Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

CELERON DEATH MACHINE!!!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 3, 2001 4:35:42 PM

LOL! for the same amt of $ you pay for a Duron you can get a .13micron "tulatin core" Celeron which overclocks to 1.5GHz+ has thermal protection(overclockers dream), has its core protected and gives more bang for your buck! aaaahahahahahahahaha!!!

ps, the duron needs MMX, 3dnow, 3dnow+, SSE just to keep up! LOL!

"<b>AMD/VIA!</b>...you are <i>still</i> the weakest link, good bye!"

More about : celeron death machine

October 3, 2001 4:48:58 PM

You're an idiot. Give me a link and are tyeh specs exactly s=teh same (vid card etc.) Yes, teh Duron does need all that to keep up, a 800MHz Duron that is vs. a 1.2 Ghz Celeron!

U got a problem?! Then dial 1800-328-7448!
October 3, 2001 4:57:34 PM

I've always thought you were a grade A [-peep-], but

Quote:
the duron needs MMX, 3dnow, 3dnow+, SSE just to keep up

Just shows that you really havnt got a fúcking clue what you are talkinng about "NEEDS"????? you prick, these are FEATURES u know like INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CPU, you braindead tosser


Next time you wave - use all your fingers
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
October 3, 2001 5:11:55 PM

except for the same money you get a 1.4G Athlon, which wipes the floor with all of those, puts up a good presentation against a P4 2G in gaming and is still a respectable business cpu.

Who in their right mind is going to buy a Celeron I ask you????

No thermal protection? Who the heck cares - apart from you?

-* This Space For Rent *-
email for application details
October 3, 2001 5:40:18 PM

$Duron = $celeron??????

where did you hear that??? still Duron is way too cheaper than Celeron. and it still offeres the best performance/$ ratio.

<font color=red>No system is fool-proof. Fools are Ingenious!</font color=red>
October 3, 2001 5:45:22 PM

Yet that magical "tualitin" core cant even beat the duron when it is a generation ahead in process technology and has 100mhz on the duron to boot? LOL. Run along meltdown.

~Matisaro~
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
~Tbird1.3@1.5~
October 3, 2001 6:11:15 PM

Calm down. Sounds like you forgot to take your Ritalin today.

First, the Duron is $25 less expensive (list price). Second, the .18 micron 1.1ghz Duron beat the .13 micron 1.2ghz Celeron in most benchmarks, at a 100mhz deficit. Quite incredible (or, the Celeron is still a dog).

What will happen when the AMD chips move to the .13 micron process? How will Intel be able to justify the high prices for their products?

How much is the 1.2ghz Tualatin P3? How much is the 1.2ghz Athlon? Nuff said.....

<font color=blue>This is a Forum, not a playground. Treat it with Respect.</font color=blue>
October 3, 2001 8:07:14 PM

LOL! the celeron has heat protection, core protection, runs cooler, easily overclocks to 1.5Ghz+ and fits in socket370 boards, represents Intels .13micron tech, which *MD wishes it had.

The 1.2GHz Intel Celeron is priced at $103 in 1,000-unit quantities.

the Duron 1.1Ghz is a fragile POS, exposed fragile core, overclocks to 1250Mhz(if it didn't fry already) needs extraordinary cooling.

The 1.1GHz *MD Duron processor is priced at $103 in 1,000-unit quantities.

Ps, this thread is about the duron vs Celeron.

EDIT: Popehoe, put your panties back on!

"<b>AMD/VIA!</b>...you are <i>still</i> the weakest link, good bye!"<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by AMDMELTDOWN on 10/03/01 04:44 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
October 3, 2001 8:22:52 PM

Once again MELTEDDICK your a lying paid INTEL SHILL

u cant use the new celeron in a BX board or any current motherboards..


http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q4/011003/duel-12.htm...

"Because of the Tualatin core, the Celeron 1200 needs a special Socket 370 motherboard equipped with the Intel 810 or 815 EPT chipset (B2 stepping). The system won't start on just any conventional motherboard with Socket 370."

"A price comparison of the two processors looks like this: The AMD Duron 1100 has a sensationally low retail price of $102 - you can't get more performance for so little money. The price for the Intel is 23% higher: you have to fork out $125 for the Celeron 1200. If a user is searching for an inexpensive upgrade solution, only the AMD Duron 1100 will do - the Intel Celeron 1200 simply isn't a contender. ""
October 3, 2001 8:36:47 PM

AMDMeltdown, I respect your unusual perspective on things, but however, you tend to only look at the pros of Intel processors and the Cons of AMD processors. That is extremely biased, however, you have in this instance stated an important fact. The Celeron did overclock extremely well, however, the Duron could've been much better with a 266MHz bus. I'd rather have a 1.2GHz Duron (266MHz Bus) with PC2100 DDR RAM than a 1.25GHz Duron (200MHz Bus) with PC1600 DDR RAM. PC1600 is essentially PC100 with double the bandwidth but equal latency which is not a fair comparison to the Celeron's PC133 in business apps (which don't require much bandwidth but are sensitive to latency). Also I still believe overclocking an AMD system is far safer/more stable than an Intel system because you're not overclocking the FSB/PCI/AGP beyond designed specs.

A 1.5GHz Celeron is not as stable as a potential 1.6GHz Celeron because the PCI/AGP speed is way beyond spec. If they had gotten it to 1.6GHz/133MHz then I would be impressed.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
October 3, 2001 8:46:21 PM

DAMN, AMD puppies bark like lil' babies!

"<b>AMD/VIA!</b>...you are <i>still</i> the weakest link, good bye!"<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by AMDMELTDOWN on 10/05/01 10:30 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
October 3, 2001 8:59:01 PM

fact:

The new celeron is nothing more than a pentium 3 100 fsb processor using the .13 micron process at 1.2 gig.

Fact: The duron clock for clock wipes the floor with it even at 100 mhz deficit still wins a clear ( albiet small victory

Fact: The Duron can use DDR Ram ( which was not used in this test to help keep things close) DDR cost less than $2.00 more than SDRAM when buying quality ram of each ( source www.crucial.com). The celeron is strictly limited to SDRAM.

Fact: the Duron can be used in any socket a board. The celeron needs a completly new board and is not compatable with bx or I815 boards ( not counting the new revision).

Fact: The celeron does have thermal protection, and even being an AMD fan one has to give credit were credit is due, but what the hell I seldom wear a seatbelt either.

Fact: The celeron does appear to overclock better at the current steppings of each chip. This fact and this fact alone would make it a viable competitor if not for the fact that it is still multiplier locked and 99.95% of all people would need to upgrade there motherboard to even use this chip. However, for someone that does not already currently own such a motherboard there money would be better spent elsewhere.

In all actuallity, I actually like the chip, unfortunatly Intel choose once again to force another motherboard upgrade on its users.And in this case I see no reason why it was at all neccesary. Personally I would have bought one if it would have went in my current I815E pro....such a shame and such a waste.

How this all equates to a win for the celeron is beyond me, especially since you can get a 1.4 gig t-bird that would stomp on it.

Video editing?? Ha, I don't even own a camera!
October 3, 2001 9:02:23 PM

I think you need to reread the review. The Duron with its .18 micon size still beat the crap out of the .13 micron Celeron, even with a 100mhz handicap.

As for pricing, today the 1ghz Duron is about $70, the 1ghz Celeron $79. Expect the price difference on the high end of the product line to be similar.

When AMD brings out the .13 micron CPU's (it will be soon), the Celeron will be a death machine. Its own. You see, Intel cannot take advantage clocking this Celeron too fast, or it will compete with the P4. On top of that, the Duron owns the Celeron in performance, as shown in the review.

Read it again, this time with your eyes open.

<font color=blue>This is a Forum, not a playground. Treat it with Respect.</font color=blue>
a b à CPUs
October 3, 2001 10:09:12 PM

It's a bus speed issue-the PIII with the exact same core stops the duron and matches the T-Bird in performance, simply by having the 133MHz FSB. Kind of makes you wounder what a Celeron 1.2 overclocked to 1.6GHz/133FSB would do? How about this, it would match a 1600MHz T-Bird if one existed (we know this from previous testing on the Tualatin core with 256k cache at 133FSB), or a 1533MHz Athon XP (XP 1800 is it?). Finally the Celeron is back as a preferable choice for overclockers.

Back to you Tom...
October 3, 2001 10:27:58 PM

The thing is: Will it be able to get that high? I mean a 33% is huge. What is the default voltage of the 1.2GHz Celeron? Obviously you're going to need maximum voltage and a really good HSF to get to 1.6GHz. Also, you'll probably need a really good 400W+ PSU. A Celeron would indeed be amazing if it could get to 1.6GHz on a 133MHz bus.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
October 3, 2001 10:35:07 PM

To be honest, 33% is not that much. I am sure most of the older folks in this forum have all owned at least one Celeron 300A that they overclocked to 450MHz. This was a simple move from a 66.6MHz bus to a 100MHz bus. That is a 50% overclock and nearly 99.9% of these processors performed the overclock without any problem. In fact many were taken much higher.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
a b à CPUs
October 3, 2001 11:19:21 PM

Test show the average Tualatin goes to around 1.7GHz if pushed hard enough. I'm guessing maybe a .1v increase to get it 100% stable at 1600, based on information from multiple sources.

Back to you Tom...
October 4, 2001 1:15:29 AM

yup... the new celleron HAS potential... but its also got a number of glaring disadvantages

1. more costly, specially as you need a new mobo/socket for it to work.
2. still got the tiny L1 cache :( 
3. not designed for DDR support
4. impossible to unlock multipliers (unless you ask rayston to get you a factory unlocked sample ;)  )



Religious wars are 2 groups of people fighting over who has the best imaginary friend.
October 4, 2001 1:17:50 AM

Lol. What exactly does Raystonn do anyway?

U got a problem?! Then dial 1800-328-7448!
October 4, 2001 1:35:38 AM

works for intel? *grins*
maybe not...
but u have to remember where he's comming from...
if i got PC1033 RDRAM and an unlocked northwood sample i too may be slight biased. :)  not that theres anything worng with that :) 

Religious wars are 2 groups of people fighting over who has the best imaginary friend.
October 4, 2001 2:53:42 AM

I wonder why people even bother answering his post. Image a teenager giggling in front of the screen because once more he succeeded in stiring up people. Yes his posts are pretty annoying sometimes, but that's just what's intended. 90% nonsense plus 10% logic and you guys try to 'correct' him? Stop wasting time on him.
October 4, 2001 3:34:11 AM

Ohh just screw it already. Who cares if Duron can't beat Celeron, who cares if Celeron can't beat Duron.


GamerzCitadel.com
October 4, 2001 3:41:05 AM

Quote:
It's a bus speed issue-the PIII with the exact same core stops the duron and matches the T-Bird in performance, simply by having the 133MHz FSB.

How can it be a bus speed issue when the celeron and duron both run at 100 FSB? The duron could just as well be run at 133 fsb as well ( although you would have to turn down the multiplier a bit...but at least you can do that with the duron....not the celeron or p3 for that matter).

Your speculations about the athlon xp 1800 are a bit premature aren't they or do you have any links to back this claim up as well? Don't you at least wonder why Tom choose the motherboard he did and used Sdram as well? we already know full well that for even less money a user could use a sis 735 chipset board with DDR and pull ahead of the celeron even further. It really looks more to me that the article was more slanted towards the user interested in a processor upgrade for his pre-existing system. The funny thing is how many people already own the motherboard it would take to run this processor? And for the user interested in building a new system is it cost effective to build a systme around this processor? The simple answer is no, it is not.

Quote:
It's a bus speed issue-the PIII with the exact same core stops the duron and matches the T-Bird in performance, simply by having the 133MHz FSB.

Not if you have to buy a new board to do it. Not if you are stuck with Sdram. Not if you have components that do not that high of a bus speed (geforce3).

Video editing?? Ha, I don't even own a camera!
October 4, 2001 3:51:55 AM

eh?
i was talking about raystonn, whom i respect, even though i often dont agree with his opinions.

andmeltdown... well he is quite sad, but he keeps us amused.



Religious wars are 2 groups of people fighting over who has the best imaginary friend.
a b à CPUs
October 4, 2001 4:29:01 AM

The Duron is used with a 133MHz memory bus, not available with the Celeron. The only asychronous clock you get with the Intel chipset is 133/100, handy for overclocking past 133MHz for some processors, and handy for using old PC100, but not practical for anything else. It takes a 133FSB to get the memory up to speed with any PIII derivative.

Back to you Tom...
a b à CPUs
October 4, 2001 4:42:23 AM

1. $103, sounds cheap to me.
2. 256k cache is not tiny, it's the same as the PIII and T-Bird.
3. No need for DDR, it matches most DDR systems in performance, at the 133MHz FSB, see Toms test of the PIII 256k Tuallatin
4. No need to unlock multipliers, that's why the Celeron is better than the same speed PIII, with its 100MHz FSB it can be overclocked by FSB only.

Back to you Tom...
October 4, 2001 6:07:21 AM

well i was refering to the all important L1 cache which is arguably more important than L2.

as for $103.. did u include the new mobo price? (or mobo mod)

and available multipliers are nice, if one doesnt want to stress their PCI devices

Religious wars are 2 groups of people fighting over who has the best imaginary friend.
a b à CPUs
October 4, 2001 6:15:20 AM

Isn't L1 only used for branch mispredictions? And doesn't AMD NEED more L1 because it HAS a higher rate of them?

Back to you Tom...
October 4, 2001 7:19:08 AM

Just a note and question about pricing and mobo.

I have MSI k7t pro 2-a mobo.
Went yesterday to MSI web site and downloaded driver/bios
update software. It works in Windows, no need to make
boot floppy, d/l bios & flash util etc.
Updated to bios v3.0, rebooted.
Now, I can just plug in new Palo (or Duron 1G+) and run it.

My note would be that cost of update to new Duron is just
the price of it plus s/h.
My question would be can it be done w/Cely the same way
(bios update)?




Breaking news: Intel hit by a SledgeHammer! AMD to blame! More in just a moment...
a b à CPUs
October 4, 2001 7:33:59 AM

I have a CUSL2. It would be just as cheap for me. Most people in here doing major overhauls are using some sort of older Intel chipset board., BX and LX seem to be the most common to upgrade from.

Back to you Tom...
a b à CPUs
October 4, 2001 7:39:14 AM

I don't know what affect it would have to increase L1, since L2 is used for caching program instructions. But it won't matter when I upgrade, because I'm nowhere near ready to upgrade yet. When I do, this Celly will be old technology.

Back to you Tom...
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 4, 2001 7:41:16 AM

aY MEN! Someone finaly realizes that INTEL is the best! Did you read the review on the P3T?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 4, 2001 7:45:52 AM

who cares! lost of people do! sure an AMD 1.4 can mop the floor with a p4 in gaming, but did you know that Intel designed the p4 for better things than gaming, like buisness and personal home use for faster application load time and performance, and the fact that intel deisigned the p4 for use with new HIGHER LEVER operating systems like XP, oh, sorry an AMD processor with XP will run at a "REDUCED SPEED" because it does not have the "BANDWIDTH" all important like your internet connection whitch relys on "BANDWIDTH" to perform stuff like multi user log ons or how about true multi tasking, i would like to see an amd processor that can handell that in high level operating systems!
October 4, 2001 10:05:25 AM

I said, the Athlon wipes the floor with the P4 2G at gaming and still puts in a good performance for business applications. Please note that business applications does NOT mean servers since I would not use either CPU in a business server. Do you have any links that suggest AMD suffer performance issues with XP by the way? I'd be interested to see.

Now bear in mind the difference in performance of the two processors in (this) discussion - AMD 1.4G Athlon vs Intel P4 2G. One of these CPUs currently costs $537 and one of them costs $98. Granted you must spend another $7 for a passable cooler for your new Athlon (say a Volcano 2) so I'll give you the AMD solution for $105. Now - who ends up looking bad in this comparison?

Okay - the top end Athlon 4/XP 1800 may look to retail at $260. That's still ~ 50% cost of P4 2G and a faster clockspeed and better instruction set and optimisation than the the Athlon 1.4G - I would extrapolate to say that will give better performance than the Athlon 1.4, therefore much closer results in business apps to the P4 and still only 50% of the cost....

-* This Space For Rent *-
email for application details<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by peteb on 10/05/01 02:37 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
October 4, 2001 10:16:34 AM

i dont know the actual use of the L1 cache, but it is VITALLY important for the efficency.

i remeber back last year to my cellery 500 i had.
i did 3 tests
1. sandra with both cache's enabled
2. sandra with L2 disabled
3. sandra with L1 disabled

when i disabled L2 i saw about a 15-20% performance drop if my memory serves me,
however, when i disabled L1, even with l2 enabled, my computer went SOOOO ABYSMALY SLOW i gave up on it... like it took half an hour to get to the windows blue clouds bootup screen.



Religious wars are 2 groups of people fighting over who has the best imaginary friend.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 4, 2001 12:36:56 PM

All this bickering. Can't we all just agree to disagree. Boy I miss the days of the 486.

-AMD is like a slow race car...they tape up the front grill to go fast with the risk of overheating.
a b à CPUs
October 4, 2001 4:20:31 PM

Yes, well if you don't handle the branch mispredictions in L1 you have to do it later or the program won't work right. That could slow things down tremendously. But once you have enough L1 to handle that, do you need more L1?

Back to you Tom...
October 4, 2001 5:47:04 PM

You have a bit of a twisted viewpoint...

The T-bird usually cleans up on the P4 where it really counts. I posted sufficient linkage on that subject <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&..." target="_new">here</A>. Please ignore the derisive comments; they were aimed specifically at an annoying troll who didn't (still doesn't?) have the good sense to use a decent French->English translator.

Kelledin

"/join #hackerz. See the Web. DoS interesting people."
October 4, 2001 6:00:07 PM

What a troll - is this you meltdown? Fugger? spouting trollish mud within an hour of creating your new users.

Nice <b><font color=green>Lizards</b></font color=green> <b>crunch</b> Trolls cookies....... :smile: Yummy!! :smile:
October 4, 2001 6:21:56 PM

AMDMELTDOWN i'm only going to say this one time "Can You Please Shut The Hell Up"

Nice Nvidia and ATi users get a Cookie.... :smile: Yummy :smile:
October 4, 2001 8:59:03 PM

Quote:
The Duron is used with a 133MHz memory bus, not available with the Celeron. The only asychronous clock you get with the Intel chipset is 133/100, handy for overclocking past 133MHz for some processors, and handy for using old PC100, but not practical for anything else.



Ah ha I see I misunderstood your earlier statement. So tell me just exactly why is that? Sounds like a platform issue to me, another case of Intel handicapping there budget processors.


Quote:
It takes a 133FSB to get the memory up to speed with any PIII derivative.

Well no not actually but I think I know what you meant to say. The above statement would hold true with the old celly's at 66 mhz but for the new one at 100 it does not ( remember there are still 100 mhz fsb p3's.)


Video editing?? Ha, I don't even own a camera!
October 4, 2001 9:01:57 PM

Now answer me honestly, would you recomend this processor to anyone other than someone that already had a board to support it?

and of equal interest...are you aware of anyway to make this processor run on an older I815? If so tell me and I will buy one today! ( you see I am not that biosed towards AMD afterall)

Video editing?? Ha, I don't even own a camera!
a b à CPUs
October 4, 2001 9:03:22 PM

Yesm there are still 100MHz PIII's, their performance when compared to the 133FSB version is pathetic. The PIII 800EB can outperform the PIII 850E. The PIII 733EB can outperform the PIII 750. The PIII 933EB can outperform the hard to find 1000E.

Back to you Tom...
a b à CPUs
October 4, 2001 9:10:47 PM

I would only recommend this processor to someone with the extra $50 to spend on the motherboard (over the cost of an SiS 735 motherboard for the T-Bird). If it fit a standard board I would recommend it to everyone.

Back to you Tom...
October 4, 2001 10:22:55 PM

dude, the answer is clear! if choosing between two equally configured low-end systems: one Duron 1.1GHz and one Celeron 1.2GHz that are priced about the same, you'd be a moron to go for the duron.

with the celeron you get a nice bonus :-)

"<b>AMD/VIA!</b>...you are <i>still</i> the weakest link, good bye!"
October 4, 2001 11:18:26 PM

oh yes... but how much is enough?
i believe its the law of diminishing returns.
what i want is the most of everything!

Religious wars are 2 groups of people fighting over who has the best imaginary friend.
October 4, 2001 11:22:07 PM

You can call him amdmeltdoofus/amdmeltdumbass, the term I coined.

~Matisaro~
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
~Tbird1.3@1.5~
October 4, 2001 11:26:43 PM

Crash obviously intel did something to the p3 core buddy, the duron 1100 is hadilly beating it(at a 100mhz disadvantage). If you ran both chips at 133 fsb I would imagine the results would be the same clock for clock.(even though to hit 133 the celly would be running at 1500-1600, which makes comparision difficult. However, if the duron can beat it at 100 fsb with 100mhz handicapp, how can you think it would beat the athlon xp while equally clocked?

AND, if the celly has no need for ddr and it matches ddr systems in performance, how come the duron with sdram kicked the crap out of it!(at a 100mhz disadvantage even).

I would NOT put it past intel to release only tualitin cores which they have tested NOT to be able to handle the full 1600mhz, to ensure their p4 is not ass raped by their celly. That is a good explination as to why toms celly would not hit 133 fsb.

~Matisaro~
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
~Tbird1.3@1.5~
October 4, 2001 11:30:14 PM

Quote:
who cares! lost of people do! sure an AMD 1.4 can mop the floor with a p4 in gaming, but did you know that Intel designed the p4 for better things than gaming, like buisness and personal home use for faster application load time and performance, and the fact that intel deisigned the p4 for use with new HIGHER LEVER operating systems like XP, oh, sorry an AMD processor with XP will run at a "REDUCED SPEED" because it does not have the "BANDWIDTH" all important like your internet connection whitch relys on "BANDWIDTH" to perform stuff like multi user log ons or how about true multi tasking, i would like to see an amd processor that can handell that in high level operating systems!


Dude nothing you said gives you any air of intelligence, in fact the sheer stupidity of your comments brands you either a moron or a troll. AMD chips out perform the p4 in buisness apps, handily. That is the intel troll battle cry! "so what if you can open word 40% faster, .03 seconds is soooo much better than .5 seconds."

funkyboi, please read and learn more about processors before making such ignorant comments.

~Matisaro~
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
~Tbird1.3@1.5~
October 4, 2001 11:33:56 PM

The point is meltdown, the would NOT be priced the same, you save 20 bucks on the chip and with sis 7535 mobo you saved 50 on the board, thats 70, and you would have ddr ram, so the duron would kick the crap out of the celly for 90 bucks less, again intel has too little too late.

Duron is king of budget systems.

(I personally would run a 1.2ghz tbird instead of an 1100 duron and really have some nice power for cheap.)

~Matisaro~
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
~Tbird1.3@1.5~
!