Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

PR Rating the Celeron

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 22, 2004 5:49:21 PM

A while ago, I had a discussion here about Celerons performance (in casu for notebooks), and wether or not it is worth to pay the price premium for a Pentium M.

I did some quick math on Anands budget review, and tried applying PR rating to the Celerons (and Duron and P4A). Below you'll find a link to the XLS if you want to check my math, but here are my results:

CPU / Clockspeed / Estimated PR
Duron 1600 1500+
P4A 1800 1400+
Celeron 2600 1000+
Celeron 2400 900+
Celeron 2200 800+
Celeron 2000 600+

Please note this is for desktop celeries. Mobile Celeron should perform somewhat better, since they have double the L2 cache, but be warned, most budget notebooks come with desktop chips, not mobile Celerons. Also, the P4 1.8 scores are Northwood scores (on dual channel, 865PE), so don't expect a mobile celeron to be faster, since it only has half the cache of the P4A (and even the NW isnt exactly a screamer).

By comparison, you may want to know a 1.7 GHz Pentium M is generally assumed to be roughly the equivalent of a 2.4 GHz P4 and therefore ~2400+. Now tell me, did you know the difference with a Celeron 2 GHz (600+) was THAT big ?

Anyway, although to be taken with a grain of salt, maybe you'll find these numbers and the XLS usefull if you are trying to convince someone (or yourself) NOT to buy a celeron (desktop or mobile); in most cases his old P3 may well be significantly faster.

<A HREF="http://users.pandora.be/wireless/estimatedPR.xls" target="_new"> click here for the XLS </A>

[edited Pentium M]
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by bbaeyens on 01/22/04 03:11 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

More about : rating celeron

January 22, 2004 6:13:05 PM

Very good bbaeyens.
But intel makes a lot of money by fooling the consumer, telling them MHz means performence.
Dont think intel is willing to change this, because this way they would lose much money.


THG : The last 5-6 reviews have allways either had skewed results, or just somehow strangely come to a completly diferant conclusion then all of the other sites around.
January 22, 2004 6:15:42 PM

AMD should change their PR to reflect Celeron performance....

We would like have XP C10000+
Or at least, they should do this for Duron... Name it Duron C2800+

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?
Related resources
January 22, 2004 6:16:31 PM

I believe your Celeron PRs to be a <i>little</i> on the low side, but for the most part you still have a fairly accurate point. Celeron = crap. It isn't named Pentium for a reason. :wink:


"Sad is the elephant upon the ice who went to put on his wooly coat only to realize that he left it in his other trunk." - DeEvolution
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 22, 2004 6:21:51 PM

>or at least, they should do this for Duron... Name it Duron
>C2800+

Thought about that too.. maybe 2800- ? In fact, it would be more like 4400- if you do the math (not exagerating here). But then, I guess it would be a little bit confusing to explain its customers a 3200+ if roughly 2x as fast as a 4400- though :) 

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 22, 2004 6:24:58 PM

>I believe your Celeron PRs to be a little on the low side

There is nothing to believe or guess.. I just did some basic math. If I made a mistake there (conceptually or typo's), feel free to point them out (I'm only human), but considering the sheer number of benchmarks, I feel confident my numbers are at least damn close, at least up to the point where AMD's PR rating can be considered correct.

I'd love to run all the benchmarks AMD uses for its PR ratings to get an even more accurate result, but I kinda lack the necessary software, chips and time, so .. well, feel free :D 

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
January 22, 2004 6:26:42 PM

Quote:
I guess it would be a little bit confusing to explain its customers a 3200+ if roughly 2x as fast as a 4400- though :) 

In a way, it's what Intel do... They increase Celeron speed without telling anyone that they can't even beat a Duron 1600. I'm pretty there is customer out there that sees Celeron 2.6GHz systems side to side with P4 2.4GHz and they think the Celeron is better...

And they are amazed to see that the Celeron actually costs less, and they say : "Why this stupid store, try to sell me a slower PC at much higher price? I'm not dumb, I will buy the Celeron 2.6GHz!"

It's pathetic... :smile:

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?
January 22, 2004 6:32:30 PM

Quote:
But intel makes a lot of money by fooling the consumer, telling them MHz means performence.

It is funny how every AMD zealot proclaims Intel to be whispering sweet nothings into the ears of so many people. Intel doesn't place subliminal messaging in their commercials. Intel does not even advertise clock speed. They leave that job for the marketing devisions of the major OEMs.

Quote:
Dont think intel is willing to change this, because this way they would lose much money.

Just because Intel has everything to gain and nothing to lose from this misconception's existence does not in any way mean that Intel is responsible for the actual spreading of the misinformation itself.

And by the way, just what exactly has AMD's "True Performance Initiative" accomplished other than the <i>actual</i> obfuscation of their own clock speeds and the re-affirmation that MHz is all that matters?

On the one hand we have a company not saying or doing anything at all (simply because they do not have to, not because of superior ethics) and you blame them for fooling customers. On the other hand we have a company that is actually misleading customers and perpetuating a misconception and they still smell like roses to you? My my.


"Sad is the elephant upon the ice who went to put on his wooly coat only to realize that he left it in his other trunk." - DeEvolution
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 22, 2004 6:36:29 PM

> I'm pretty there is customer out there that sees Celeron
>2.6GHz systems side to side with P4 2.4GHz and they think
>the Celeron is better...

While that may be the case, I think it will not occur too often. On the other hand, I imagine a lot of people would be upgrading their old 600/900/MHz P3's with high clocked Celerons.. when in fact, in many apps, their old kit may well be faster !! (well, at least when using similary fast harddisks, memory, videocard).. any perceived increase in speed (if any) is probably due to those (and the lack of HD fragmentation).

Anyway, i admit I'm also guilty of such ignorance. WHen my brother claimed his (rather) new Dell P4 1.8 notebook was slower than his previous P3-500 portable, I didnt quite believe him at first; until I heard the P4 only runs at 1.2 GHz when in battery mode.. and seeing the above results !

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
January 22, 2004 6:40:24 PM

Quote:
at least up to the point where AMD's PR rating can be considered correct.

That in and and of itself would be a part of the problem however, in that their own PR rating never made sense at such low numbers in the first place. In that I myself have neither the equipment, the time, nor the inclination to actually prove such myself I simply leave my statement as I made it: that I <i>believe</i> that they are a <i>little</i> on the low side. And that your point is still just as valid either way.


"Sad is the elephant upon the ice who went to put on his wooly coat only to realize that he left it in his other trunk." - DeEvolution
January 22, 2004 6:57:47 PM

Quote:

AMD should change their PR to reflect Celeron performance....

We would like have XP C10000+
Or at least, they should do this for Duron... Name it Duron C2800+

Then AMD would fool the people also, and that isnt AMD`s playing game...

THG : The last 5-6 reviews have allways either had skewed results, or just somehow strangely come to a completly diferant conclusion then all of the other sites around.
January 22, 2004 7:22:01 PM

Quote:
Intel does not even advertise clock speed. They leave that job for the marketing devisions of the major OEMs.

You are right on that! Intel base their marketing on "Intel Inside". What is a shame is that Intel sells their Celeron 2.6GHz in the same price range as Athlon XP 2500+ (Barton). Celeron 2.6GHz should be about the same price as Duron 1.6GHz.

It's where Intel is "unethical". Their price reflect the fact that average customer buy MHz not performance. AMD is less biased in that way, they scale their price well in low to mid range market.

Intel marketing is WISE! They don't get their hands dirty, but at the same time they still sells low performance CPU at high price. For me, it's ripping off customers.

I wish company like HP/Dell/IBM to change this, but they will not... Because no one wants to be the first to advertise LOW MHz.

Maybe someday, companies will advertise performance. Make my dream come true!!!

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?
January 22, 2004 7:24:51 PM

My post was ironic.

I don't want AMD to do this. I want Intel to adjust Celeron price to reflect their TRUE performance.

Have you noticed that Celeron price are adjusted to Athlon XP rating, it's a shame!

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?
January 23, 2004 12:20:14 AM

And still there are so many intel lovers in the world, AMD i think is more interesting to follow, David against Goliath.
On this forum i can understand it, the reviews this users reading from Tom, they think AMD is evil, evil i tell you !


THG : The last 5-6 reviews have allways either had skewed results, or just somehow strangely come to a completly diferant conclusion then all of the other sites around.
January 23, 2004 12:38:10 AM

I would go for the mobile P4 2.8 HT. I saw one at Compusa today , Toshiba satallite movie TFT 17" size screen, and it was mouth watering experience. $1,799! :smile:

<A HREF="http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?ref=CJ..." target="_new">http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?ref=CJ...;/A> Now that is what I call a desktop killer.

-------
:evil:  <b><font color=red>K</font color=red></b>anavit's Aquamark3 rig----><A HREF="http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?run=181795940..." target="_new">http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?run=181795940...;/A>
January 23, 2004 1:12:02 AM

Amd's PR rating is very simple, because it's linear.
the perf of a processor is scaled against similar Amd products, using a fixed set of benchmarks. I would like to see a similar rating code for all cpus. Some type of industry standard would be great! I would call the P4c 3.2 an xp3500+ on the amd scale, but amd's benches may not agree. What bbaeyens has done here is put numbers to a type of industry standard scale. It may not be perfect, but it is a lot better than anything else I've seen. Good job bbaeyens.
January 23, 2004 1:12:24 AM

Re: It is funny how every AMD zealot proclaims Intel to be whispering sweet nothings into the ears of so many people. Intel doesn't place subliminal messaging in their commercials. Intel does not even advertise clock speed. They leave that job for the marketing devisions of the major OEMs.

It is funny how every Intel zealot proclaims the oposite. And lets not forget Intel pays those OEM's for a portion of the advertising thus the real reason large OEM's use intel certianly not for value.


Re: Just because Intel has everything to gain and nothing to lose from this misconception's existence does not in any way mean that Intel is responsible for the actual spreading of the misinformation itself.

Yeah I'll agree with ya there if you are fooling the public and it works why change it.
It would be nice though if Intel could agree to a set of benchmarks like the athlon xp rating system to let consumers know what they are getting performance wise.

Re: And by the way, just what exactly has AMD's "True Performance Initiative" accomplished other than the actual obfuscation of their own clock speeds and the re-affirmation that MHz is all that matters?

I think having joe schmoe question the store selling product... what does 2200+ mean? rather than joe idiot schmoe saying I'll take the 2.4 giz celron a good thing. What do you think?


Re: On the one hand we have a company not saying or doing anything at all (simply because they do not have to, not because of superior ethics) and you blame them for fooling customers. On the other hand we have a company that is actually misleading customers and perpetuating a misconception and they still smell like roses to you? My my.

Who the hell are you, Omid? where Intel can do no wrong. Look the amd rating system is anything but perfect but it's better than nothing. Does AMD really need to adjust the formula every single time Intel adds a little cache? Why should Intel be the yard stick by which a cpu's performance is measured? At least amds ratings are based on a formula. Do you really believe Intel would ever agree to a formula for an apples to apples comparison? I dare you to say yes. Why because it's intel fooling the consumer not the other way around.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
!