Celeron 2.0GHz = crap???

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » Mon May 26, 2003 2:03 pm

I've noticed that a few of you don't like the Celeron 2.0 GHz. My system has a Celeron 2.0 GHz and it's still running so it can't be that bad

. I found the Celeron quite cheap, at least compared to the P4s available when I put my system together. I haven't used any of the P4s though, so I can't compare them with the Celeron. Isn't the Celerons price/performance ratio quite good? Could the ones disliking the 2.0 GHz Celeron be a bit more specific in their critisism, so that I can weigh the arguments? I don't want to feel like a total looser

GamingGod · Post by **GamingGod** » Mon May 26, 2003 2:15 pm

Ive only had experience with 1-2 celerons but they seem ALOT slower than comparable p4s to me. I could be wrong though

fmah · Post by **fmah** » Mon May 26, 2003 3:01 pm

Here is a review of the 1.7, but also shown overclocked to 2.25 so the 2.0 is probably in between. Once you get to the 3d rendering and games, the Athlon is a lot faster and cheaper. I would use a Celeron in a business computer for stability and cost. I would personally chose Athlon for game and graphics performance.

http://anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1622&p=1

Athlon Powers · Post by **Athlon Powers** » Mon May 26, 2003 3:08 pm

They are quite snappy for business work and internet but otherwise (sorry about this) suck.

But a 2.4Ghz Celery for under $90 aint that bad...see below.

http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Artic ... PR&seq=200

Pretty appealing for budget builders If I may say so...

BTW, we dont think your a loser if your have a lower end CPU.

Although my XP 1700 at 1.4 GHz does bench as fast as a 2.1Ghz Celery.

Not to mention having twice the FPU power which counts in games and rendering.

DryFire · Post by **DryFire** » Mon May 26, 2003 3:38 pm

the main power of the p4 comes from it's cache and memory speed. Due to it's lower ipc rate and quad pumpded alu.

Athlon Powers · Post by **Athlon Powers** » Mon May 26, 2003 4:13 pm

DryFire wrote:the main power of the p4 comes from it's cache and memory speed. Due to it's lower ipc rate and quad pumpded alu.

Acutually all the CPUs Intel manufacturer have 512KB of L2 and HyperThreading ability. Unfortunately this has been locked and no groups have been able how to enable the additional features.

I can only imagine a 2.4GHz 512KB HT Pentium4 off of a Celery. I wish it could be true.

Katana Man · Post by **Katana Man** » Mon May 26, 2003 4:20 pm

The Celeron 2.0 ghz is an excellent quiet CPU. I put one in my wife's machine and the thing is running 31C !!

DryFire · Post by **DryFire** » Mon May 26, 2003 5:08 pm

yeah but they preform like crap.

Athlon Powers · Post by **Athlon Powers** » Mon May 26, 2003 5:14 pm

Katana Man wrote:The Celeron 2.0 ghz is an excellent quiet CPU. I put one in my wife's machine and the thing is running 31C !!

If that's idle my XP 1700 Palomino idles at 26c.

DryFire · Post by **DryFire** » Mon May 26, 2003 5:22 pm

my 1800+ @ 2.01 ghz + 1.7 volts idles at 32 C with the really bad cooling i have.

Zhentar · Post by **Zhentar** » Mon May 26, 2003 8:14 pm

mine doesn't idle, so hah! I'm getting load of abuot 48 now, palomino 1800+.

Athlon Powers- I know the Northwood P4s all have HT, but I don't think the wilamettes did, and I think thats what the celerys run... and I"m positive they don't have the extra cache. Cache takes up a lot of die space and a discount processor needs to have as small a die as possible.

Athlon Powers · Post by **Athlon Powers** » Tue May 27, 2003 5:44 am

Zhentar wrote:mine doesn't idle, so hah! I'm getting load of abuot 48 now, palomino 1800+.

Athlon Powers- I know the Northwood P4s all have HT, but I don't think the wilamettes did, and I think thats what the celerys run... and I"m positive they don't have the extra cache. Cache takes up a lot of die space and a discount processor needs to have as small a die as possible.

All Celerons above 2GHz are Northwood based. They acutually have everything on them, Intel has just disabled it.

Tom P · Post by **Tom P** » Tue May 27, 2003 8:39 am

If your computer does what you want it to, just be happy with it!

Athlon Powers · Post by **Athlon Powers** » Tue May 27, 2003 9:30 am

Tom P wrote:If your computer does what you want it to, just be happy with it!

Exactly! But if you start gaming or encoding and find it too slow get an AMD processor with all these price drops and whatnot.

Mark Larson · Post by **Mark Larson** » Tue May 27, 2003 11:03 am

In the benches i've seen, a 2Ghz Northwood Celeron overclocked to 3Ghz lost to an AthlonXP 1700+ in many many tests, only winning a couple. That told me all i needed to know.

Athlon Powers · Post by **Athlon Powers** » Tue May 27, 2003 12:00 pm

Mark Larson wrote:In the benches i've seen, a 2Ghz Northwood Celeron overclocked to 3Ghz lost to an AthlonXP 1700+ in many many tests, only winning a couple. That told me all i needed to know.

Despite the Athlon being 1.6GHz slower.

Athlon Powers · Post by **Athlon Powers** » Tue May 27, 2003 3:13 pm

Radeonman wrote:The celeron's limited cache cripples the netburst architecture in impressive ways. If there was some way to pop off the heat spreader, shortcut some connections, and change it from a celery to a pentium 4 C, I'd grab me one before Intel yanked them all off the shelves.

Unfortunately under the heatspreader Intel's CPUs dont have any connections (or anything for that matter) to short and enable fun stuff. On AMDs you can enable MP support, unlock multiplers and more...

ez2remember · Post by **ez2remember** » Tue May 27, 2003 4:11 pm

Celerons are not cheap! I don't think they are crap, I would rather spend the money on a Athlon XP CPU which gives more performance for your money.

Anyway computers are ridicously fast these days. Is that 10% gain really neccessary?

DryFire · Post by **DryFire** » Tue May 27, 2003 4:43 pm

ridiculously fast????
I don't think so. They could be much faster by now if the cpu market had more competitors for teh pc market. also most consumers are satisfied with their cpu's such as your self. but for large scale (well even meduim scale) real time stress simulations (for bridges and such) it takes about 20 2 ghz p4 processors and about 12 3.06ghz processors.

Affordable computing solutions are not really available. Even though Intel has been ready to go 90 nanometer for quite a while no real push to go 90 nm reall. i know the tejas is planned but it could of been out by now imo.

fmah · Post by **fmah** » Tue May 27, 2003 6:07 pm

Don't forget the games, and F@H.

DryFire · Post by **DryFire** » Tue May 27, 2003 6:33 pm

Maybe F@H, but for games currently they don't really take all the power of a cpu. usually it is more gfx card dependant. Like ut2k3 or AA:O. While C&C generals is slightly more cpu dependant and massive assault (a turn based game still in concept) take more out on your cpu but a 2.4 ghz p4 or it's amd equivilant should run it any of them just fine.

I would really like it if the video game industry pushed the cpu and gfx market a little more. Kind of like doom 3 and Half life 2.

Athlon Powers · Post by **Athlon Powers** » Wed May 28, 2003 5:53 am

DryFire wrote:Maybe F@H, but for games currently they don't really take all the power of a cpu. usually it is more gfx card dependant. Like ut2k3 or AA:O. While C&C generals is slightly more cpu dependant and massive assault (a turn based game still in concept) take more out on your cpu but a 2.4 ghz p4 or it's amd equivilant should run it any of them just fine.

I would really like it if the video game industry pushed the cpu and gfx market a little more. Kind of like doom 3 and Half life 2.

True enough, but games also like FPU power and memory bandwidth. So even if your Celery dosent excel in terms of FPU ability it does have bandwidth to spare in Intel fashion.

Athlon Powers · Post by **Athlon Powers** » Wed May 28, 2003 11:09 am

I just left some updated threads in your other post.

fmah · Post by **fmah** » Thu May 29, 2003 9:44 pm

Was looking at some catalog pages and it seems the 370 Celeron had 256k cache, but the new one is only 128k cache? Is that right? No wonder.

pingu666 · Post by **pingu666** » Fri May 30, 2003 11:07 am

yeah thats right
just avoid the damn things :\

Athlon Powers · Post by **Athlon Powers** » Fri May 30, 2003 12:01 pm

fmah wrote:Was looking at some catalog pages and it seems the 370 Celeron had 256k cache, but the new one is only 128k cache? Is that right? No wonder.

You are correct on both instances. The moble Celerons have 256KB of cache and the desktop versions only have 128KB. You must have seen a mobile version.

If it's mobile it might also have better power saving features if your motherboard and OS can take advantage of it.