Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Worth upgrading from p4 2.4 400fsb to CeleronD 3.2 533?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 9, 2006 9:24:22 PM

I'm not ready to jump into a new video card, mobo, cpu, video card and possibly ram just yet. Would upgrading from my p4 2.4@2.6 400fsb to a Celeron D 3.2 533fsb be a noticable difference?
I can get the processor for $59 after rebate, oem of course. Plus the cost of a decent fan. Would it be worth it?
I play a lot of newer games like BF2 and my system handles them ok on medium. I know the Celeron only has 256 cache but it has a faster bus, more clock speed and better architecture. Opinions?

Current system:
MSI via pt880 478
P4 2.4 @ 2.6 400fsb
1gb crucial value ram
Geforce 6800 vanilla
120gb WD 8mb
SB live
Antec 350 Atx
a c 446 à CPUs
a c 355 U Graphics card
May 9, 2006 9:33:33 PM

Based on Tomshardware.com Mother of All CPUs - Interactive Charts it seems the that Celeron D 3.2GHz should give you a noticable increase in performance.

Note: Only the Celeron D 2.8GHz was listed, so I compared to to the Pentium 4 2.4GHz.
May 10, 2006 11:47:08 AM

Thank you, but I didnt know that chart existed.
From that chart, it shows the 2.4 northwood spanking the celeron D 2.8 in 3dmark05 cpu score. Where am I going to see a performance increase?
Related resources
a c 446 à CPUs
a c 355 U Graphics card
May 10, 2006 1:46:38 PM

Quote:
Thank you, but I didnt know that chart existed.
From that chart, it shows the 2.4 northwood spanking the celeron D 2.8 in 3dmark05 cpu score. Where am I going to see a performance increase?


Actually the chart can be a little confusing. The Pentium 4 2.4GHz is listed three times. I thought I was a mere oversight, but each Pentium 4 2.4GHz is using different RAM which is only indicated in chart itself:

Pentium 4 2.4 & RAMBUS 1066
Pentium 4 2.4 & DDR 400
Pentium 4 2.4 & DDR 266

I must have selected the one using DDR 266. Sorry about that.

In light of that the Celeron D 3.2GHz is slower than the P4 2.4GHz with DDR 400.
May 10, 2006 6:58:40 PM

Thank you Jag for your insight.
Does everyone else concur that it's not worth the $59 plus fan?
Thanks
May 10, 2006 7:31:25 PM

Without looking at the CPU charts, I'd observe that the Celeron is a budget chip, and therefore going from any Pentium to Celeron is probably not a good idea. Are Pentium CPUs really so expensive that you have to get a Celeron?
May 11, 2006 1:56:55 AM

No, its just that Im not going to spend over $100 on my aging system that needs a complete overhaul. Id rather wait but I figured at that price, if it gave me a boost I'd do it. I really dont see how it couldnt be faster. Sure its got half the cache but it has better performing architecture, a faster bus speed and 600mhz faster than my current oc'd p4 northwood.
Oh well.
May 11, 2006 3:11:06 AM

Actually, you will notice a difference, because your current processor is limiting the FSB at 400, which means your ram is probably running at ddr266, with the 4:5 FSB to RAM divider. This was the case with my old P4 northwood 2ghz. I recently acquired a free P4 socket LGA775 Pentium 515 2.93ghz 533 FSB from my clanmate in the UK. I had to buy a new motherboard to use it, but I bought one that uses socket 775 with DDR and AGP, so I could use my old parts still.

Anyways, I noticed a big difference in BF2 right away, because of the increased FSB speed, which also increased the RAM speed. Curious to see how much more I could squeeze out of the cpu and ram, I overclocked it up to 3.41ghz with my zalman AlCu heatsink, which raised the FSB to 620mhz and puts my ram almost right where it should be, at DDR388. This resulted in a HUGE fps difference when I was playing bf2. I used to get stutters and slowdowns all the time when playing with medium settings and no dynamic shadows and low dynamic lighting on my old 2.0ghz northwood with 9700pro and 1gig corsair (which was only running at ddr266 due to the fsb). After putting in the new motherboard with the 2.93ghz oced to 3.41ghz, my frame rate seems to have nearly doubled, it runs at a MINIMUM of 50 fps at all times, 90% of the time it is over 80fps.

I'm sure you could OC the celeron a bit to get more bang for your buck, and your old northwood heatsink will probably work fine, shouldn't have to upgrade it. I'm just not sure about the 256kb cache, other than that I would say go for it. The cache is the only real difference between the celeron and my oced p4, and our old cpus are fairly similar (although yours is a little faster), as I'm assuming there is a bit of room for ocing the celeron, so I am thinking you would indeed benefit from the improved FSB speed and DDR speed, not to mention clockspeed, if you overclock a little bit.

However, if you can afford it, I would say just get a cheap LGA775 p4 like I got from my friend, buy the motherboard I got and use all of your old parts, no need to buy new ram or videocard. http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E1681...
After doing this, my old system feels about twice as fast in everything I do, even non-gaming tasks.
May 11, 2006 4:44:40 AM

Not sure how much of an upgrade that would be I think the celeron is slower regadless of the fsb, but just to let youknow that your cpu can get you upwards of $50 on ebay i sold 2 recently. this can free up some money $$$.
May 11, 2006 7:24:31 AM

Quote:

I know the Celeron only has 256 cache but it has a faster bus, more clock speed and better architecture. Opinions?


Just another point to consider. If you're running the 2.4@2.6, then it should

be around 108(432) FSB, so there isn't quite the FSB difference that it would

seem. 25 Mhz. :? On the other hand, you could O/C the Celly.
May 11, 2006 2:48:52 PM

Those are all excellent points fellas, thank you for your insight. I never considered selling the p4. Now that I think about it I have a friend still running a 1.6p4, I could sell it to him. I also never thought about the fact that I am running a higher fsb fromt he overclock either. Great points.
Im against the wall though. The p4's are still so expensive. A 3ghz prescott 478 is running $200, thats outrageous considering I could get a Athlon64 3500 venice for that kinda money that would run laps around that prescott with less heat and less power. I still may buy the Cely and sell the p4 to my friend for $50. :wink:
a b à CPUs
a b U Graphics card
May 16, 2006 3:14:36 AM

There are actually 3 different P4 2.4 desktop processors, 400/533/800 bus (A, B, C). At least I don't think there's a 2.4E...
May 16, 2006 5:16:59 AM

Why get the Celeron D 350 when you can buy the Celeron D 310 and overclock it to 3.2 GHz, 800 fsb using stock voltage and factory intel hsf? It's selling on Newegg right now for <$50 with hsf, and when overclocked to that speed is equivalent to a 2.6 to 2.8 GHz hyperthreading pentium 4. A celeron D 315 should also do the trick, and has a >90% chance of clocking to 3.4 GHz on stock voltage as well. Best bang for the buck by far if your mobo supports the 200 fsb setting. Taking this route will definately give you an improvement in gaming, and more importantly, everything else.

I know crashman would agree with me. :wink:
May 16, 2006 5:20:30 AM

Quote:
There are actually 3 different P4 2.4 desktop processors, 400/533/800 bus (A, B, C). At least I don't think there's a 2.4E...


Your right, no 2.4E, but intel did re-use the 2.4A moniker later on to designate the 2.4 GHz, 533 bus, Prescott-based Pentium cpu from it's older Northwood sibliings sharing the same frequency.
May 16, 2006 5:20:41 AM

Quote:
At least I don't think there's a 2.4E...

No there isn't, although, mine 2.4A(533/1MB) probably should have been

called 2.4E, E generally meaning Prescott. Would have made more sense

:?
a b à CPUs
a b U Graphics card
May 16, 2006 8:16:41 AM

OK, that makes two 2.4A's, the Northwood at 400 bus and the Prescott at 533 bus. So that's 4 distinct 2.4 desktop P4's.
May 17, 2006 4:12:14 PM

Quote:
Why get the Celeron D 350 when you can buy the Celeron D 310 and overclock it to 3.2 GHz, 800 fsb using stock voltage and factory intel hsf? It's selling on Newegg right now for <$50 with hsf, and when overclocked to that speed is equivalent to a 2.6 to 2.8 GHz hyperthreading pentium 4. A celeron D 315 should also do the trick, and has a >90% chance of clocking to 3.4 GHz on stock voltage as well. Best bang for the buck by far if your mobo supports the 200 fsb setting. Taking this route will definately give you an improvement in gaming, and more importantly, everything else.

I know crashman would agree with me. :wink:


Joefriday, not sure I agree with your logic. Why would I fry (try) to overclock a prescott from 2.13 to 3.2 for $50 when I can get the 3.2 for $59 and possibly overclock IT??? Makes no sense to me. Even if I did get extremely lucky and reach even half that oc, it surely wouldnt live long, were talking prescott here. If you read the reviews at newegg, you would see that maybe one person out of 50 was able to get even close to 3.2.
Where do you get your information that a 3.2 cely is equivelent to a 2.6 or 2.8 hyperthreading p4?
May 17, 2006 4:35:31 PM

Just a suggestion but if you would like to upgrade with the least cost right now you could gto with like a 3200+ and an AsRock 939 dual and reuse ram and video card plus get the bonus of the pcie slot to upgrade video later.
May 17, 2006 4:40:12 PM

Don't worry about not making it. All 310's will hit 3.2 GHz, trust me on that. Posters on Newegg that could not get it to 3.2 GHz likely have boards that don't have agp/pci locks, or their board won't allow them to overclock through the bios up to the 200 fsb, and they don't know how to pin mod.

You're logic is flawed about the heat issue. Think about it. You have the 310 at 3.2 GHz, 800 fsb, and 1.32 volts, or you can have the 350 at 3.2 GHz, 533 fsb, and 1.32 volts. Why would you think the 310 would run any hotter than the cpu you are currently considering? It won't. A 310 at 3.2 GHz and stock voltage will last just as long as the Celeron D 350. :?

The Celeron D E stepping cores are good to around 3.4 GHz on stock voltage (all 310s are at least E stepping, btw, due to the time at which they were released). It doesn't matter what Celeron D you buy new today; it will clock to around 3.4 GHz on stock voltage, and that's why it doesn't make sense to buy the 350 over the 310, as the 350 only has a couple hundred MHz to go on the stock voltage before its maxed out.

As far as performance goes, I know that the 310 at 3.2 GHz is equivalent to a 2.6C-2.8C P4 because I used to own a 310 running at 3.2 GHz (installed on a super cheap ECS PM800 M2 mobo, no less), and when I owned it I ran a lot of benchmarks on it, and it consistently matched the performance levels of the P4 cpus at 2.6 and 2.8 GHz, and in a few tests, such as video/audio encoding, it was equivalent to a P4 3.0C. I'll find some Celeron D benchmarks off the net. It's easy to estimate what the performance of the Celeron D 310 at 3.2 GHz would be by looking at benchmarks of the Celeron D 350 (it will be at least that fast).

Here, look at these old benchmarks. They don't have the Celeron D 350 on there, but they do have the 340 and a P4 2.8E. you can average the performance boost % that each Celeron D gets over the previous model, and then multiply that % times 2, and add it to the 340 to get the performance of the Celeron D 350. In most cases, the performance will be about the same as the 2.8E. The Celeron D 310 at 800 fsb should be slighter better than the Celeron D 350.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron_7....
May 17, 2006 5:12:03 PM

Ok, but what I dont get is if the 310 can run a 800fsb then why cant the 350?
Call me stupid?
May 17, 2006 5:15:30 PM

Quote:
Just a suggestion but if you would like to upgrade with the least cost right now you could gto with like a 3200+ and an AsRock 939 dual and reuse ram and video card plus get the bonus of the pcie slot to upgrade video later.


Baracuda (Barracuda?)
Can you get me a link to that board? You say it has agp and pci-e? Ive heard of the Asrock with the socket 754 and 939 but not one with agp and pci-e.
I wonder why other board makers arent doing this. How many friggin people out there want to upgrade but dont want to have to buy a new video card??
Thanks
May 17, 2006 5:17:26 PM

There are a few boards with PCI-E and AGP, although on some of them I think the AGP is limited to PCI bandwidth, and thus sucks.

HKEPC did a Crossfire system with an AGP card and PCI-E.
May 17, 2006 5:29:35 PM

Quote:
Ok, but what I dont get is if the 310 can run a 800fsb then why cant the 350?
Call me stupid?


The core can't run that fast. As I stated before, 3.4 GHz is about max on stock voltage for a Celeron D. In order for a celeron D 350 to run on the 800 fsb it must be able to hit 4.8 GHz due to it 24x multiplier. That's very unlikely for most prescotts, and impossible to due on air.
May 17, 2006 7:24:49 PM

Ok I got ya joefriday :idea:
Thanks for the link Baracuda. By the way whether its the fish, the hardrive, or the car, its BARRACUDA. Just trying to help, wouldnt want you to spell your own name wrong on a public forum or anything. :roll:
Just kidding, thanks for the link, that is certainly an option Im looking at right now 8O
May 17, 2006 8:05:56 PM

Hehe not to pick on anyone but i own a 1973 Plymouth Baracuda and the badge on the fender spells it Baracuda. way off topic though.
Your wellcome from the link
May 17, 2006 8:09:10 PM

Hehe not to pick on anyone but i own a 1973 Plymouth Baracuda and the badge on the fender spells it Baracuda. way off topic though.
Your wellcome from the link
May 17, 2006 8:16:35 PM

Quote:
Just a suggestion but if you would like to upgrade with the least cost right now you could gto with like a 3200+ and an AsRock 939 dual and reuse ram and video card plus get the bonus of the pcie slot to upgrade video later.

I don't think you "read" the original post. It says" i don't want new mobo,

cpu, etc. The gist of it was a $50-$60 upgrade, not a new mobo, and

CPU. :roll:
May 17, 2006 9:18:52 PM

I mearly wanted to point out that there was an upgrade path that he hadn't concidered that was cost effective.
!