Which is faster? I know a 1.8Ghz P4 is pretty out-of-date, but that Celeron is gruelingly slow. I would just swap out the Celeron for the P4, since the sockets/mobo's are interchangeable...correct?
...Well, that was an assinine comment. I have 3 AMD systems running, and I much prefer them over Intel. However, I don't have an AMD processor in my pocket, wondering if I should switch it for and AMD processor in another rig. I have a P4 in my pocket, wondering if I should switch it for a Celeron. Seriously... Now, does anyone have a REAL opinion?
i have a p4 1.4 and a cleron d (2.66ghz) computers. On Super Pi (to 1m places) this is how they performed: Celeron D: 1min 15s p4 1.4: 2min 20s just to give you an idea.... hope that helps EDIT: Its a celeron D 330 (forgot the 330 )
So, basically, I should leave the Celeron alone and just find another mobo and build a new rig out of the P4?
No, just use the celeron it has higher fsb and whatever the other clock thingy is called so the celeron is faster, unless your tring to keap your celeron in mint condition then you would use the other prossesor.
A 2.66ghz Celeron should have a 533mhz FSB, although I'm not sure about that. If it is 533mhz FSB, then the P4 1.8ghz will kill it hands down. If it is 800mhz FSB, the Celeron MAY defeat the P4 1.8ghz. Neither of them are going to give you "Oh My God" performance. Also, the Celeron should overclock higher than the P4 because of the Celeron's reduced cache.
there is my celeron d in cpu-z (i know the time says 1min 21s but i turned some stuff off and did it again) if you want the screenshot of the p4 1.4 in cpu-z just let me know !
Well, overclocking is out, although the mobo did read the 1.8Ghz @ 400Mhz FSB. It's running a ton better, so looks like this was a good one . I may still try to get a mobo for that Celeron, but for now . EDIT: ~Pballer, I will run SuperPI later with both CPU's, but my hunch is that even if the Celeron beats it in SuperPI, the P4 will win, if not simply because of the increased cache.
I'm going to offer a differing opinion. ONLY because it's a Celeron D, with 256 of L2 cache, and the 533 FSB, would it be a decent chip. I have a 2.93 here, and with some page file alterations, a large amount of RAM, and a good chipset/board, I have been absolutely tearing DOOM3 a new asshole. THe original Northwood Celerons had 128K of L2, and therefore did suck much ass. 256 is the same amount as an Athlon XP, and also as much as a 423 P4. Therefore, it stands to reason that it's not the dog it used to be. Increasing the FSB will of course increase the performance, but the Prescotts do really scale better as the MHz rise. I've got just about anything you can ask for here to play with, and I LIKE this processor. It's not a hardcore gamer's processor, it doesn't go in my audio ripper or my Photoshop machine. But, for a solid all arouind machine on a budget, it's really not bad. Certainly not as sucky as previous versions.
in multimedia use i would think that the celeron would be faster, but the p4 might beat the celeron in gaming performance (although both are fairly rubbish for gaming )
one thing i noticed about my celeron is it cant multitask forcrap. if i have 4 to 5 programs running at once (photoshop, dreamweaer, frontpage, firefox, etc) it bogs down tremendously. but i have tested this on the p4 yet....
