Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Question about Celerons

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 24, 2003 5:38:34 PM

Is there a new version of the new Celeron (based on Northwood core) with a 256K cache?

All the ones that I see have only 128K.

The fastest Celeron I could find is a 2.4Ghz Celeron with 128K cache. I read a couple different articles indicating that there is supposed to be a version with 256K of L2 cache. Does it exist?

Second question: What is the latest chipset that supports the P4-Celeron? Is it the 850e? Or does the Celeron run on an 865G?

More about : question celerons

September 24, 2003 7:58:38 PM

All currently available Celerons based on Pentium 4 cores have 128 kB cache. I haven't heard of newer versions with 256 kB yet but it's plausible that they are released around Prescott release...

Anyway, unless you really want to save just 100 $ and have a Pentium 4 core, I don't think these Celerons are worth much. What you will get is a very fast processors, but with low memory bandwidth and many cache misses. And a cache miss can take hundreds of clock cycles! So only if you're a really poor student programmer who needs SSE2 support and don't use it for cache-intensive work like games, it's a good choice.
September 24, 2003 8:24:54 PM

Yes, this will be for my mother-in-law who needs a system for email, web, word processing, etc. No games, no intensive multimedia applications, no movies, etc.

And yes, $100 is a huge sum of money, since this system needs to stay under a tight budget (less than $300 total for CPU/mobo/memory).
Related resources
September 24, 2003 8:41:15 PM

Then why not save money on a nice old AMD mobo with the holes around the socket, a nice old OEM AXP1700+, and a nice old heatsink that can mount directly to the mobo (if there are holes in the mobo for it)? It'll cost less and perform a lot better, and it should be able to survive some pretty severe moving and banging that most old AMD socket-attached heatsinks might not. Throw in some cheap PC2100 RAM and if you're lucky onboard video and sound, and presto...

<pre><A HREF="http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030905" target="_new"><font color=black>People don't understand how hard being a dark god can be. - Hastur</font color=black></A></pre><p>
September 24, 2003 8:50:17 PM

Save money on AMD system? I can get a Celeron P4 2.4Ghz for $65.

For $65, what can I get from AMD? And would it really outperform a Celeron 2.4Ghz in common desktop applications (forget about games, 3D, etc)?

I don't think I'm gonna go the AMD route (no offense to the AMD fans). I just don't have experience as a technician working with AMD, and I'm not prepared to go down that road. Thanks for the suggestion though.
September 24, 2003 9:41:44 PM

an athlon XP 1700 would probably perform better than the celeron, their performance is abysmal.


Proud owner of DOS 3.3 :smile:
September 24, 2003 10:01:03 PM

I'm sorry, can you show me the TEST where the celeron's performance--on common desktop applications--is "abysmal"???

I looked at tomshardware's own tests, and the the Celeron 2.0Ghz outperformed the Athlon XP 1800+ on Sysmark 2002 Internet Content Creation, outperformed the Athlon XP 1800+ on PC Mark 2002 CPU Bench, and even outpeformed the Athlon XP 1900+ on PC Mark 2002 Memory Bench...

And that's just the 2.0Ghz Celeron. I'm looking at the 2.4Ghz for $60.

Seems to me that the P4 Celeron outperforms that Athlon XP 1700+ (and the 1800+/1900+ in many cases) in the arena of common desktop applications...
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by sig on 09/24/03 06:04 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
September 24, 2003 10:19:58 PM

It won't make any difference since your using the computer for web surfing and email. A celeron will do fine.

Regarding the Celeron VS Athlon thing, if <A HREF="http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20021016/index.html" target="_new">these</A> are the tests you are referring to, the Celeron 2.0 beat the XP1900(a less expensive processor) in only two benchmarks.

I don't know where you can get a Celeron 2.4 for $60, pricewatch's lowest price is $71. You could get a XP 2100 or 2200 for about $10 less and have a better value.
September 24, 2003 10:32:52 PM

Yes, I'm looking at those tests.

I see that:

A) The Celeron 2.0Ghz beat the Athlon XP 1800+ in Sysmark 2002 Internet Content Creation. The Athlon XP 1900+ only scored better by a hair's length.

B) I see that the Celeron 2.0Ghz beat the Athlon XP 1800+ in PC Mark 2002 CPU Bench. And the 1900+ outscored it by just a sliver.

C) I see that the Celeron 2.0Ghz beat the Athlon XP 1900+ in PC Mark 2002 Memory Bench by a pretty large margin.

And all of the rest of the tests were things like Quake3, 3DMark, XMPEG, MP3 Lame, etc. Of course the Celeron was outscored on these, since it's not designed to be used as a workstation or power-user system.

It would be interesting to see Tomshardware do a test on the latest 2.4Ghz Celeron, using realistic tests based on common desktop applications, and compare those against a few of the Athlon XP offerings from the same price range. I wonder how much better the 2.4 would do against the 2200+ which is of a comparable price.
September 24, 2003 10:42:26 PM

While it's good that you are doing the research outside of the Message Board, remember that synthetic benchmarks don't always add up to real world performance. The only thing I can think of that the Celeron would really outperform the XP 1700+ in would be something like audio or video encoding where clock cycles are the most important feature. Other than that, unless granny is heavy into video and audio editing, the XP 1700+ is going to outperform the Celeron 2.4.
-Brett
September 24, 2003 10:49:07 PM

The Celeron is perfect for the tasks that your grandmother is going to use it for.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
P4 2.4C @ 3.0GHz 1.525V Stock HSF
Abit IS7 BIOS v1.3 GAT Auto
Corsair XMS 512MB TwinX3200C2 2-3-3-6
GeForce4 Ti4200 AGP8X 128MB
Seagate Barracuda 80GB SATA
September 24, 2003 11:17:40 PM

I would still like to know where you could get a 2.4 Celeron for only $60.

Celeron 2.0 = $64
XP1900 = $52

The celeron 2.0 gets raped by the athlon xp1900 in the gaming benchmarks. In the synthetic benchs, the xp1900 beats the celeron in most of them. Please expain to me how the Celeron 2.0 offers a better value over the xp1900.

All prices quoted off pricewatch.com
September 24, 2003 11:19:44 PM

I don't get it.

On the one hand, some people are saying that the 2.4 Celeron is great for a common desktop CPU (email, web, word processing, etc.)

And on the other hand, some people are saying that the Celeron is "abysmal" and that AMD totally 0wnz0rs the Celeron in every single way.

Which is it? Look, for $70 I can either get a 2.4Ghz Celeron or an AMD XP 2200+

Between those two, which one is better suited for a system that will be used completely for web, email, and word processing? And all I have to go on is the "synthetic" tests from tomshardware that show that at least the 2.0Ghz is very competitive with the 1700/1800/1900+ in the tests that best simulate common desktop applications.

And this leaves me wondering, how would the 2.4Ghz fare against the 2000/2100/2200+ (again, in common desktop applications).
September 24, 2003 11:32:40 PM

a pII 400 would be fine for the things you stated above, i am just saying that the celeron does perform abysmally for its price and seemingly fast clockspeed.

You say that you are open to sudgestions about amd, you seem pretty bias to me. An athlon 1700 will beat any celeron in just about any realworld benchmark. The mem bandwith benchmark doesn't mean [-peep-]. Just like all synthetic benchmarks. Just trust me here, stay away from a p4 celeron. Any athlon xp will outperform it, 3 synthetic benchmarks is not enough to warrent a purchase.

You say you want to build a budget system, bottom line is that an athlon xp performs better in REAL WORLD aplications and is cheaper, end of story.


Proud owner of DOS 3.3 :smile:
September 24, 2003 11:33:33 PM

Check it out on pricewatch.com. $71.00 free ground, out of state no taxes, for an "Intel Celeron 2.4GHz 400MHz Northwood Socket 478 Processor".

For that same price range, you're basically looking at an XP 2200+....

And in the tomshardware tests, the "Internet Content Creation", "CPU Bench, and "Memory Bench", the 2.0 Celeron was VERY competitive with the XP 1900+. Go look at the numbers yourself. Ignore the other tests, since they were designed for purposes that the Celeron was not fit for.

So it leaves me to wonder if the 2.4 would be competitive with the 2200+....my guess is probably yet, it would be very competitive in the same sort of tests that tomshardware ran on his original article.
September 24, 2003 11:36:54 PM

"i am just saying that the celeron does perform abysmally for its price and seemingly fast clockspeed."

Have you ever personally used a P4 2.4Ghz Celeron?

Or, are you relying upon some "synthetic" tests to make that judgement?

Or, are you just making it up based on theoretical reasons?
September 24, 2003 11:48:01 PM

i am relying on toms conclusion and everything i have read, stop cheating yourself, toms said it themselves that the athlon performs better, the celeron only won like 3 benchmarks.

If you would like to further discus this join the Tomshardware IRC channel and i will be sure to go into detail.

<A HREF="http://skulls.sytes.net/tom/" target="_new">toms irc</A>


Proud owner of DOS 3.3 :smile:
September 25, 2003 12:07:16 AM

Cellerons have two problems.
One, a lack of cache. This is bad as the P4 architecture Thrives on lots of cache, as the P4-EE shows.
Two, As its a budget chip, it is almost allways pared to a budget chipset and thus SLOW ram. (SDRAM or single channel PC2100 or PC2700 DDR).
And the other thing that the P4 architecture loves is memory bandwidth.

So inevitably the celleron you get is hamstrung in two very important areas... not to mention graphics.

So while the celleron does well in nice clean synthetic benchmarks, in real world applications they CHOKE.
And games love memory bandwidth.

So a mid range XP2200+ with PC2100 DDR will perform FAR better than a similarly equipped celleron in a vast number of "everyday" applications.

Hell i even remember a gaming benchmark where a XP1600+ was beating a overclocked 3Ghz celleron.

Mhz means little if you can't supply it with adequate data.

Oh and finally, all current P4 cellerons have 128k L2 cache.
Only the next generation prescott celleron will get 256k.

<b>I am not a AMD fanboy.
I am not a Via fanboy.
I am not a ATI fanboy.
I AM a performance fanboy.
And a low price fanboy. :smile:
Regards,
Mr no integrity coward.</b>
September 25, 2003 12:21:29 AM

dude why are you arguing with p3man? You asked which is better, and he told you. If you already know, then why did you even ask? He is not against you, just wants you to make the best decicion
September 25, 2003 12:31:34 AM

get your grandma the cheapest POS possible, does she really need 2.4GHz to have her old and non-nimble fingers type something in a word processor or type a web address?!?! Get her a P3 or a k6 or even a Pentium MMX!! I can emulate a grandma's tasks on my 7 yr old laptop! (don't know specs cept it has 40mb of ram and a .75GB hd).
Chances are, your grandma doesn't ahve the reaction speed to keep up with a celeron 2.4 let alone an XP 2200+. My advice: get her the cheapest POS available.


EDIT: sorry if i offended you Sig, i have no patience or respect for the elderly
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Vapor on 09/24/03 08:42 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
September 25, 2003 12:35:28 AM

agreed, something along the lines of piii 700 would be just fine.


Proud owner of DOS 3.3 :smile:
September 25, 2003 12:45:40 AM

In the beginning you said $60, I don't even know where you got that price from. The XP2400 is $74, a mere $3 more than the 2.4 Celeron. The XP2400 is a much faster processor in everything.

Quote:
Ignore the other tests, since they were designed for purposes that the Celeron was not fit for.

Exactly what is a celeron designed for? If its for MS office and web surfing, then why do they keep on raising the MHZ on it? A Celeron 1.3 could do those tasks smoothly.
September 25, 2003 1:06:08 AM

How about in the category of "General Usage Performance", using the "Office Productivity SYSMark 2002" benchmark. Check out the results on http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1635&p=7

The results show that the P4 "A" 2.0Ghz (400Mhz FSB, just like the Celeron has) beats out the 2200+.

If a P4 "A" 2.0Ghz can beat out a 2200+...

Then maybe a Celeron 2.4Ghz could beat out a 2200+...

I'm just talking about this one benchmark, of course.
September 25, 2003 1:13:21 AM

get your grandma a POS, does she REALLY need anything more than a P2??? just for teh sake of simplicity, get her the cheapest celeron/Athlon XP you can find with the cheapest mobo possible (as long as it is reliable).
September 25, 2003 1:41:13 AM

Hi!

Just wanted to point out the following:

I used to build systems for students/familys etc using some cheap mobo, (a Celeron 1.7-2.0 GHz) but allways 256DDR ram. It usually worked great, unless I combined Microsoft office XP and Norton antivirus (2002 or 2003). Dont really know why, but these two in combination makes the celeron based systems sooo slow! Maybe something to do with the 128KB cache?

Anyhow using, for instance Nod32 or Avast (freeware) antivirus progs I haven't encountered this problem: Nor in cheap AMD systems.

I'm not a Intel or Amd fan, just wanted to give you some of my experinces.

GL

Turk
September 25, 2003 2:21:03 AM

A P4 2.0 Willy also has 400fsb, look at those numbers. Facts are facts, a Athlon XP will outperform a Celeron of the same price. Unless you have a specific reason to go with a Celeron, an AMD Athlon XP is a better value.
September 25, 2003 3:23:22 AM

Like many people asking a question, they aren't really looking for an honest answer, they are really just looking for conformation that a choice that have already made is a good one. But in this case the choice is fine for the use that the computer will see...so would a Duron 1.3 or an old Celeron Tualatin 1.3 (too bad the P4 quickly over shadowed the short lived Tualatin line...they were a nice CPU). But would the new Celeron out perform my XP2400 @ 225 X 10 on an Abit NF7-S...don't think so.
September 25, 2003 3:35:18 AM

Quote:
Like many people asking a question, they aren't really looking for an honest answer, they are really just looking for conformation that a choice that have already made is a good one.


If you read his original post he is simply inquiring about the cache size and latest chipset of the Celerons. He doesn't ask whether he should take a Celeron or something else. It's all these people trying to push and pull him in a thousand directions.

SIG, go ahead and get a Celeron 2.0GHz, it's $63.50 at newegg.com with FREE SHIPPING. That's a lot of processing power for checking emails and surfing the net, and will give you a stable system.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
P4 2.4C @ 3.0GHz 1.525V Stock HSF
Abit IS7 BIOS v1.3 GAT Auto
Corsair XMS 512MB TwinX3200C2 2-3-3-6
GeForce4 Ti4200 AGP8X 128MB
Seagate Barracuda 80GB SATA
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2003 4:19:10 AM

Used PIII 700 systems go for $169 at my local shop. That's a complete system with twice the power she'll need and enough hard drive space for all the crap, er, pictures she'll download.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
September 25, 2003 8:18:23 AM

My Celeron 1.7g is very slow.
Thats with ddr ram and an ASUS P4PE.
My old pentium III 733mhz was only slightly slower.
Friends p4 1.4 gig is faster than 1.7 gig celeron. Also, 1.2gig athlon is faster again.
September 25, 2003 11:17:59 AM

Quote:
It's all these people trying to push and pull him in a thousand directions.

His original question was answered. If you read a couple posts down, he had asked a new question regarding the performace of an Athlon XP vs the Celeron after someone suggested it.
September 25, 2003 4:19:59 PM

I'd still like to see tbe benchmark scores comparing a P4-Celeron 2.4Ghz against an Athlon 2200+ in "General Desktop Usage" type benchmarks.

So far, I've only seen the 2.0Ghz Celeron versus the 1900+. In that test, the Athlon only barely scored a tiny hair better.
September 25, 2003 9:38:10 PM

why did you bother asking if you won't listen to anyone?

So far not 1 person has recomended the celeron over the athlon but you still persist waving your questionable synthetic benchmarks in the air.

Bottom line is the athlon is cheeper and faster and this is the last time i will say it.


Proud owner of DOS 3.3 :smile:
September 25, 2003 11:49:58 PM

I think the 1.7 is based on the Willamette core while the faster ones (2.0 and up) are based on the Northwood core...they should perform much better.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2003 1:08:57 AM

Captain Obvious says that is correct.
Northwood Cellerons overclock as well and their P4 Northwood brothers.
But always disadvantaged by the weak cache!

<b><font color=red>Captain Obvious To The Rescue!!!</font color=red></b>
September 26, 2003 3:22:42 AM

I have a nice old Athlon 500 Mhz I'll sell him cheap. How many times do you have too explan it to him.
September 26, 2003 2:35:40 PM

He probably already bought the Celeron and wanted some reassurance that his choice was right. If you've already bought it, you don't have to feel bad. It will serve the functions you've listed.

However, there is no way that currenct Celerons, whether based on Willys or Northwoods, offer a better value than an Athlon XP of compariable price. Athlons will perform MUCH better in many applications than the Celeron. This is not just "game" related, its faster in video encoding and photo editing. Even in the synthetic benchmarks, which doesn't automatically translate into real world performance, the Athlon XP 1900(about $10 cheaper), beats the Celeron 2.0 is most of them. If you continue to want to ignore the facts, thats ok too, more money for Intel.
September 26, 2003 4:20:04 PM

Man you need to forget about intel if you want budget price/performance. Get your grandma a new Duron 1.4ghz for like the price of a bottle of booze. Like pentium man said you don't need heaps of clock speed for word processing. A celeron chip is basically tageted at oem products to give the uneducated buyer the satisfaction that they have "intel inside" and it a whoping 2.4 ghz. They usually come shipped with onboard video and sound so that a large profit can be made off the unsuspected. These chips are crap with the price tag they hold.

If he doesn't die, he'll get help!!!
September 26, 2003 6:56:28 PM

for once i agree with you :smile:


Proud owner of DOS 3.3 :smile:
September 26, 2003 7:13:56 PM

Get the new Applebred Duron 1600 and a good mobo on the price difference. Like an older Asus. Maybe even an
nforce2 with sound and video onboard. The new durons OC very well. Plus, you can make a full fleged Athlon xp just by connecting an L2 bridge. (overclockers.ru)

<font color=blue>Give man fish and you feed him for a day. Teach man to fish and he spend his lifetime drinking beer in boat.
--Chinese Proverb</font color=blue>
September 26, 2003 8:07:56 PM

Quote:
for once i agree with you

Wow. I know. I did too. What's the world coming to when RRAMJET actually not only makes sense, but is helpful too? :o 

;)  Not that I mind. 'Tis a <i>good</i> thing.

<pre><A HREF="http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030905" target="_new"><font color=black>People don't understand how hard being a dark god can be. - Hastur</font color=black></A></pre><p>
September 26, 2003 8:14:05 PM

On the serious side though, sig, just get whatever you feel comfortable working with. Get a nice retail Celeron 2.4GHz so that it comes with a heat sink and everything. Heck, save money and get a 2.0GHz Celeron. It's all good. I can run Win98SE and Word 97 on my 486DX 50MHz laptop just fine and it surfs the net well too. (It's handy to have on vacations.) So just go with whatever is affordable in your opinion and whatever you feel comfortable working on, if you have to assemble it. You could even just go with a pre-built system. No fuss, no muss. :)  Don't worry. Be happy.

<pre><A HREF="http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030905" target="_new"><font color=black>People don't understand how hard being a dark god can be. - Hastur</font color=black></A></pre><p>
!