- Joined
- Apr 26, 2004
- Location
- The Netherlands
Robert said:The L2 memory and fsb on Celeron is less if compare to Pentium 4.
The fsb can be made up for quite easy
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Robert said:The L2 memory and fsb on Celeron is less if compare to Pentium 4.
A low end chip that takes out P4 3.4 and A64300+ on everything but HT enabled tests and workstation database number crunching?Captain Newbie said:It's still a low end chip, but it's far better than the previous iteration of Cellies.
As useful as I find Celerons, I cannot abide by this statment. The 300A@450 was clearly outperformed by a P3 at 450MHz in any measure of application performance. Only synthetic tests that fit in the 300a's L2 cache posted higher numbers, and those numbers are misleading and do not make it a superior chip. And of course, P3-450s had a lot more than 450MHz in them, where very few 300a's exceeded 450MHz. This kind of view through rose-colored glasses is just fuel for the fire of those that would disparage the actual capability Celerons represent.ropey said:Considering the value of the above A64 and P4 there is no doubt in my eyes that these processors are as good as the Celeron 300A @ 450 that took out P3 @ 450 for one third the cost.
I have personally had a Pentium3 Deshutes 450 and Celeron Mendocino 300A on an ABIT BH6 board. The only time the Pentium3 Deshutes handled better than the Celeron Mendocino 300A @ 450 was when there were multiple cache calls for over 128kb and this is seldom the case unless one is operating heavy (such as database) number crunching and/or scientific algorithmic command structures such as astronomical programs. For the bulk of computer use the Celeron Mendocino 300A was faster as the cache was built on chip and was at full bore.larva said:As useful as I find Celerons, I cannot abide by this statment. The 300A@450 was clearly outperformed by a P3 at 450MHz in any measure of application performance. Only synthetic tests that fit in the 300a's L2 cache posted higher numbers, and those numbers are misleading and do not make it a superior chip. And of course, P3-450s had a lot more than 450MHz in them, where very few 300a's exceeded 450MHz. This kind of view through rose-colored glasses is just fuel for the fire of those that would disparage the actual capability Celerons represent.
Somehow you do not get what I am saying. Dollar for Dollar is what I am saying. An 80 dollar Celeron D taken to 4GHz is DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR better than a 3.4GHz Pentium4 and this is in my opinion. Clearly not yours, but please allow me my view. Just as 512MB of ram is clearly more robust in system performance in comparison to 256MB and the difference is less noticeable with the move to 1 GB or 512mb to 2GB. Thus there is not nearly as much difference between a 128kb full bore on chip and 256kb on chip vs 128kb full bore on chip and 512kb half bore off chip cache. Thus your statement to compare a different architecture holds no water in analysis.larva said:Please, if you feel 128K cache is not limiting the 300A, toss in a P4 coppermine at the same clock and see just how big a factor the L2 cache size is as its size is reduced below 256K.
I had countless C300As, C333s, and four P3-450's when the chips were current. I used them on every BX board sold in numbers in this country. The P3 is the clear winner for each and every application. Achieved fps in nearly any game will drive this point home. And of course, the best of my P3-450s did 600MHz, further widening the gap. I understand 300A's were cheaper, but they were in no way better.
Ropey said:Let me be clear. My opinion is that for the price of the Celeron 300A and the price of the Pentium3 Deshutes @ 450 the dollar for dollar value in a comparitive analysis (In My Opinion) the P3 was taken out. Just as in my opinion the Celeron "D" takes out the previous mentioned processors. Of course there are arenas where the higher price processors do outperform but Dollar for Dollar, I believe that the Celeron "D"'s overclocked are better performers. Hopefully my personal view is clear as such, however rather than argue with you on what you can or can not "Abide" I will say that I agree to disagree with your (imo) concrete black and white appraisal.
postaldudeleo said:I used a celeron on overclocking and it got 4.78 GHZ!!!!! This is a 60 dollar chip!
Oh and it plays HL2 on top settings with a geforce with no overclocking and I get good fps. Not in the hundreds but 30 is good enough for me.
Some guy bought a $8000+ Alienware with a 20 inch screen for HL2.
I bought a $600+ celeron custom system and play with my 42 inch LCD.
= I win because I get playable FPS on top setting
Guess who has more fun?
That is because what you are saying is untrue. Since you seem incable of recalling your own assertion, and shift the focus to a more defensible point, let me reiterate:ropey said:Somehow you do not get what I am saying.
Notice the absolute terms used. None of the 'dollar for dollar' stuff. These statements are simply false, at equal clock the P3-450 beats the c300a@450MHz in all but the rarest circumstances, mainly sandra and the like. Application performance is better with the P3 almost uniformly, and certainly accross the 'bulk of computer use'. And a simple comparison of application performance between a celemine and coppermine of equal clock and fsb will handily demonstrate that you have (completely) mis-characterized the magnitude of the performance impediment that the 128KB cache is.ropey said:I have personally had a Pentium3 Deshutes 450 and Celeron Mendocino 300A on an ABIT BH6 board. The only time the Pentium3 Deshutes handled better than the Celeron Mendocino 300A @ 450 was when there were multiple cache calls for over 128kb and this is seldom the case unless one is operating heavy (such as database) number crunching and/or scientific algorithmic command structures such as astronomical programs. For the bulk of computer use the Celeron Mendocino 300A was faster as the cache was built on chip and was at full bore.
Yeah, I guess I forgot no one could say something to disagree with youropey said:You are right Larva. I am wrong. Excuse me for the temerity to say something you disagree with.
You are the one that forced me to clarify my statements. I got what you were saying, no need for the "So I will reiterate" crap. I simply feel your statements saying that a c300a at 450MHz runs applications faster than a P3-450 is wrong. The "problem" you created is not that I don't know what you said, but that I disagree.ropey said:Somehow you do not get what I am saying. Dollar for Dollar is what I am saying. ... And you still do not address my personal view. So I will reiterate for you.