Talking about celeron

[hoyoyo80]

Hello, just want to know coz i never use other processor other than pentium(since pentium I), ok my quest is what types of mobo that celeron use?I heard it can be used with pentium mobo but which one, and just now i saw celeron 1.7Ghz,at this celeron speed,what mobo that it use,P4?And what is the different between pentium and celeron, and could new celeron(1ghz and above) can match with Duron?

[ebola]

lol the new celeron p4 cores are slower than via cyrix chips. its complete crap. intel is just trying to pull a fast one over everyone. don't buy it.

[Alias]

wut are you TALKING about?! it's much faster than via cyrix chips and gives even the fastest duron a run for it's money! It's a complete replica except for having half (or a fourth) the cache of a pentium 4. This means, in applications that don't have massive memory bandwidth should run just as fast as a similarly spec'ed P4 (such as office software), but will lag in memory intensive software (such as games). Of course going with a pentium 4 is the best option with its large cache. Still, celeron p4's aren't that bad for their price and MUCH MUCH BETTER than via cyrix chips.... i dunno wut ebola is talking about.

Celerons from 1.7 GHz and above use the p4 mobos, and the fastest older celeron 1.2 GHz runs on the old p3 mobos. Older celerons cannot match durons at the same speed, but the new p4 core celerons can beat durons in most applications (especially games... except 3dmark for sum reason).

[ebola]

alias the celeron p4 is bad (128k cache lol). trust me. its an intel marketing scheme. mhz means next to nothing. willimate p4 chips were garbage and now these new celerons have half the cache of those. its all about fpu. dont be fooled by marketing.

If you want socket 478 then buy a slower p4 northwood.

as to the comparision to cyrix. i think it was one of the systemmark tests that the 1ghz via samauel beat the celeron 1.7. thats sad.

my p3's at 1.13 ghz beat the xeon 1.6 (256k) chips by quite a bit. i cant imagine how bad the p4 core is with half as much cache.

Im an intel fan but if i was on a restricted budget i would go for a athlon xp. they're at bargin bottom prices right now too.

[Gamer1]

AMD forever!!!

[Ninjaa]

I too am an intel fan, but I just couldn't afford their steep prices right now. I had to go for an Athlon XP myself. I discovered I could build my own PC for about $500 CAD (From scratch)

[Gamer1]

at least intel did major price cuts. and cut off amd major selling point. at least amd's 2.2g pc could go against intels 2.6g. but with price cuts... they are actually going to at the same price... (even though 2600+ isn't out yet... but price had been announced)

amd still is the performance king on the 2.2 ghz clock speed though.

I think the rating system should be revamped. cuz Mhz does not matter!!!

compare a 633 mhz celeron and 633 mhz p3. gee i wonder what is better... the p3 of coarse. the time of the mhz = performance had past. and the future is a rating on what the cpu could actually do in performance area!

[Demigod]

There were numerous revisions to the Celeron. Here's a list of them:

Celeron (Mendocino) - 266 Mhz - 500 Mhz - Socket 370(PPGA)/Slot 1

Based on the Deschutes (Pentium II) core this processor ran on a 66 Mhz bus with 128 KB on-die L2 cache. It used the same board as the Pentium 2. The difference is the bus speed (P2 = 100 Mhz FSB) and the L2 cache size (P2 = 512 KB off-die cache). This processor was excellent for overclocking and, at the time was the processor of choice for power users (you could overclock it to the level of a P2 and only pay a fraction of the price).

Celeron (Coppermine) - 550 Mhz - 1 Ghz - Socket 370(FC-PGA)/Slot 1

Based on the Coppermine core. The newer Celerons weren't very good and lagged behind the P3 Coppermines considerably. Again, the differences between them were the bus speed (Celeron = 66 Mhz FSB, P3 = 100/133 Mhz FSB) and the L2 cache (Celeron = 128 KB, P3 = 256 KB). They both used the same board. Compared to the Duron this processor is pretty bad.

Celeron (Tualatin) - 1.1 Ghz - 1.3 Ghz - Socket 370 (FC-PGA 2)

Requires a Tualatin-based mobo. Bus speed increased to 100 Mhz (P3 Tualatin = 133 Mhz) and cache raised to 256 KB (P3 Tualatin = 512 KB). It's still not as fast as the Duron at the same clock speed but great value none-the-less. They also have some overclocking room left on them so you could squeeze some extra speed out of them.

Celeron (Willamette) - 1.7 Ghz + - Socket 423

Based on the P4 Willamette core. Not very fast compared to the competition, with only 128 KB L2 cache. Will be replaced with Northwood soon.

Originally posted by Gamer1
amd still is the performance king on the 2.2 ghz clock speed though.

How do you figure? The P4 2.8 Ghz is faster than the XP 2600+ in everything but the FPU test. AMD lost the performance crown a while ago, although they still hold a superior price/performance ratio.

Originally posted by Gamer1
I think the rating system should be revamped. cuz Mhz does not matter!!!

compare a 633 mhz celeron and 633 mhz p3. gee i wonder what is better... the p3 of coarse. the time of the mhz = performance had past. and the future is a rating on what the cpu could actually do in performance area!

The model rating system isn't a good measure of performance, at least not the way they're using it. AMD recently had to pull back on the numbers to be on par with the newer, faster P4s (afterall, the model numbers are used to show the relative performance to a P4). If they're going to use model numbers they should use some fixed, standardized way. Instead they're just pulling numbers out of their ass and slapping them on each newer processor.

Although AMD's trying hard, the "mhz" rating will never change. It's always been that way and no one's had a problem with it, it's only AMD who's making such a big fuss over it. The fact of the matter is, without Intel's backing AMD will never change the system, even with MS's support. Intel is the supreme authority when it comes to PC microprocessor technology and AMD will never have the kind of reputation and influence Intel has (not at their current state anyways).

[Alias]

Originally posted by ebola
alias the celeron p4 is bad (128k cache lol). trust me. its an intel marketing scheme. mhz means next to nothing. willimate p4 chips were garbage and now these new celerons have half the cache of those. its all about fpu. dont be fooled by marketing.

If you want socket 478 then buy a slower p4 northwood.

as to the comparision to cyrix. i think it was one of the systemmark tests that the 1ghz via samauel beat the celeron 1.7. thats sad.

my p3's at 1.13 ghz beat the xeon 1.6 (256k) chips by quite a bit. i cant imagine how bad the p4 core is with half as much cache.

Im an intel fan but if i was on a restricted budget i would go for a athlon xp. they're at bargin bottom prices right now too.

while it's true that the celeron p4 is nothing to get excited about, it's a fine processor if you're not expecting a speed demon. Yes with it's crippled cache, it's slower than a p4, but not by much (remember we're comparing willamettes) and it's worth it's incredibly low price. But as advice, i recommend not buying a celey and going for a northwood p4 when the prices get lower, because you'll find yourself upgrading soon. I would also like to see this sysmark test u refer to (remember, p4 architecture isn't strong with standard office apps). ANyways, buy a p4 or an athlon. And I want to see proof that the 2.2 AMD can be competetive with a 2.6 GHz p4.

[chillypacman]

It depends on your pc specs if your using an intel mother board chances are intel celeron will work really good.

[Particleman]

Clock for Clock, the P4 Celeron is a bad performer. But it does run at a fast clockspeed and even the slowest P4 Celeron (1.5Ghz) is faster than the fastest Tulatin Celeron 1.3Ghz, though the performance gap isn't very big and in the odd instance the Tulatin is still faster. In the end though does it really matter how a chip performs clock for clock though? It all comes down to the performance in the end. The P4 is designed to run at high clockspeeds, sacrificing some clock for clock performance in the process. While Intel does currently hold the performance crown (maybe Barton will change that), AMD is still better when you compare performance dollar for dollar. I think there are arguments that can be made for both companie's CPUs, while I love the price/performance ratio of Athlons, Intel still does seem to be more reliable when it comes to stability and compatibility.

[Demigod]

Originally posted by Alias
And I want to see proof that the 2.2 AMD can be competetive with a 2.6 GHz p4.

Check out the P4 2.8 CPU benchmarks at Anandtech and Tom's Hardware Guide. The Athlon XP 2600+ runs neck-to-neck with the P4 2.6 Ghz, although it can't touch the P4 2.8 Ghz (except in the FPU tests). The next Athlon revision, the 2800+ should be somewhat faster, as it'll run on a 166 (333) Mhz FSB, allowing it to take full advantage of DDR333.

[Kabuto]

Well I agree that is better to wait and buy a P4 and don´t buy a Celeron, or if your concern is about saving some bucks, buy a similar Athlon.

[_E_]

Dont go for Celeron,.......Just get a Pentium 4 or anAMD Athlon Xp 1800+ ,....i think that previous releases of celeron had low cache memory!!

[hoyoyo80]

So celeron performance is not that good although with high speed such as 1.7Ghz? I am just asking since i don't know much about it So P4 and AthlonXP are doing one on one battle right now,isn't it? I really want to try Athlon(now i am using p4), are athlon cheaper than P4?

[Gamer1]

yes athlons are cheaper

[TalkingANUS]

Athlons are much cheaper than Pentium 4s, and most of the time, much better performance. An Athlon Xp 1800+ (@1533MHz)performs better than competing Pentium 4 @ 1.8GHz