If I were you I will choose AthlonXP 1500+ it should be cheaper right now & pair it w/ a cheap PC2100 RAM & Biostar Group M7VIG400 Motherboard, this combo would be a big bang for your buck and will give a good performing low end system.
My 2 cents worth would be to go with the 333 FSB Celeron. I have both
XP2000 Tbird and XP2400 Celeron running @1.6. The greater L2 cache
of the Tbird opens and moves files faster, the Celeron runs windows
a little faster.
i would say never Look in spec.. esp for Intel.. pls as ppl no intel Suck..!
pls i wil go for any amd Cpu.. I promis u will c Beter Performance..it all bring back 2 my old time LAn party.. i use 2 own a Duron950MHz man run at 133Fsh with 768mb ram 3slot of 256 on SDram dud..! n gas what no mater what I alway beat my frd who run on celeron1.7 with ddr 512mbram.. i mean even i was amz pls celeron suck pls..! i hav seen a p3 800mhz with more ram beat a celeron trust me even p3 is beter then celeron
the big point is i think L1 n L2 Cash for the celeron it Run at L1 8+12 & L2 128 very low man ..
but since u dont no i hav alway notest why amd is faster in loading most of da time becaus of L1 not L2 caus Amd alway has equal &Fastest L1 cash then InTel n sice u dont no u should go check the amd 1500xp run at L1 64+64 n L2 256. even tho i say that i think it stil a very unfair CPu 2 compair..! du 2 Cor clock. 2.6 vs 1.3 na ofcaus 2.6 will beat it..! but u never no caus my 950mhz basicly beat most intel celeron 1.7 so.. i dont no.. may.b .. i would say never c with PC spec realy need 2 Feel and Run benchmarh n stuff it then u will no which is beter..! but since i m amd fans i i wil take amd even tho it slower. AMd RUle.!!
Now, unlike everyone else who seems to think cache size is all that matters, I've actually gone and found Some useful charts that have both these CPUs in... And as I suspected, the Celeron walks it. Yes, the t-bird has more cache, but that's just not enough to compete with the celeron having almost double the clockspeed.
Plus, since that motherboard supports 800FSB P4 chips, you might be able to coax a little extra speed from that celeron by upping the FSB a little, which'll let you take better advantage of the faster RAM whilst still leaving memory speed in synch with the FSB. Obviously 133Mhz is unlikely, as that would result in the thing trying to run at ~3400Mhz.. as if. So that depends on how good the overclocking options are on that board..
I can only repeat, I have both systems and the Celeron feels snappier
and will definitely use the memory, while the Tbird is locked to a 266FSB.
In addition the Celeron runs a little cooler. This is XP2000 vs. XP2400
Celeron, same chip with less L2 cache, so it doesn't multitask as well.
Memory benchmarks are identical with both running the same FSB.
Might be able to bump the latency of that RAM also @PC2700.
Yes, if it was a Celeron 1.7Ghz then I'd say go with the T-bird. But it's not.
Celerons do suck, but since the guy has said these are spare parts he already has, it's the best of a bad bunch.
I should point out that the two chips are quite close in some gaming benchies, but I'm assuming from the description that's it's just going to be a standard office/internet PC, so no gaming there (on-board gfx....) Celerons really do suck balls when it comes to modern games....
The Celeron he has is a 100Mhz (400QDR) FSB one, not 333. More to the point, Intel have never had a 333 bus.... They have a 100Mhz(400QDR), 133Mhz(533QDR), and 200Mhz(800QDR) for the P4/P4 Celeron line....
What does "XP2400 Celeron @ 1.6" mean? a 1.6Ghz Celeron overclocked to 2.4Ghz?
OOps, I read too fast, :wink: you're quite right on FSB Celeron. Amazing
this cheap machine, it runs 3 remote cameras with an ATI card and
will still do internet. Just has trouble with large files, and as you mentioned
sucks on games, even with a good card. I built an Intel/Celeron machine
for a local office and it's still running strong and hot, doesn't seem to bother
Has anyone here actually owned or used both an ATHLOn T-BIRD chip and a mid range northwood CELERON to come to any real conclusion on comparative performance, or are we just guessing??....
I have a 1GHz t-bird which is overclockd to 1350mhz. i also am writing to you on this celeron 2.5ghz system on pc2700 memory. (i know its 100mhz slower than your 2.6 but it's close enough to say:
I have tested both of the chips (on different systems with same amount of memory) with a winRAR benchmarking utility (you're probably farmiliar with it).
Anyhow, when the athlon was at 1ghz i remember the celeron was beating it by a bit. But then I ran the athlon at 1.35ghz, then the Celeron and the Athlon were both on par with each other in that test.
And from general usage (e.g microsoft word startup times) i note them about the same times to open up. also the athlon system is a little quicker on its feet than the celeron but i believe its due to a much faster hard drive that the athlon system has.
As games go, i can't tell you anything because i do not have the same vid card in each of the computers. And no, i am NOT going to make a blind stab in the dark from nowhere and say that the athlon is better than the celeron in games without having physically tested it first.
You might want to consider the heat you will need to get rid of:
the rated heat output of your 1.33GHz ATHLON is 70W. on the other hand the heat output of your 2.6 celeron is rated at 62.6W. THE CELERY RUNS COOLER go the celery
The celeron is newer technology, supports faster memory and SSE2 etc... something else to consider.
So there's some first hand information, i'll leave it to you to say which is better.