Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
I see from newegg.com that Intel has a P4-based Celeron on the market now. Anyone care to explain the limitations/differences between the older celerons and the new ones, and the P4 v. the new celeron?
P4 Celerons
- Thread starter Mercutio
- Start date
Between the P4 vs. the new celeron, it's 533FSB vs. 400FSB, 512K Cache vs. 128K, and .13 micron vs. .18 micron. In other words, it's basically an original P4 Willamette with half the cache.
The old celerons were P3s with half the cache which was slightly slower than true P3s.
Steve
The old celerons were P3s with half the cache which was slightly slower than true P3s.
Steve
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
The new Celeron is an appalling under-performer, and marks the return of this strange on-again, off-again product line to its original tradition - that of promising far, far more than it delivers.
As you can see, the 1.7GHz Celeron is rouighly equal to Duron 1000 or an old-style Celeron 1100. The significantly cheaper Duron 1100, 1200 and 1300 all out-perform it comfortably, as does Intel's own Celeron 1200.
Nor is the poor performance limited to business applications:
You will see the usual relativities, with just the odd task where the 1.7 does well - the same tasks, of course, where the old P4 did well. For that is what the new Celeron is: the old P4, shorn of some cache. The 1.7 and 1.8 Celerons are not beneficiaries of the much improved Northwood core, or the .13 micron process. They are 128k cache versions of the hot, slow Willamette core P4, but even slower because of the smaller cache. (And remember that all P4 family chips, for reasons I still don't fully understand, have tiny L1 caches, so are more dependent on their L2 cache than the Athlon/Duron chips with their huge 128k primaries, or the older P3-core Intel parts which at least have 32k.
The Celeron 1.7, in short, is a dog, a chip which is firmly in the tradition of the original cacheless Celeron 266, and the 66MHz bus-crippled Celerons in the 500 to 766MHz range. It has nothing in common with either of the two well-performed Celeron families (the 300A and its successors, and the P-III based 800 through 1200 parts).
Avoid.
As you can see, the 1.7GHz Celeron is rouighly equal to Duron 1000 or an old-style Celeron 1100. The significantly cheaper Duron 1100, 1200 and 1300 all out-perform it comfortably, as does Intel's own Celeron 1200.
Nor is the poor performance limited to business applications:
You will see the usual relativities, with just the odd task where the 1.7 does well - the same tasks, of course, where the old P4 did well. For that is what the new Celeron is: the old P4, shorn of some cache. The 1.7 and 1.8 Celerons are not beneficiaries of the much improved Northwood core, or the .13 micron process. They are 128k cache versions of the hot, slow Willamette core P4, but even slower because of the smaller cache. (And remember that all P4 family chips, for reasons I still don't fully understand, have tiny L1 caches, so are more dependent on their L2 cache than the Athlon/Duron chips with their huge 128k primaries, or the older P3-core Intel parts which at least have 32k.
The Celeron 1.7, in short, is a dog, a chip which is firmly in the tradition of the original cacheless Celeron 266, and the 66MHz bus-crippled Celerons in the 500 to 766MHz range. It has nothing in common with either of the two well-performed Celeron families (the 300A and its successors, and the P-III based 800 through 1200 parts).
Avoid.
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
The worst part about the P4-Celeron is that it cost more than the lower grade Athlon XP. There will soon be a 0.13mm version for 2GHz and up Celeron on that core, but it will still only feature 128K L2 cache. Pathetic. We must give it that it out-performs the older Tualatin-based Celeron in most games thanks to SSE2 instructions, but for Office applications and general use, it's significantly slower.
No one should buy that POJ. Currently, low-end (price-wise)= Athlon XP 2000+ and less. Not Celeron.
IMO, the most interesting Celeron right now are the 1.0GHz and 1.1GHz with Tualatin core, because they all o/c to the 133MHz FSB frequency (from their original 100MHz) and they don't cost much (the 1GHz cost 88$CDN here, which is about 55U$). Too bad there's no longer many (if any) good and cheap socket-370 motherboards on my price lists. The only ones left are i815 and they cost as much as KT333 and nForce-based Athlon boards, so it's too much. It's unfortunate that I cannot get Apollo Pro266T motherboards on the cheap.
No one should buy that POJ. Currently, low-end (price-wise)= Athlon XP 2000+ and less. Not Celeron.
IMO, the most interesting Celeron right now are the 1.0GHz and 1.1GHz with Tualatin core, because they all o/c to the 133MHz FSB frequency (from their original 100MHz) and they don't cost much (the 1GHz cost 88$CDN here, which is about 55U$). Too bad there's no longer many (if any) good and cheap socket-370 motherboards on my price lists. The only ones left are i815 and they cost as much as KT333 and nForce-based Athlon boards, so it's too much. It's unfortunate that I cannot get Apollo Pro266T motherboards on the cheap.
Adcadet
Storage Freak
The P4Ms are the newer Northwood (?) core with 512KB cache, correct? But they're still on a 400MHz bus, no?
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
P4-M are the mobile version of the desktop Northwood Pentium 4. And yes, they are still on the 400MHz FSB and feature 512K L2 cache.
Pradeep
Storage? I am Storage!
Adcadet said:
Yes, using 200MHz DDR.
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
In fact, I believe it's 100MHz quad-pumped, but all in all, it's equivalent.