Why Celerons Suck.

[bolillo_loco]

BTW they are two different computers. note the revisions on cpuz

 

[dwschoon]

so the TA1 stepping is faster than the TB1. I have a tualatin 1000 @1333 that will fold as fast as a celeron D 330 2.66 on p147x proteins. I know my cpu will go faster than 1500, but my BE6-II acts like the caps are going bad so stability is going down.

also the deschutes core was a pII. the pIII 450 was a katmai core.

 

[bolillo_loco]

well the celeron I have that out scored the other one is clocked 92.5 mhz faster so maybe thats why it performs better. however sufing on the net or playing games I notice absolutely no difference.

celeron @ 1672 is on an abit board which is vcore adjustable while the celeron at 1580 is on a soyo board which auto detects vcore.

14x119 is the highest my tualatin core celeron will go. at 14x120 it will post and boot into windows, but as soon as you click on something you get the blue screen of death. on certain games I must lower the mhz to 14x117 or it goes into the blue screen of death after 20-30 minutes.

they only get used for playing old command and conquer games and other games circa 1995-2001. the celeron @ 1672 mhz has a 5200 ultra 128mb vid card and it will run new games, just barely playable in my opinion at 30-40 fps. the graphics must be turned down though. this celeron runs doom 3, command and conquer generals/zero hour, IL-2 forgotten battles/ace expansion pack/pacific fighters, rise of nations and other such games at about 30-40 fps which is roughly 20-25% of what my P4 socket 775 [email protected] ghz performs........the P4 has a 6800GT which isnt over clocked.

 

[ropey]

the deschutes core was a pII. the pIII 450 was a katmai core.

Katmai

The Katmai core is Deschutes with the SSE instructions added; it's built in 0.25u and, like Deschutes, is designed to interface to off-chip cache running at half the core clock speed. As with Deschutes, versions interfacing to faster custom-made off-chip cache and supporting four-way multiprocessing were sold as Pentium ||| Xeon.

http://www.tom.womack.net/x86FAQ/faq_cores.html

At the time of testing there were no (read none) applications (other than esoteric benchmarks) taking advantage of SSE instructions thus the Pentium III .25 was a Deshutes core.

R

 

[RJARRRPCGP]

I have found the stopwatch has shown me that Celeron 300A @ 450 often beat out Pentium 3 (Deshutes) @ 450.

There's no such thing as a Pentium III Deshutes! The early Pentium IIIs were "Katmai"!

 

[vixenk]

Autolex, my 2.7 ghz Northwood Celly does Super Pi in 43 seconds at stock speed.

The most I can figure out is your work computer does it slower due to either having less memory than mine available or having a crappy mobo.

 

[larva]

At the time of testing there were no (read none) applications (other than esoteric benchmarks) taking advantage of SSE instructions thus the Pentium III .25 was a Deshutes core.

R

Simply incorrect. The advantage of the P3 over the P2 was not nearly as theoretical as you imply. The truth is the P2-450 (actually a Deschutes) and the P3-450 (Katmai) do not run the same, for what reason or reasons. And even the P2-450 will beat out a C300A at 450 in all but the rarest of applications. And the P3 bested it in all, as was my only input into this thread, however impudent you might find it.

Further my good P3-450 ran 600MHz at 2.2V, smoking any and all P2 Celeries, even the C366@550 that was yet to become feasible. It was $200 cpu that brought greater performance than the $70 Celeron alternatives, however fondly those that took that route remember them.

http://www.thetechzone.com/reviews/cpu/p3_benchmark.shtml

 

[Edward2103]

An Intel Celeron D single core 2.53ghz processor running Vista

 

[Ben333]

Welcome to the future!

 

[Bobnova]

It all depends on the celeron. My e1200 celeron does quite decently, really. Made about 1900ppd before the A3 bonus stuff when clocked to 2.6.
Sucks almost no power, creates almost no heat.

 

[Trottel]

It all depends on the celeron. My e1200 celeron does quite decently, really. Made about 1900ppd before the A3 bonus stuff when clocked to 2.6.
Sucks almost no power, creates almost no heat.

I'm actually running an E1200 right now. I guarantee that it does suck power and creates heat the same as a similarly clocked 65nm C2D.

 

[Adragontattoo]

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNECRO THREAD

 

[wingman99]

I built some boxes with the Celeron E1200 and it rocks mutitasking with internet and video streaming snappy windows 7 and i did play some older games and it beat the p4 3.2 overclocked to 333 fsb 2.6 GHZ and I could multitask at the same time.

 

[Ben333]

If we're going to discuss this, maybe a thread about how the celeron has improved in comparison to the more expensive desktop chips today is in order. Apparently, this thread made valid points when it was made... years ago. So to keep going with this dead thread seems even less right than with others

 

[Archer0915]

An Intel Celeron D single core 2.53ghz processor running Vista

That is not bad! The GFX need an upgrade though.

 

[nookuwn]

where did larva go?

 

[CharlieCS]

Guy named "ropey" was banned by request??? what does that mean ? He asked to be banned? am just curios

 

[Neuromancer]

Loving my single core sempron right now

OCed to 3.2GHz, 1600 c8 ram and running 24C with a 50% CPU load on the stock cooler in a terrible cooled case (one 120mm exhaust fan on low speed)

I did a 92mm panaflo on the hdd... but thats neither intake or exhaust just circulates the hot air

 

[KonaKona]

http://hwbot.org/community/submission/949325_tin_cpu_z_celeron_lga775_347_8199.5_mhz

What's that about celerons being bad again?

 

[Bobnova]

I have an e1200 that i padmodded for more volts and 333fsb, it's great.