Main > Main Forum
OT: P4 1.5Ghz vs Celeron 2.0Ghz
<< < (3/4) > >>
tommy:
I have a 1.70celeron are these able to be upgraded , im not sure if its hard wired of not.
Wienerdog:
MG, I respect your opinion on this topic, but didn't you just break all your rules?


--- Quote from: MonitorGuru ---Page through all the comparisons, dont just read that one chart.
--- End quote ---


--- Quote from: MonitorGuru ---As a reference on just the first chart above, a P4 1.5 performs FASTER than a Celeron Northwood at 2.6  !!!
--- End quote ---
------

--- Quote from: MonitorGuru ---P4 1.5 performs FASTER than a Celeron Northwood at 2.6
--- End quote ---
You left out the fact that that was a Willamette P4 compared to a Northwood Celeron.  That same Northwood Celeron outperformed a Northwood P4 1.6 on that chart. 

Back to my earlier comment, I'm not sure the Quake III Arena 1.16 benchmark is a good benchmark for MAME use. 

Don't get me wrong, you know more about this than I do.  I agree with the notion that there is more to this that the Celeron name.
Matt Berry:
First off I'm very familiar with Toms hardware, that article and the poor performance shown through out the years by the celeron core. Lets look at a few performance vs price comparisons for the celeron processors. Lets look at the Direct x numbers, the 2.6 celeron received super low numbers, and wasn't even a contender, the 2.8 celeron did better but still was outpaced by the AMD Barton 2500+. Price wise the celeron is around 80-100 where as the faster AMD 2500+ runs the same price. I have built numerous systems and have had to fix a lot of numerous PC's through out the years. I usually use the Pacman test to see how the machine is running, and every time the Celerons have returned sub par numbers. So in the end you can buy the cheap processor with less cache (because you think it doesn't make a difference) or you can buy a processor with lots of cache and see, hey this extra cache does make a difference.
Lilwolf:
DON'T GO CELERYS....

why?  They are usually about 10% slower then their big brothers...  And about 15% cheaper...

Well thats all good... So whats the problem?

The speed difference shows up even MORE in emulation.  Every graph you show up might be double the difference in terms of emulation...  The lack of cache really really shows up when your dealing with very low level code... and emulating a cpu core seems to push it.

btw, I haven't tried the -D chips... But unless the redesigned whats cheapa bout their cheap line... I would stay away.


btw, for the price... Athlons at those prices are usually MUCH better then intels... Assuming that you have the motherboard..
AceTKK:
If you have a Fry's electronics in your area your best bet is to watch their sales ad for an Athlon/Motherboard combo deal.  For around $100 you can get a very nice mid-range solution.  Add a stick of ram and the hard drive from your old system and you'll have a system that will run circles around what you're used to.

-Ace-
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page

Go to full version