Celeron 2.8Ghz vs Athlon 2400+ (2Ghz)

Stephen7372 · 13 Jan 2006 at 09:44

Which is best

ajgoodfellow · 13 Jan 2006 at 10:56

The XP 2400+.

The Celeron 2.8Ghz is a rather poor CPU really. It's been quite severly cut down, not just in terms of cache

Raikiri · 13 Jan 2006 at 13:43

if it is a celeron D then there wont be a huge amount in it, but even then the athlon is faster

easyrider · 13 Jan 2006 at 15:41

agreed the xp2400 is the faster one

m3csl2004 · 13 Jan 2006 at 20:00

now all you need is somebody with a 2400 lol (2400 will be easily faster)

Duke · 13 Jan 2006 at 22:21

100MHz bus and tiny cache make the Celeron pretty slow. I'd think the 2400+ would be somewhat quicker all round

chopchop · 13 Jan 2006 at 22:22

ok so its 400mhz faster

, so a stock xp2400 would take about ~55seconds

sargatanas · 14 Jan 2006 at 00:50

m3csl2004 said:
now all you need is somebody with a 2400 lol (2400 will be easily faster)

wow, omg at that time, thats snail pace :\

Raikiri · 14 Jan 2006 at 01:09

sargatanas said:
wow, omg at that time, thats snail pace :\

Wow, that is suprising just how slow... i managed 42 seconds on a 3ghz p4 and a basic windows install. And my 2500+ stock got around 50secs

Topitoff · 14 Jan 2006 at 02:01

Geese; I had a 400FSB 2gig P4 Compaq D510 at work that would do 1min 32secs; 1min 55s that is SLOW; just a bit better than a Willy cored 1.7gig D500!!!

lee87 · 14 Jan 2006 at 09:44

I had a 2.8ghz celeron, it broke and I changed my cpu over to a sempron 2300+ 1.58ghz. This was much faster than the celeron. The sempron 2300 gets a superpi score of 1m 9s at stock speed. So the Athlon 2400 should be faster than this.

GlasgowTitan · 14 Jan 2006 at 11:40

Hey I just got that SuperPi program, how many digits am I supposed to calculate it to? 32M? 16K?

Cheers

Edit, nevermind, I see you guys have done it to 1M.

easyrider · 14 Jan 2006 at 11:41

GlasgowTitan · 14 Jan 2006 at 11:52

My score with me Athlon XP.

gamesaregood · 14 Jan 2006 at 13:32

Here you go

Introducing ... my dads shuttle with a 2400+ Athlon XP at stock

Hope this helps

Michael

Johny Boy · 14 Jan 2006 at 21:04

^That's a tbred, a barton would be faster.

I used to get 47 secs at on [email protected]

Raikiri · 15 Jan 2006 at 00:09

Johny Boy said:
^That's a tbred, a barton would be faster.

I used to get 47 secs at on [email protected]

Seeing as the OP wants to know about the 2400+, which incidently are all tbreds whats your point? lol

daz · 15 Jan 2006 at 00:16

The Celeron will be better at any kind of encoding tasks... but woeful at any kind of task involving repeated accessess to the cache (because it is so small...) such as games.

A Celeron at around 3ghz is equivalent to a normal P4 at 2.3ghz in gaming.

Robbo123 · 15 Jan 2006 at 00:33

Celerons are a real crappy Cpu. The athlon beats it hands down in terms of everything.

sargatanas · 15 Jan 2006 at 03:30

daz said:
The Celeron will be better at any kind of encoding tasks... but woeful at any kind of task involving repeated accessess to the cache (because it is so small...) such as games.

A Celeron at around 3ghz is equivalent to a normal P4 at 2.3ghz in gaming.

I wouldnt put money on the celeron beating the XP at anything mate, i had to cry myself to sleep when i had a celeron 2.2