster Ahlon XP can be had at virtuallyno more cost (unless you already have both on hand)?