Old Celeron models better than new ones?

[odedg]

Hi guys,
I am about get a new dedicated server.
I was about to get one from valueserver.de (Celeron 2.8 mhz).
I did a mistake and signed up with iweb8.com. I wanted to cancel my order, but that sales guy doesnt let me go.
After telling him I get a celeron 2.8mhz for a cheaper price, than the celeron 1.6 they offer he referred me to
this article

It it true? Could it be that the performance of the 2.8 celeron on valueserver.de is much slower than the 1.6
offered by iweb8?

Thanks for the help guys.

Oded

 

[cpburns]

he's right. that 1.6GHz Celeron based on Conroe microarchitecture is indeed faster than the old 2.8GHz piece of cr4p you're wanting. to put it in perspective:

from around 1999 to 2001, intel processors did roughly the same amount of work per clock cycle that amd processors did.

in 2000, intel released the pentium 4. it did less work per clock cycle than a pentium 3, but they could clock it higher. a 1GHz pentium 3 was as fast as a 1.5GHz pentium 4.

in 2001, amd released the athlon xp. it did more work per clock cycle than the pentium 3 and 4.

2003, amd released the athlon 64. it did way more work per clock cycle than the pentium 4.... somewhere around 2.6GHz amd = 3.7GHz intel.

2006, intel released core2 processor. it has a new architecture again, and is about 25% more efficient than amd's processors, and somewhere around 40-60% more efficient than intel's previous pentium 4 chips.

long story short, that 2.8GHz chip, which is based on the pentium 4, will barely come close to equaling that 1.6GHz chip which is based on the core2. there are massive differences in the way each processor works, the way it's designed. so the newer 1.6GHz chip does a lot more work per clock cycle than the 2.8GHz older chip.

listen to the salesman and stick with the 1.6GHz.

 

[mitch074]

I would second cpburns here - this 1.6 GHz Celeron blows the 2.8 model out of the water, especially here: the Netburst architecture SUCKS at anything that is multitasking and granular computing.
Don't feel jilted: the only case where the 2.8GHz would have been even slightly better than the 1.6GHz would have been if your server was doing video encoding and streaming. If you merely want to host a LAMP server, the 1.6GHz will be around 30-40% faster than the 2.8 GHz.

 

[odedg]

Cheers guys, you've helped a lot.

Thanks