-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Comparing Celeron To P4
- Thread starter TACTECHL
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2001
The Pentium 4 cpus are far more powerful than the celerons.
A 2.6ghz celeron would be outdone by like a 1.8P4 (northwood).
A 2.6ghz celeron would be outdone by like a 1.8P4 (northwood).
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2002
- Location
- The OCFORUMS
Celerons are horrible cpus, and just about any P4 can destroy any celeron. A 2ghz P4 should kill a celly oc'd to 3.2ghz.
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2001
- Location
- Shasta Lake, California
I believe you are incorrect. The Willy P4s came with 256k L2 cache. When they did the switch to Northwood andthe shrink to .13 micron, they increased the cache on the P4 to 512k. The P4 based elerons always had 128k. Yess there were 2GHz and under P4-based CPUs with 256k cache, but they weren't celerons.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2002
- Location
- The OCFORUMS
Yes, it is far better, but I wouldnt get either. Try to go for P4B, because they have more cache and a higher oc potential.
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2003
- Location
- England Uk
You are wrong. The newer celerons have 128 cache but for a while the tutalain(spelling) celerons have 256. The tutalian celerons are P3s with a slightly different core that is all. And with the P4 came out a bit like with the prescott now it has a twenty stage pipeline. So i would go for a 1.4 celeron taking on a early P4 and probably a 2ghz northwood celly.
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2002
- Location
- columbus,ohio
what ever you do dont get a P4 willie, i have one and its a complete dog. if your going to spend that kind of $ get a 2.4b or somthing around that.
~RCTG
~RCTG
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2001
- Location
- Shasta Lake, California
I'm well aware of the Tualatin celerons, I thought we were only talking P4s here. Not how I said "The P4 based elerons always had 128k." (I accidently left the c out of celeron. I hate the keyboard on my laptop). And like you said, the Tualatin celeron was P3 based. If we want to talk P4 vs. Tualitin Celeron, the celeron beats the P4 hands down until the P4 hits about 2GHz.Freddie said:
The first Core based on Intel's NetBurst arch was the Willamette, it had 256k L2 cache, and was not a very good chip. Then, Intel came out with the Northwood core, with improvements in design, 512k L2 cache, and based on a smaller process technology.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2002
- Location
- Wilmington DE
I cant get over 14.5k in 3dmark 2001 @ 3.5ghz on a celeron. They do take a big hit.
Same Mhz on a P4 3.5ghz i can get a little over 22k in 2001.
But running F@H on it, it does very well!!! It's in my shuttle rig Nice and quiet.
Same Mhz on a P4 3.5ghz i can get a little over 22k in 2001.
But running F@H on it, it does very well!!! It's in my shuttle rig Nice and quiet.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2003
- Location
- Somewhere on Earth
ummm celeron is like duron from amd 
and i used to run a 950mhz duron for 3 years before i finally upgraded to this P4 rig.
Go Duron!
and i used to run a 950mhz duron for 3 years before i finally upgraded to this P4 rig. Go Duron!
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2001
- Location
- the Netherlands
My kid's rig is a non-OCed P4 1.7Ghz Willamette (256kB cache), Asus P4B-MX mainboard and 512MB PC133-222 SDRAM. It takes around 5 hours to crunch the average SETI Work Unit. My inlaws have a Celeron 2.4 @3.2Ghz (533FSB), Asus P4PE mainboard and 1GB generic PC2700 and it still also takes around 5 hours to do a SETI Work Unit. They are running my old 128MB Radeon 9500 and can't break 10k 3DMarks while that card did 14.500 in the main rig in my sig...
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2003
- Location
- I'm now in Colorado
I would use the P4, it looks better.
