🚀 go-pugleaf

"Taishi" <taishi_bak@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Zc0tb.684$gc.354@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
> I did some research on the internet about the CPU's in question.  I see
that
> the Celeron is a cheaper CPU than the P4.
>
> Do anyone know the story behind the Celeron?
>
> Has anyone seen a big difference between a Celeron 2.4 vs a Intel P4 PC?
>
> Are there any Con's to having a Celeron over a P4?
>
> Is there a big difference between a Celeron 2.4 vs 2.5?
>
>

the celeron has a smaller internal cache

so it depends on what you will be using it for


if you are going to be playing solotaire and checking you email
get the celeron

running photoshop?  i;d go for the P-IV


as far as the difference between a 2.4 and a 2.5ghz

the only noticable difference would be in the wallet

The Celeron 2.4 GHz is less efficient and has one quarter of the on board
cache memory of the P4 2.5 GHz.  In other words, the Celeron is slower, as
you can guess by just looking at the difference in prices...

-- 
DaveW



"Taishi" <taishi_bak@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Zc0tb.684$gc.354@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
> I did some research on the internet about the CPU's in question.  I see
that
> the Celeron is a cheaper CPU than the P4.
>
> Do anyone know the story behind the Celeron?
>
> Has anyone seen a big difference between a Celeron 2.4 vs a Intel P4 PC?
>
> Are there any Con's to having a Celeron over a P4?
>
> Is there a big difference between a Celeron 2.4 vs 2.5?
>
>

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 08:18:01 GMT, "Taishi" <taishi_bak@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>I did some research on the internet about the CPU's in question.  I see that
>the Celeron is a cheaper CPU than the P4.

Well, why anyone at all, for any purpose at all, buys
(P4-core)Celerons is only due to ignorance, and the _VERY_ false
assumption that GHz is speed.

>Do anyone know the story behind the Celeron?

Celeron is the trademark for Intels cheaper cpus. The old
(PII-PIII-core) Celeron was nice enough, but the P4 architecture is so
abyssmally inefficient that newer Celerons are disasters.

>Has anyone seen a big difference between a Celeron 2.4 vs a Intel P4 PC?

Yes. Though all older P4s are slower than 'P4Cs' and AthlonXPs, in
particular P4A and Celerons are very slow indeed. I would say the
difference is gruesome. Have a look at these pages, to see much
cheaper Duron and AthlonXPs outclass Celerons and P4A.

price comparision:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=2

business winstone2004:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=4

content creation winstone2004:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=5

div x encoding:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=6

3D-rendering:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=7

VisualC++ compile times:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=8

various game benchmarks:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=9
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=10
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=11
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=12
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=13
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=14
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=15
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=16
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=17

Notice how AMDs 1.6GHz Duron stomps all over Intels 2.6GHz Celeron.
1GHz slower clock, but 30% faster!

>Are there any Con's to having a Celeron over a P4?

Yes, as you might see from the participating 1.8GHz P4.
It's damn slow too, but at least it's significantly faster than the
Celerons.

>Is there a big difference between a Celeron 2.4 vs 2.5?

- ? No they're the same, they're slow. If that P4-Celeron was 6.5 GHz
it would still be slow.


ancra

I use Celerons often and have no problems - including video editing.  they
are a bit slower in the benchmarks. but not noticeable in the "feel" of the
system. regardless of what you use be sure to use good quality ram - 512 mb
is a nice number.
"Taishi" <taishi_bak@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Zc0tb.684$gc.354@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
> I did some research on the internet about the CPU's in question.  I see
that
> the Celeron is a cheaper CPU than the P4.
>
> Do anyone know the story behind the Celeron?
>
> Has anyone seen a big difference between a Celeron 2.4 vs a Intel P4 PC?
>
> Are there any Con's to having a Celeron over a P4?
>
> Is there a big difference between a Celeron 2.4 vs 2.5?
>
>

Here's a comparison...

Celeron 2.0Ghz..... 512mb PC133RAM

One Setiathome work unit.... 15 hours

P4 2.0Ghz..... 512mb RAM PC133 RAM

One Setiathome work unit 5 hours

P4 2.0Ghz 1Ghz PC2100 RAM

One Setiathome work unit   3.2 hours

No, I'm never even contemplating a Celeron procesor ever again.

Cari
www.coribright.com

"andrew2000" <andrew2000@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message 
news:aV5Nb.16566$Eq.9527@clgrps12...
>I use Celerons often and have no problems - including video editing.  they
> are a bit slower in the benchmarks. but not noticeable in the "feel" of 
> the
> system. regardless of what you use be sure to use good quality ram - 512 
> mb
> is a nice number.
> "Taishi" <taishi_bak@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Zc0tb.684$gc.354@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
>> I did some research on the internet about the CPU's in question.  I see
> that
>> the Celeron is a cheaper CPU than the P4.
>>
>> Do anyone know the story behind the Celeron?
>>
>> Has anyone seen a big difference between a Celeron 2.4 vs a Intel P4 PC?
>>
>> Are there any Con's to having a Celeron over a P4?
>>
>> Is there a big difference between a Celeron 2.4 vs 2.5?
>>
>>
>
> 

More anti-Celeron info:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927

Anandtech's benchmarks show that a Celeron 2.6 GHz is slower than a P4 1.8
GHz in practically all tests.

"Cari" <Newsgroups1@coribright.com> wrote in message
news:bu464d$de5jj$1@ID-119682.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Here's a comparison...
>
> Celeron 2.0Ghz..... 512mb PC133RAM
>
> One Setiathome work unit.... 15 hours
>
> P4 2.0Ghz..... 512mb RAM PC133 RAM
>
> One Setiathome work unit 5 hours
>
> P4 2.0Ghz 1Ghz PC2100 RAM
>
> One Setiathome work unit   3.2 hours
>
> No, I'm never even contemplating a Celeron procesor ever again.
>
> Cari
> www.coribright.com
>
> "andrew2000" <andrew2000@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> news:aV5Nb.16566$Eq.9527@clgrps12...
> >I use Celerons often and have no problems - including video editing.
they
> > are a bit slower in the benchmarks. but not noticeable in the "feel" of
> > the
> > system. regardless of what you use be sure to use good quality ram - 512
> > mb
> > is a nice number.
> > "Taishi" <taishi_bak@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Zc0tb.684$gc.354@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
> >> I did some research on the internet about the CPU's in question.  I see
> > that
> >> the Celeron is a cheaper CPU than the P4.
> >>
> >> Do anyone know the story behind the Celeron?
> >>
> >> Has anyone seen a big difference between a Celeron 2.4 vs a Intel P4
PC?
> >>
> >> Are there any Con's to having a Celeron over a P4?
> >>
> >> Is there a big difference between a Celeron 2.4 vs 2.5?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:41:19 -0800, "Cari"
<Newsgroups1@coribright.com> wrote:

>Here's a comparison...
>
>Celeron 2.0Ghz..... 512mb PC133RAM
>
>One Setiathome work unit.... 15 hours
>
>P4 2.0Ghz..... 512mb RAM PC133 RAM
>
>One Setiathome work unit 5 hours
>
>P4 2.0Ghz 1Ghz PC2100 RAM
>
>One Setiathome work unit   3.2 hours
>
>No, I'm never even contemplating a Celeron procesor ever again.
>
>Cari
>www.coribright.com
>


Not a realistic comparision of the CPUs though, only of SETI
performance, which is atypical.    It would be fair to consider SETI
performance only if that is the only thing the system ever does... as
soon as it does something else, too, the results drastically differ...
SETI just happens to exploit some of the larger L2 cache, but only if
it STAYS in the cache.

Using a system normally will show much less performance penalty from a
Celeron, but certainly one doesn't belong in a system being built to a
mid or high-end price-point, but frankly, I wouldn't even consider a
P4 except for a high-end build, as the Athlons are much better bang
for the buck.

kony wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:41:19 -0800, "Cari"
> <Newsgroups1@coribright.com> wrote:
>
>> Here's a comparison...
>>
>> Celeron 2.0Ghz..... 512mb PC133RAM
>>
>> One Setiathome work unit.... 15 hours
>>
>> P4 2.0Ghz..... 512mb RAM PC133 RAM
>>
>> One Setiathome work unit 5 hours
>>
>> P4 2.0Ghz 1Ghz PC2100 RAM
>>
>> One Setiathome work unit   3.2 hours
>>
>> No, I'm never even contemplating a Celeron procesor ever again.
>>
>> Cari
>> www.coribright.com
>>
>
>
> Not a realistic comparision of the CPUs though, only of SETI
> performance, which is atypical.

SETI times are not atypical of CPU benchmarks. I have a book where I write
down benchmarks of every system I build. They include SETI times, CPUMark
and PC Mark 2002 among others. The CPU benchmarks show a distinct
correlation with SETI times. I suppose that you could say all synthetic
benchmarks are atypical.

> It would be fair to consider SETI
> performance only if that is the only thing the system ever does... as
> soon as it does something else, too, the results drastically differ...
> SETI just happens to exploit some of the larger L2 cache, but only if
> it STAYS in the cache.

I (well, my g/f and I) have a Barton clocked at 2.2GHz and a Tbred at
2.1GHz, 512Kb and 256KB of L2 cache respectively, and the SETI times are
within 10% of each other, as are CPU Mark (210 and 195) and PC Mark 2002 CPU
benchmark (6,789 and 6,334). Even running SETI CLI while the machines are
being used for other things (including gaming) this 10% rule seems to remain
constant.

I benchmark every system I build, run Prime95 for 24 hours, run Prime and
SETI concurrently for 24 hours, then run SETI alone for 24 hours. Nothing
goes out of my door until it has done that error-free and maintained a
reasonable CPU/case temp. I *could* build a system and have it out the door
in hours but I hang onto them for nearly a week, until I'm satisfied, before
I let them go. That includes systems built from recycled parts or upgraded
sytems.

One caveat, I haven't built a P4-based Celeron machine. And won't. The last
Celeron system I built was a Tualatin. With the P4-based Cellys I believe
the slowness has a lot to do with cache latency as well as cache size.

> Using a system normally will show much less performance penalty from a
> Celeron,

If you consider gaming 'normal' then I'd have to disagree with you.

> but certainly one doesn't belong in a system being built to a
> mid or high-end price-point, but frankly, I wouldn't even consider a
> P4 except for a high-end build, as the Athlons are much better bang
> for the buck.

Agreed, especially the Barton 2500+, 90% of them run fine on a 200FSB using
the standard HSF (as long as case-cooling is set up properly) for XP3200+
speed. Some need a slight vcore boost, some will do 2.2GHz with no vcore
adjustment. I've only had one that wouldn't do 2.2GHz Prime95-stable at a
reasonable vcore.

The only time I would consider a P4 is for a dedicated video-editing machine
(SSE2). Not the sort of thing I build machines for ayway.
--
~misfit~

~misfit~ wrote:
> 
... snip ...
> 
> I benchmark every system I build, run Prime95 for 24 hours, run
> Prime and SETI concurrently for 24 hours, then run SETI alone for
> 24 hours. Nothing goes out of my door until it has done that
> error-free and maintained a reasonable CPU/case temp. I *could*
> build a system and have it out the door in hours but I hang onto
> them for nearly a week, until I'm satisfied, before I let them
> go. That includes systems built from recycled parts or upgraded
> sytems.

How does one contact you?

-- 
Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>  USE worldnet address!

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 07:07:50 GMT, "andrew2000"
<andrew2000@mad.scientist.com> wrote:

>I use Celerons often and have no problems - including video editing.  they
>are a bit slower in the benchmarks. but not noticeable in the "feel" of the
>system. regardless of what you use be sure to use good quality ram - 512 mb
>is a nice number.

(remember that people are looking for advice here)
There's no sane rational reason to ever buy a Celeron.

P4-core Celerons are slow in extreme. They are also, if possible,
doing even worse in 'real life' than on benchmarks, so it's the other
way 'round.

One thing to remember here, is that older PII-core and Tualatin-core
Celerons did quite well. - You can't judge the abyssmal modern
Celerons by earlier experiences! I wouldn't be surprised if the old
1.4GHz still sweeps the floor with all them 2.6-2.7GHz Celerons.


ancra

Whenever I have really much to do, I get so busy,
there's not really any time left to get anything done...

CBFalconer wrote:
> ~misfit~ wrote:
>>
> ... snip ...
>>
>> I benchmark every system I build, run Prime95 for 24 hours, run
>> Prime and SETI concurrently for 24 hours, then run SETI alone for
>> 24 hours. Nothing goes out of my door until it has done that
>> error-free and maintained a reasonable CPU/case temp. I *could*
>> build a system and have it out the door in hours but I hang onto
>> them for nearly a week, until I'm satisfied, before I let them
>> go. That includes systems built from recycled parts or upgraded
>> sytems.
>
> How does one contact you?

I'm in New Zealand and don't build machines commercially, just for friends
in the gaming community.

I can be reached at misfit at orcon dot net dot nz.
--
~misfit~

~misfit~ wrote:
> CBFalconer wrote:
> > ~misfit~ wrote:
> >>
> > ... snip ...
> >>
> >> I benchmark every system I build, run Prime95 for 24 hours, run
> >> Prime and SETI concurrently for 24 hours, then run SETI alone for
> >> 24 hours. Nothing goes out of my door until it has done that
> >> error-free and maintained a reasonable CPU/case temp. I *could*
> >> build a system and have it out the door in hours but I hang onto
> >> them for nearly a week, until I'm satisfied, before I let them
> >> go. That includes systems built from recycled parts or upgraded
> >> sytems.
> >
> > How does one contact you?
> 
> I'm in New Zealand and don't build machines commercially, just for
> friends in the gaming community.

Thanks.  Wrong part of the world for me.  I like your attitude
though, especially if you install ECC memory.

-- 
Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>  USE worldnet address!

CBFalconer wrote:
> ~misfit~ wrote:
>> CBFalconer wrote:
>>> ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>>
>>> ... snip ...
>>>>
>>>> I benchmark every system I build, run Prime95 for 24 hours, run
>>>> Prime and SETI concurrently for 24 hours, then run SETI alone for
>>>> 24 hours. Nothing goes out of my door until it has done that
>>>> error-free and maintained a reasonable CPU/case temp. I *could*
>>>> build a system and have it out the door in hours but I hang onto
>>>> them for nearly a week, until I'm satisfied, before I let them
>>>> go. That includes systems built from recycled parts or upgraded
>>>> sytems.
>>>
>>> How does one contact you?
>>
>> I'm in New Zealand and don't build machines commercially, just for
>> friends in the gaming community.
>
> Thanks.  Wrong part of the world for me.  I like your attitude
> though, especially if you install ECC memory.

Thought it might be. :-)

Thanks, I install ECC memory if I can talk whoever I'm making the PC for
into it.
--
~misfit~

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 13:15:26 +1100, Barry OGrady
<god_freee_jones@hotmail.com> wrote:


>>> Are there any Con's to having a Celeron over a P4?
>>>
>>> Is there a big difference between a Celeron 2.4 vs 2.5?
>
>>I use Celerons often and have no problems - including video editing.  they
>>are a bit slower in the benchmarks. but not noticeable in the "feel" of the
>>system. regardless of what you use be sure to use good quality ram - 512 mb
>>is a nice number.
>
>The main difference is that the Celeron has only a 128K cache.

..., and the FSB speed, which is a bit backwards if trying to get similar
performance, since the smaller the L2 cache is more drastically impacted
by a low FSB & Memory bus speed.

True enough, a Celeron is plenty fast enough to run a windows box GUI,
basic office apps/email/etc, but then so is an old 800MHz Celeron.  That
video editing may even "seem" ok to someone using the Celerons, until they
start looking at doing it realtime with compression, or overall job times
for filtering & compression, then the Celeron starts to look pitiful

kony wrote:
...
>>The main difference is that the Celeron has only a 128K cache.
...

In Q2 '04 there will be Celerons with 256K cache
- http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1948 -
thus becoming a true alternative to Pentiums again.

Roy


-- 
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,
and confers no rights.

I think about to a Dell notebook for my daughter this year, first year in
college. I believe the laptop is slow anyway so is it worth to pay $100-150
more P4 ? For school work I believe Celeron should be good enough? Any
suggestion?

Thanks

Hai
"Barry OGrady" <god_freee_jones@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2tbl4098tl5vcdlvgskoasbp0767abrr1k@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 03:35:04 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 13:15:26 +1100, Barry OGrady
> ><god_freee_jones@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>> Are there any Con's to having a Celeron over a P4?
> >>>>
> >>>> Is there a big difference between a Celeron 2.4 vs 2.5?
> >>
> >>>I use Celerons often and have no problems - including video editing.
they
> >>>are a bit slower in the benchmarks. but not noticeable in the "feel" of
the
> >>>system. regardless of what you use be sure to use good quality ram -
512 mb
> >>>is a nice number.
> >>
> >>The main difference is that the Celeron has only a 128K cache.
> >
> >..., and the FSB speed, which is a bit backwards if trying to get similar
> >performance, since the smaller the L2 cache is more drastically impacted
> >by a low FSB & Memory bus speed.
>
> I upgraded from a K6/2/500 with PC100 memory to a Celeron 2.4 with a 400
Mhz FSB
> and DDR 333 memory. The new machine is several times faster converting AVI
to MPEG.
> My moboard can use a P4 to beyond 3 Ghz and a 533 Mhz FSB so I can
upgrade.
>
> >True enough, a Celeron is plenty fast enough to run a windows box GUI,
> >basic office apps/email/etc, but then so is an old 800MHz Celeron.  That
> >video editing may even "seem" ok to someone using the Celerons, until
they
> >start looking at doing it realtime with compression, or overall job times
> >for filtering & compression, then the Celeron starts to look pitiful
>
> I knew when I bought it that the celeron is slower than most, but I got a
good price.
>
>
> -Barry
> ========
> Web page: http://members.optusnet.com.au/~barry.og
> Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.

You get what you pay for.
The Celeron is a total dog.
The newer celeron is based on the
exact same northwood core as the
P4. Intel just leaves a mask step
out when they produce the chip
and you come out with a P4 with
most of the L2 cache disabled.
It cannot be enabled, I recently
built a new rig based on a 2gigahertz
celeron. 2gig is pretty fast at this time
but when I tried to game on it Bf1942
the lag in multiplay would bring
the frame rate down to 6 and 7fps
on servers with 50 players or more.
I got pissed built a new machine
with a 2600AMD with a Barton core.
Now I get no lag on 64slot servers
an lots of people will be screaming
about the lag while I walk up and cap
them cause they are lagged to a standstill
and I am free of any lag
Amazing what 640k of L2 cache will do
for performance.
I would not upgrade the laptop unless
you are going to game on it.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.656 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 4/9/2004 

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 20:41:19 -0400, "Hai Pham" <haipham@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I think about to a Dell notebook for my daughter this year, first year in
>college. I believe the laptop is slow anyway so is it worth to pay $100-150
>more P4 ? For school work I believe Celeron should be good enough? Any
>suggestion?
>
>Thanks

Yes, it could be good enough.
But, if a 2.4 Celeron is "ok", then so is a lot of stuff.
What I mean is that if you're running applications where the
impressing _slooowwnessss_ of the P4-Celeron is not really a problem,
like a bit of an office kit, web, email, etc, - then you can also get
away with a lot of old things, like PIIs, K6s, PIIIs, older Celerons.
And actually, a late PIII, or late 1 - 1.4GHz old Celeron is probably
just as fast.

An interesting observation here: The slowest available AMD cpu, the
1.6GHz Duron (some $30), is _faster_ than fastest 2.8GHz P4-Celeron.

But In favor of a new machine (Celeron), would be the rest of the
specs, - hd, ram, graphics, display, OS. Also, you should have better
media performance in that Celeron than in older cpus.

Adding some confusion, is that Intel intends to market Centrino core
cpus as "Celerons" (just for mobile). I wouldn't do that if I were
head of Intel marketing, because the Celeron name is a bit damaged by
now. Anyway, these Centrino-Celerons will probably rock! I've seen
some preliminary benchmarks, and they were quite good. The
Centrino-Celeron doesn't look like it will give much away to the
normal Centrino.

ancra

P.S. personally, I'd never buy either a P4-Celeron or a Dell, but
never mind, that decision is probably based on things you wouldn't
consider.

ancra,

Please tell me more why not a Dell? Which one you prefer for around $700-800
(college already cost a lot).

Thanks

Hai Pham


<somebody@some.domain> wrote in message
news:rh6m70dfhimha61m16l8453lcjuf3jcisl@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 20:41:19 -0400, "Hai Pham" <haipham@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I think about to a Dell notebook for my daughter this year, first year in
> >college. I believe the laptop is slow anyway so is it worth to pay
$100-150
> >more P4 ? For school work I believe Celeron should be good enough? Any
> >suggestion?
> >
> >Thanks
>
> Yes, it could be good enough.
> But, if a 2.4 Celeron is "ok", then so is a lot of stuff.
> What I mean is that if you're running applications where the
> impressing _slooowwnessss_ of the P4-Celeron is not really a problem,
> like a bit of an office kit, web, email, etc, - then you can also get
> away with a lot of old things, like PIIs, K6s, PIIIs, older Celerons.
> And actually, a late PIII, or late 1 - 1.4GHz old Celeron is probably
> just as fast.
>
> An interesting observation here: The slowest available AMD cpu, the
> 1.6GHz Duron (some $30), is _faster_ than fastest 2.8GHz P4-Celeron.
>
> But In favor of a new machine (Celeron), would be the rest of the
> specs, - hd, ram, graphics, display, OS. Also, you should have better
> media performance in that Celeron than in older cpus.
>
> Adding some confusion, is that Intel intends to market Centrino core
> cpus as "Celerons" (just for mobile). I wouldn't do that if I were
> head of Intel marketing, because the Celeron name is a bit damaged by
> now. Anyway, these Centrino-Celerons will probably rock! I've seen
> some preliminary benchmarks, and they were quite good. The
> Centrino-Celeron doesn't look like it will give much away to the
> normal Centrino.
>
> ancra
>
> P.S. personally, I'd never buy either a P4-Celeron or a Dell, but
> never mind, that decision is probably based on things you wouldn't
> consider.
>