Main > Main Forum
OT: P4 1.5Ghz vs Celeron 2.0Ghz
dabone:
Celerons and p4 even with the same fsb have major internal differences.
Your p4 is a Willamette core processor with the following specs.
8KB data (4-way)
12k &##181;ops trace instruction (8-way)
256KB on-Die unified L2 (8-way)
* 4GB cacheable
A 2.0Ghz celeron has roughly the same specs, except it chopped down the cache to 128k and that is only 4 way.
A 2.0ghz celeron is based off the northwood core, So for noncache related the celeron would be a hair faster, but overall the p4 1.5 will still beat it for overall performance because of the larger cache and double the bandwidth to get to it.
Also, most boards that can run the old 1.5ghz cpus are not compatible with the new chips you would buy today. Same socket but very different voltage requirements.
Later,
dabone
Wienerdog:
<edit>I like dabone's answer better, listen to him</edit>
--- Quote from: paigeoliver on March 23, 2005, 09:53:24 am ---I agree, but overall a Celeron 2.0 is still a downgrade for a P4 1.5.
But I still really don't see them as even a good budget solution, they underperform every other chip available at the same price point. We have a few Celeron 2.0 systems at work that can't even seem to hang with my old P3 733 laptop, much less a REAL P4.
--- End quote ---
Yes, we're in agreement on the P4 1.5 to Cel 2.0 decision.
paigeoliver:
This is going completely by feel of course. Remember, a system with a Celeron also tends to have crappy EVERYTHING. When you have shared memory video, 128 MB of ram for Windows XP and whatever the smallest slowest hard drive available when Dell was shipping that computer, well, an honest to goodness P3 733 MHZ with 512 RAM an actual video chipset with actual video ram and a hard drive that cost more than $29.95 seems darn good.
MonitorGuru:
> "Celerons are junk"
Wrong ---- Depends on the series of chip. Celeron D's are much improved....compare for yourself.
Go to this extensive review to see a comparsion of most every major AMD and Intel chip released in the last 10 years. WELL worth reading the perf charts:
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041221/cpu_charts-13.html
Page through all the comparisons, dont just read that one chart.
Edit: Removed my opinions... Everyone should review all the charts above and make their own decisions.
Wienerdog:
MG,
Sure, but what monitor would you use?