View Full Version : I don't want any AMD fans posting on this! Please.....
Shadow рс
03-20-01, 04:06 AM
what I do wanna ask.....for all the Intel fans, does anyone see a difference in an Intel P III 700 and a Celeron 700? I mean can you See a difference or just benchmark one?
Also.....If I had an Intel P III 933 and a Celeron OC'd to about the same speed.....is there a difference that way?
Customer recently asked me (and my knowledge is old school) "Isn't Celeron better for gaming?" to which I replied "not any longer."
I know 256 cache was better for gaming as the cache would refresh faster and therefore cause games to run faster, and P III with 512 could actually slow down gaming because of this, but how about now-a-days?
Intel made some dramatic improvement where 256 is better or is Cele still better for gamers?
This is comparative to Cele and P III....not AMD so this is NOT to start a debate......please don't give AMD opinions here.
Thanks folks.
Well this is just my opinion. But with the PIII's running half the cache at full cpu speed with the extra written instructions in it. I believe that the PIII's are faster. I have dealt with a number of celerons and I have yet to find one clock for clock that runs as fast as a PIII. Infact a buddy of mine had a celery 333mhz and I had a PII 300. My system was always faster, of course I always did have a better video card. But the old celerons seem to have problems in my opinion on multitasking. They seem to have major slow downs when you do. My PIII doesnt miss a beat.
Although The last celeron I have dealt with was a 533. And I wasnt to impressed. I did not have a chance to get in and tweak like I do on my system but it just didnt seem to handle being able to run multiple programs at once very good.
Like I said this is just my opinion! I'm not looking to get flamed! Feel free to correct me if i'm wrong about anything.
Sohryu Asuka Langley
03-20-01, 06:02 AM
i have a celly 700 and the difference between this and a p3 333 that i used to have is like nil.... compared to my friends 650 p3 this celly has no chance.. evhen when i have better hardware....
and games suck
Shadow рс
03-20-01, 06:55 AM
bdf24 (Mar 20, 2001 05:44 a.m.):
Well this is just my opinion. But with the PIII's running half the cache at full cpu speed with the extra written instructions in it. I believe that the PIII's are faster. I have dealt with a number of celerons and I have yet to find one clock for clock that runs as fast as a PIII. Infact a buddy of mine had a celery 333mhz and I had a PII 300. My system was always faster, of course I always did have a better video card. But the old celerons seem to have problems in my opinion on multitasking. They seem to have major slow downs when you do. My PIII doesnt miss a beat.
Although The last celeron I have dealt with was a 533. And I wasnt to impressed. I did not have a chance to get in and tweak like I do on my system but it just didnt seem to handle being able to run multiple programs at once very good.
Like I said this is just my opinion! I'm not looking to get flamed! Feel free to correct me if i'm wrong about anything.
nah.....not looking to flame....just wanted honest opinions. Thanks for yours.
i'm really looking for more up to date stuff as the customer was asking about a Cele in the 800 range.....wanted her kid to run games and she wanted office 2000. Because of the games I recommended the P III.
Thanks for the responses......anyone else?
dimmreaper
03-20-01, 07:27 AM
Shadow-
I'm an AMD fan, but I'm an Intel fan too, hell I even like Cyrix a little. Well maybe not Cyrix, but at least they are cheap! But anyway, Intel is alright, and I have a P3 700@ 980, and it kicks celery ass! I think I can safely say that no celeron on the planet can touch this thing.
Pentium2s and Pentium3s have always been better for games than celerons too. The old school CPUs had cache on the Slot1 board that was slower than the CPU (think it was half speed, but not sure). But anyway, since Intel figured the cache was now twice as fast on the FCPGA chips, they cut the cache size in two. And half as much double fast cache is faster than the old school way. The cache keeps the CPU fed with stuff to crunch on, the celeron having less cache means more Idle wasted clock cycles.
Don't even consider Celerons these days, their biggest problem is not keeping the CPU fed. Their problem is the FSB. x86 architecture seems to be best suited for a 4-5X multiplier, anything after that and the CPU begins to waste a few clock cycles here and there waiting for stuff to crunch on. As the multiplier increases, the cache becomes even more critical, as it stores data and instructions for crunching.
Chip designers have recently discovered that on-die L2 cache is less important if they increase the L1 cache (as AMD has done with the SocketA chips). This is the only real advantage to the AMD chips.
I'm tired and can't seem to say what I'm thinking, but trust me, stay away for celeries at all cost (cept maybe a celery 800, I hear they hit 133 pretty reliably)
if u r going to be gameing get the celeron i have a 566o/c to 986 and it flys for gameing i went the cheap way my freind went the $$$ way with a p3650 o/c 900 and in games we run the same frames but in apps he beats me so its up to u.
celly 566@986 it aint no p3 but for 60$ you cant go wrong
Nothing wrong with a C-II for the price. But if you or your customer (in this case) can afford it, the P-III is a little faster and posts better benchmarks if you compare them running at the same speed. My new P-III 700 running at 933 whoops my old C-566's butt even with it running at 971 MHz.
The old Celeron-I used to be able to match the P-II chips at the same speeds, but the new Celerons have a castrated cache that is half the size of the P-III (if I remember correctly). Currently, the P-III is the best for gaming and business apps, but the Celeron is still a great budget chip that overclocks very well. I've had both chips. Think I'll keep my P-III.
Shadow рс
03-20-01, 01:57 PM
Thanks folks......kinda figured the PIII was the choice, but just wanted some reassurance.
also the p3 overclocks a lot better, the celeron may get to around 900mhz or so where as the p3 will usually do 933 and sometimes more, the celeron is about the same speed as a p3 running between 150-200mhz slower, so the celeron 700 is probabally about as fast as a 500-550 mhz p3, but when overclocked to about 900mhz or so it is about as fast as a 700 or so.
Commited
03-20-01, 03:53 PM
I love amd..... :D
I also love intel, thats why I have alot of their chips.
P90@100
P133@166
P150@166
P180@200
P166@233
Celly 333@416
PIII 500@500 - Home work PC - Gateway *blush*. (please dont laugh! :'( )
My first amd PC is in the post, but thats because i had a tight budget. 8)
As regard to your question, I was asked to build a few 700's and i always swayed them towards the PIII 700, because its better built and more stable.
I plugged my celeron 600@1000mhz into my dads machine (PII 233@333 (133x2.5). And in windoze is made absolutleyt no difference at all (becuase IMHO, the harddrive is the bottleneck in windoze, and he has a 75GXP - so it flies). Only games improves.
you won't see an improvement in windows it's self, I have only ever seen it use 15% when I was whizing my mouse around to see how high it goes, it's only when you start running games, or applying filters in photoshop etc.. that you benefit from faster cpu's, and with games this is becoming less and less so due to the introduction of gpu's
DocClock aka MadClocker
03-20-01, 06:10 PM
Hi Shadow, cache, cache, and more cache...that's the answer...take identicaly prepared comps, one with a celly 600, and a PIII 600 at default speeds, and see how long each one completes a seti wu....or time the bootup...the PIII will beat the celly every time...with both the cel, and PIII having ondie cache, the winner will be the one with more cache...and the person who said that the celly is better for gaming is well I'm being polite here......
I just can't wait till they put 1meg cache on die...the PIII also has advanced trancfer cache, I don't think the cellie has...and the PIII has more MMX instructions.
If I had two quake machines hooked together on a lan,the PIII would leave the cellie fragger standing wondering how they just got shot.
The cellie is great for sloitare ;-)
Shadow рс
03-20-01, 06:27 PM
Thanks Mad. That's kinda what I thought but wanted to be sure and figured I'd ask the experts =)
So why do so many people buy Cellies? Are they THAT much worse or just THAT much cheaper....
It was my understanding that the cellie used to be a faster gamer because of the smaller cache as cache has to completely fill before it'll refresh, but now the PIII and cellie both have faster cache and size is a different issue.
Guess I'm just confirming my knowledge.
Let me clear things up here i never said the celeron was better for gaming.what i said is both me and my buddie bought comps around the same time he went with the p3 i went with celeron we both have geforce 1 and 128 meg of ram at 1024+768 q3 hight qaulity we both got they exact same frame sfor timedemo 1 his p3o/c to 900 my celeron o/c to 950 hence it does just fine for gaming cuase thats all i do with my comp and pay bills. ill tell yes the p3 is way faster in higher res and memory bandwidth stuff but i paid 60 bucks for my chip and he paid a hell of alot more.
566@986 it aint no p3 but for 60 bucks you cant go wrong
Eriksson
03-21-01, 05:12 AM
I did have at the same time, Celeron700@880, and P3 500 @560.. I was using the same setup for both of them.. The celeron is/was no match for the P3 period. I could feel the difference no question...
This was only few months ago, and I got this celeron in trade for some junk. Actually I was shocked how bad performer the Celly really is, this was my first Celly and the last one too.
If web browsing and email reading is your style, the celeron is ok. However its lack of memory bandwidth really slows things down in larger tasks...
Yes I am AMD fan at the moment...
Eriksson (Mar 21, 2001 05:12 a.m.):
I did have at the same time, Celeron700@880, and P3 500 @560.. I was using the same setup for both of them.. The celeron is/was no match for the P3 period. I could feel the difference no question...
This was only few months ago, and I got this celeron in trade for some junk. Actually I was shocked how bad performer the Celly really is, this was my first Celly and the last one too.
If web browsing and email reading is your style, the celeron is ok. However its lack of memory bandwidth really slows things down in larger tasks...
Yes I am AMD fan at the moment...
Yes hes is right but he didnt get to 100fsb with his either if u cant hit 100fsb with a celly dont get 1
Bartman
03-21-01, 12:35 PM
I recently did a few benchmarks...
I was running a C566 @ 952 and borrowed a buddies GF2GTS, and ran 3dmark2000, and the score was ~5800.
The same video card in his stock PIII-800 got a score of ~6100.
My machine was tweaked out (no OC the Vid Card), and his was just the way it came from Dell, and I think he had a few small apps running in the background.
Conclusion: There was no way my Celeron 952 could keep up with his PIII-800.
I would buy a C566 over a PIII 800 anyday however, since the price is so much more for the P3!
If I had a better MB , I could have gotten about 1020Mhz out of the celeron, which would have made me as fast / faster in 3dmark.
Hope this helped someone.
This is my opinion:
GO BUY A F**CKING DURON/ATHLON NOW!!!!!
I HATE ALL YOU PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT THE CELERY AND DENTIUM!!!! YOU ALL SUCK D**K FOR A LIVING YOU GEEKS!!!!!
GO BUY AN AMD PRODUCT!!!
IT SEEMS TO BE THAT I'M POSTING ON THIS SUBJECT AS A AMD FAN, SO WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO TO STOP ME?? EH? EEHH?
EXACTLY i think i've made my point
Shadow рс
03-21-01, 02:16 PM
KiNg (Mar 21, 2001 01:59 p.m.):
This is my opinion:
GO BUY A F**CKING DURON/ATHLON NOW!!!!!
I HATE ALL YOU PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT THE CELERY AND DENTIUM!!!! YOU ALL SUCK D**K FOR A LIVING YOU GEEKS!!!!!
GO BUY AN AMD PRODUCT!!!
IT SEEMS TO BE THAT I'M POSTING ON THIS SUBJECT AS A AMD FAN, SO WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO TO STOP ME?? EH? EEHH?
EXACTLY i think i've made my point
Sorry friend.....that's the fastest way to get banned.
all these people that insist on every one buying amd chips bug me, not every one wants to go to the trouble of replacng their board, I had an old p2 system that was getting well past it's sell by date so I bought a celeron 600 and overclocked it to 1.01ghz, this was cheaper than the cost of getting an amd system that would give comparable performance. This is the last upgrade this system will get and I will build a new one when I have the cash which will use what ever is the best chip out at the best price at the time.
Shadow рс
03-21-01, 05:05 PM
skip (Mar 21, 2001 05:03 p.m.):
King is gone....
Thanks Skip.....kinda figured that would be your response. [img=http://forums2.overclockers.ws/forums/Public/Images/Default/E19.gif]
Hey....the guy made it to 3 posts before getting banned.....that a record? hehe
Daniel ~
03-21-01, 06:08 PM
KiNg (Mar 21, 2001 01:59 p.m.):
This is my opinion:
GO BUY A F****** DURON/ATHLON NOW!!!!!
I HATE ALL YOU PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT THE CELERY AND DENTIUM!!!!
GO BUY AN AMD PRODUCT!!!
IT SEEMS TO BE THAT I'M POSTING ON THIS SUBJECT AS A AMD FAN, SO WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO TO STOP ME?? EH? EEHH?
EXACTLY i think i've made my point
*NOTE*
This post Edited by the Forum Moderator.
Yes. I'm going to stop you. Right here right now.
Post in this manner again and I will ban you from this forum.
"Don't make me hurt you Mikey"
markedmundb
03-21-01, 06:36 PM
What some of yopu ppl seem to be forgetting is the difference in FSB speed.
A p/// 600 will whupp a Celly 600, as the Celly has a 66 Bus. Now if we're talking a 900E Versus a C600 @ 900. Unless you're doing heavy cache usage stuff (eg crunching SETi Numbers, CAD and Games without a GPU) the P/// will be noticeable faster. If you doing a bit of Word or Photoshop, the difference will only be about 5%. The way I understand it real-world performance-wise a Celly at the same speed (FSB) is about 85-90% of the performance of the p///.
I am hoping to get my cC0 Celly 566 running at a Gig. I chose the celly as a stopgap.
With all the new technology out later this year; last year when I needed a faster CPU as my pII448 was a bit past it ,p///700 (at least) performance at 1/2 the cost (when Oc'd to 850) was my reasoning for buying a celly.
I have found that the cellerons lag about 250mhz in performance behind the same clock speed p3. I have a c2 566@1020 running on a 120fsb and it doesn't even come close to my 1 gig p3, the crippled cache just killes the cpu for demanding applications. The cellery is good for grandma but for us here????
[OC]_SR20DE
03-22-01, 03:38 AM
ken257 (Mar 21, 2001 07:00 p.m.):
I have found that the cellerons lag about 250mhz in performance behind the same clock speed p3. I have a c2 566@1020 running on a 120fsb and it doesn't even come close to my 1 gig p3, the crippled cache just killes the cpu for demanding applications. The cellery is good for grandma but for us here????
Quote " The cellery is good for grandma but for us here??"
Hehehe... That is funny.. hahahahahaha....
DocClock aka MadClocker
03-22-01, 04:40 AM
Hey Shadow,
The reason people got all fired up about the cellies, is because of the famous 300A...when it came out, it was the only chip with on die cache, 128k, versus the PIII 450 with 512k discrete L2...and overclocked to 450mhz, the 300A would woop on the PIII, in some cases, because of the faster on die cache...(shorter pathway or something like that), but the cellie didn't whip the PIII in all cases, and I think the PIII had a better floating point, but I could be wrong....I have been before.
hey mon, most of these people type about benchmarks/games'fps.....i view mpeg4 video on my 'puter - i went from celly to pIII and the difference was clear.....the pIII packed a killa punch graphically, no slowdowns or nothin'..............
hey mon, most of these people type about benchmarks/games'fps.....i view mpeg4 video on my 'puter - i went from celly to pIII and the difference was clear.....the pIII packed a killa punch graphically, no slowdowns or nothin'..............
William
03-22-01, 10:05 PM
the performance gap between the PII and the Celerons were at the time less than 10% with a much larger cost difference. That gap is much much bigger with the P3 vs the new Celerons. Even the brand new coppermine celeron is 10% or more off in performance to that of the same speed P3. But, the celerons are much cheaper, so it ultimately depends on what you are doing and what your budget is. I would recomend a ful P3, but I am running a Celeron and am very happy. It is my expierence, that even for gaming, your peripheral hardware matter much more than a CPU. In my celey system is a 64mb radeon, so my game performance is very good, especially for the cost. Basicly, look at the numbers people get from tests, evaluate with your budget, and buy the best system possible. But back to the original question, there are noticible differences, not huge, but noticible.
JaY_III
03-22-01, 10:45 PM
Upgrading that old P2 and on a tight budget, can not beat a Celeron 2
I bought it because it was cheap, and I am not made of money being the full time student I am. P3's are way more than the celeron. Lets say I bought a slow old cheap P3 for the same price of a celeron after overclocking the celeron would be faster anyways...
So it doesnt always come down to what CPU is faster out of the box, it (for me) comes down to for same dollar what is faster after the overclocking is done.
Nagorak
03-23-01, 04:19 AM
Lucky (Mar 20, 2001 09:52 p.m.):
Let me clear things up here i never said the celeron was better for gaming.what i said is both me and my buddie bought comps around the same time he went with the p3 i went with celeron we both have geforce 1 and 128 meg of ram at 1024+768 q3 hight qaulity we both got they exact same frame sfor timedemo 1 his p3o/c to 900 my celeron o/c to 950 hence it does just fine for gaming cuase thats all i do with my comp and pay bills. ill tell yes the p3 is way faster in higher res and memory bandwidth stuff but i paid 60 bucks for my chip and he paid a hell of alot more.
566@986 it aint no p3 but for 60 bucks you cant go wrong
See how your UT frame rates compare. ;-)
with my celeron at 900mhz I get about 80fps on average on UT, though it can go as low as 25 fps in a busy scene
The Faceless Rebel
03-24-01, 04:28 PM
At 952 or 994 i have no problems playing CS at 99.0fps in most places. Quake 3 rarely drops below 40fps, even with all settings on max. This is in 1024x768.
But unfortunately, Celeron benches like crap because it has 1/2 the cache and it is crippled with 4-way set associativity (vs. 8-way on P3).
Doesn't matter. My Celly 566 cost $80 when I first bought it and it is still providing me with the tools I need to slaughter my enemies...and that's really all that matters, isn't it???? :)
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.