• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

2.0GHz Celeron o/c'd VS. 1.1/1.2GHz Celeron o/c'd. Anyone got benchies like this?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

strokeside

Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2002
Location
Dublin, Ireland
2.0GHz Celeron o/c'd VS. 1.1/1.2GHz Celeron o/c'd. Anyone got benchies like this?

I have seen many benchmarks that show an overclocked Celeron 2.0GHz @ x.xxGHz compared with P4's, but does anyone have / can anyone show me a benchmark with the Northwood Celeron compared to the Tualatin celeron?
I would like to see this to see if the processor is a possible upgrade in the future.
Anyone?
 

mucyou

New Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2002
Location
new york
Re: 2.0GHz Celeron o/c'd VS. 1.1/1.2GHz Celeron o/c'd. Anyone got benchies like this?

strokeside said:
I have seen many benchmarks that show an overclocked Celeron 2.0GHz @ x.xxGHz compared with P4's, but does anyone have / can anyone show me a benchmark with the Northwood Celeron compared to the Tualatin celeron?
I would like to see this to see if the processor is a possible upgrade in the future.
Anyone?


scene where the cellies go real high 3+ghz


below is mine


http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=4757777



may help in the compare
 

JCLW

Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2002
I'll have a Tualatin 1.2 @1.7 vs a Northwood 2.0 @3.0 comparison by the end of the day (I hope - otherwise tomorrow).

OK, here we go:

Alex Dumas' Northwood-Celeron 2.0 @3.0 (from the front page article):
v6.jpg

v7.jpg


My Tualatin-Celeron 1.2 @1.7:
sandra03_arith_1740.gif

sandra03_multi_1740.gif


- JW
 
Last edited:

JCLW

Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2002
Well... since I only have 64mb of ram and PCI ATI Mach64 4mb video on the Celery I'm going to pass on the game benchmarks for the moment.

I think either would be fine if you have decent video.

- JW
 

Shade00

Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Location
Louisiana Tech University
I think it's only fair to point out that those Sandra benchmarks are not directly comparable. The Celeron [email protected] benches are done with Sandra 03, and the Celeron 1.2's are done in Sandra 02. They have different numbers for the benchmarks. I think I read that the Celeron [email protected] does something like 6500 in Sandra... but when 3dmarked a 1.8a did better... can't remember if it was overclocked.
 

JCLW

Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2002
Both Benchmarks are Sandra 2003. Mine are under Win2000, that's all.

- JW
 

larva

Inactive Moderator
Joined
Jul 12, 2002
Then of course there is memory throughput. Since there never were any competent S370 DDR chipsets developed the 1.1a is at a huge disadvantage. With many times more memory subsystem performance along with a large processing speed advantage the 2.0 Celeron (especially when raised to its 3GHz potential) is the better setup. And you are set to pop in the real chip (P4) at any time.

S370 celerons do have more on chip cache, and this does to some extent limits the effect of the miserable memory bandwidth they must operate on. But in the end the advantages in clock speed and memory bandwidth enjoyed by the S478 celerons cannot be overcome by this factor.
 

JCLW

Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2002
VIA made a half-decent DDR chipset for s370 but in fact it usually performs worse then i815 - having more memory<->northbridge bandwidth then northbridge<->CPU bandwidth is useless in CPU intensive applications. PC66/100/133 was always perfectly matched to the CPU bandwidth. The only way to get more memory bandwidth to the CPU is to up the FSB.

- JW