Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Athlon XP 2200+ or Celeron 2.66GHZ???

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 29, 2007 9:36:03 PM

I know these are SUPER old. I came across a free computer box. I now have 2 old computers. I can choose to make one good, and throw the old one out. I need this for music editing, but really dont need it for anything very advanced. Which of the 2 processors will be fastest? The 2200 is 1.8GHZ, celeron is 2.66, but I know celerons are super crappy. Both computer are HP, so I can't just overclock the Celeron, unless you can give me a link on how to overclock on HP boards.

Thanks for the help
August 29, 2007 9:59:33 PM

Amd Athlon XP 2200+ is a lot better. Celeron just suck.
August 29, 2007 10:03:54 PM

I was surprised that the athlon xp 2500 and 2200 are still pretty good for a lor of things, my nephew games on a xp2500, and i just fixed a 2200 for a friend, still some umph in those xp's. celerons always have and always will suck period.
Related resources
August 29, 2007 10:29:57 PM

You're both wrong. The Athlon 64 would be faster than the OP's Celeron D 2.66 but the Athlon XP isn't.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2004.html

There is not a direct CPU comparison so compare the Athlon XP 2400+ and the Celeron D 2.8 on the charts.
August 29, 2007 10:55:56 PM

On average, going through the benchmarks, it would seem that the two would be equal, though with the DDR factored into the equation, in windows in general I always found the Athlon XP to be superior to the celerons.

Alright, this is just my opinion, but Ive built a number of 2nd-hand systems from spare parts and I'd go with an Athlon XP any day - actually, Im still running an Athlon xp 2200+ on my bedroom PC and find it more than adequate.
August 29, 2007 10:56:33 PM

thats not a fair comparison as the Celeron D has a different core, does it not? I know I had a Athlon XP 2500+ and a Celeron 2.5 and the athlon smoked the piss out of the Celeron, and I am talking leaps and bounds faster. But what they hey, if you have the time, build one, bench it, then swap mobos, and bench the other. I am fairly much willing to bet that for something such as music editing the Athlon will most likely be faster as it will benefit from the higher end features of the chip.
August 29, 2007 11:16:29 PM

Thank you.

People are too quick to put down AMD just because of the current state of affairs. When the Athlon xp was out, an Athlon 2000+ xp would totally vapourize a Pentium 2Ghz, never mind a Celeron.

Given today's apps, the Athlon XP may seem behind the the times, but you can still run XP on it, do normal stuff like the net, and even some of the older games like Medal of Honour (Half-Life 2 with a dedicated graphics card).

We're not talking about the 486 here, we're talking about the predecessor to the Athlon 64, which despite the C2D, is still a decent performer.

SERIOUSLY, unless you have a SERIOUS Intel fetish, go with the Athlon XP, you'll be glad you did.

P.S. That is not a flame on the current Intel processors, before anyone starts.
August 29, 2007 11:18:02 PM

liquidx said:
thats not a fair comparison as the Celeron D has a different core, does it not? I know I had a Athlon XP 2500+ and a Celeron 2.5 and the athlon smoked the piss out of the Celeron, and I am talking leaps and bounds faster. But what they hey, if you have the time, build one, bench it, then swap mobos, and bench the other. I am fairly much willing to bet that for something such as music editing the Athlon will most likely be faster as it will benefit from the higher end features of the chip.


It IS a fair comparison; the OP said his Celeron was a 2.66, which means it can ONLY be a Celeron D.

I agree with you that the Athlon XP would be better than the crappy old Celerons with 128k (you've gotta be kidding me!) cache. The 2.5 you spoke of was one of those POS's.
August 29, 2007 11:29:20 PM

mcneillm said:
an Athlon 2000+ xp would totally vapourize a Pentium 2Ghz


The 2000+ is generally a little faster but it does not 'vapourize' a P4 2.0.

Try google. You'll find many comparisons between the two.
August 29, 2007 11:36:25 PM

I don't know about google comparisons, but I remember in PC Pro and other publications at the time, and overall the Athlon XP had a considerable lead over the Pentium.

that said, they weren't going by synthetic benchmarks, which would probably increase its lead more, but by a mixture of applications and games benchmarks.

I'm not saying the Pentium at the time was useless, but the Athlon XP WAS fast, and still is, for the ordinary home user, i.e., not one of us, the enthusiast market.
August 30, 2007 12:01:12 AM

I had no experience with the Celeron, however I just ran the computer with the 2200+ and it was quite speedy. I think I'll just stick with it. What should I do with a 2.66GHZ celeron processor laying about?

Ah, just as a side story:

The HP computer was a cheapo. When I was messing about inside i found that the processor fan had a housing that led it directly to the case fan. Pretty good for cooling right? Wrong, they had put the case fan connection in backwards so it was blowing hot air right back at the processor!!! DOH! I guess when you buy cheap you get cheap!
August 30, 2007 3:44:40 AM

The Celeron D 330 (2.66GHz) is a much better CPU for this kind of work than the XP 2200+. Netburst thrives on media encoding/transcoding work, and a fast SSE2 and SSE3 (nieither of which the XP has) will come in handy with most music programs.


As to your observations about the CPU/Chassis fan, I've seen it both ways. Dell fans always suck air out of the box, but I've seen plently of old HP Pavilion minitowers with ducted fans blowing inward. My old HP Pavilion with a 900MHz Slot-A Tbird has a setup like this, where the case fans actually pushes air in.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 22, 2009 1:02:56 PM

have anyone tried duron 1.6ghz on steams left 4 dead? youll be be surprised even with a memory of 786mb itll run decently in min settings, unlike a celeron d 2.66 lga, man its so slow in this game.
i totally agree with mcneillm
!