Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: The Celeron War?

  1. #1

    Thread Starter
    Hyperactive Member made_of_asp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    123 Fake Street
    Posts
    394

    The Celeron War?

    From a lot of posts around the forum, I see that a lot of people hate celeron. Whats up with that? I am running a 533Mhz Celeron here, seems fine. I also plan to upgrade to 1.7Ghz Celeron.

    Code:
    Spec:
    
    533 Mhz Celeron
    128 SDRAM
    ATI Radeon 7000
    Opti931 ISA Sound Card  <- stay away from that :(
    Thanks for any help
    VS.NET 2003

    Need to email me?

  2. #2
    Good Ol' Platypus Sastraxi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    5,134
    If you changed to a 533 P3 you'd see a world of difference, is my point. Celerons are sometimes just reject P3s that failed the cache test, so they disable all the cache that it has and put it down to 128kb, the Celeron cache size. This makes some things slower, I forget how but it does make a difference. Also, the new celerons (coppermine) are really bad performers... I had a 733 Coppermine Celly and it was slower than a 533 Mendocino (what you have) Celly.
    All contents of the above post that aren't somebody elses are mine, not the property of some media corporation.
    (Just a heads-up)

  3. #3
    Fanatic Member siyan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    GOOOAAAAALLLLL!!!!!
    Posts
    869
    less cache = more ram accesses = clogged fsb

    Celerons are also hated because AMD always had a comprehensively better solution.

    The Duron was a Celeron killer until the Athlon took away the Duron market (oh well)
    The Thunderbird just owned the Celerons
    Celerons blew goats by the time Palominos came around
    And now TBred vs. Celeron (P4 Type) is a joke.

    EDIT: the above is time specific, of course.
    Unite, proletariat!

  4. #4
    Good Ol' Platypus Sastraxi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    5,134
    A great thing about Celerons though is that they take VERY little power. I had a Celly 533, GF2mx, TV card, SB 512 PCI, all the bells and whistles, running ROCK SOLID on a generic 200w power supply. That's why they are great for laptops.
    All contents of the above post that aren't somebody elses are mine, not the property of some media corporation.
    (Just a heads-up)

  5. #5

    Thread Starter
    Hyperactive Member made_of_asp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    123 Fake Street
    Posts
    394
    Is AMD 2000 XP better than Celly 1700?

    Cause I have no idea what to upgrade to...
    VS.NET 2003

    Need to email me?

  6. #6
    Good Ol' Platypus Sastraxi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    5,134
    LOL It's like night and day. Athlon XP 2000+ is as fast as a P4 2ghz (though it's only 1.67ghz), and both are lots faster than a Celeron.
    All contents of the above post that aren't somebody elses are mine, not the property of some media corporation.
    (Just a heads-up)

  7. #7
    Fanatic Member siyan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    GOOOAAAAALLLLL!!!!!
    Posts
    869
    When an XP 1800 can be found for $100, you should avoid Celerons at all costs.
    Unite, proletariat!

  8. #8
    Dazed Member
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    Ridgefield Park, NJ
    Posts
    3,418
    Hey guys what about Mac's. I mean what kind of processors do the G4's use? And why is a 1Ghz Mac processor faster then a higher Mhz Intel or AMD?

  9. #9
    KING BODWAD XXI BodwadUK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    2,176
    Mhz is no longer a good measurement because it depends what the chip does in each tick of the clock as it were. An example is that an Athlon XP 1800 is only running at about 1500 Mhz but is just as efficient as a Pentium running as 1800 Mhz.
    If you dribble then you are as mad as me

    Lost World Creations Website (XBOX Indie games)
    Lene Marlin

  10. #10
    Good Ol' Platypus Sastraxi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    5,134
    And since Apple makes most of their components, some things that drivers normally make accessable through an abstract layer can be done directly, which obviously is much faster. This and a more efficient chip is what causes Macs to "be faster". However, similar priced PC and Mac machines will usually perform the same (if not the PC one working a bit faster).
    All contents of the above post that aren't somebody elses are mine, not the property of some media corporation.
    (Just a heads-up)

  11. #11
    Fanatic Member siyan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    GOOOAAAAALLLLL!!!!!
    Posts
    869
    i find macs are terribly overpriced for what you get, espeically considering the lack of software.
    Unite, proletariat!

  12. #12
    Hyperactive Member mastermind94's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Montréal, Canada
    Posts
    441
    but macs are better for video editing, graphics and automation stuff, PC are better for like games and crap like that...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  



Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width