Celeron 2.8Ghz vs Athlon 2400+ (2Ghz)

Stephen7372 · 15 Jan 2006 at 09:49

I got 1 min 15 secs with my athlon 2400+

m3csl2004 · 15 Jan 2006 at 11:32

sorry daz but i find that hard to believe

this celeron with a 9800pro cant play css at 1024x768 on low with no aa or af

easyrider · 15 Jan 2006 at 11:42

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.

Encoding involves repeated access to cache!
The celeron is an inferior awful cpu and to compare it to a p4 is laughable imo.

daz · 15 Jan 2006 at 12:48

m3csl2004 said:
sorry daz but i find that hard to believe

this celeron with a 9800pro cant play css at 1024x768 on low with no aa or af

Your celeron at 2.8 is comparable to a P4 at 2ghz in gaming... which is probably not really enough to play CSS.

easyrider said:
Encoding involves repeated access to cache!
The celeron is an inferior awful cpu and to compare it to a p4 is laughable imo.

Of course you can compare a Celeron to a P4... they're the same CPU with a castrated cache!

I'm not sure what encoding benchmarks there are, but I'd encourage anyone to do a test. A Celeron at 3ghz will beat a Athlon XP at encoding a wav to MP3, for example because of the clock rate advantage.

ajgoodfellow · 15 Jan 2006 at 12:54

daz said:
Of course you can compare a Celeron to a P4... they're the same CPU with a castrated cache!

The later Celerons are based on P4 cores but I believe that there is more to it than just a lack of cache

Take Super PI, for example. This is virtually unaffected by cache (an A64 with 512KB cache performs like an A64 with 1024KB cache at the same clock frequency). The Celeron has to be clocked far higher than the equivalent P4 to get the same result though

daz · 15 Jan 2006 at 12:59

ajgoodfellow said:
but I believe that there is more to it than just a lack of cache

Like what? :confused:

You say that SuperPI is unaffected by cache, and use the comparison of 512KB to 1024KB as your example, when really you're comparing 128KB to 512KB+, or even just 256KB+ which is what the Sempron has. The 128KB of cache is just not sufficient to avoid repeated accesses to system memory rather than CPU registers. For a few tasks, 128KB *is* sufficient and the Celeron can make use of it's clock speed.

Seriously... someone do a wav ---> MP3 encode.

Either way, a Sempron is better value for money.

easyrider · 15 Jan 2006 at 13:02

http://img486.imageshack.us/my.php?image=chart0208uo.png

the 2400 beats a 2.8ghz celeron in mp3 encoding

daz · 15 Jan 2006 at 13:09

easyrider said:
http://img486.imageshack.us/my.php?image=chart0208uo.png

the 2400 beats a 2.8ghz celeron in mp3 encoding

I clearly see the Celeron D 2.8Ghz beating a Athlon 64 Newcastle 2800, Winchester 3000, a Sempron 3100 and a Barton 2500. :confused:

Mikey1280 · 15 Jan 2006 at 13:46

I had a celeron D which was rubbish but very cheap and very overclockable. Im not sure about the standard Celerons but my 2.66 Celeron D effortlessly oced to 3.2

ajgoodfellow · 15 Jan 2006 at 13:48

I've seen them go to 4Ghz with relative ease and a few hit 5Ghz under extreme phase!

Raikiri · 15 Jan 2006 at 15:53

daz said:
I clearly see the Celeron D 2.8Ghz beating a Athlon 64 Newcastle 2800, Winchester 3000, a Sempron 3100 and a Barton 2500.

And i clearly see that it is a Celeron D 2.8ghz in that chart, which is faster and STILL being beaten by the 2400+. Which is what is being compared here and not the 2500, 3100 or 3000.
Stop trying make what is clearly a crap cpu look anything but that.

The diferences are a tiny amount of l2 cache and a low FSB. The FSB and cache are the two most important factors with pentiums (bar clockspeed) due to their extremely long pipelines.

50/50 · 15 Jan 2006 at 17:51

I had a 2.93ghz celeron d running at 3.6ghz, and then bought a ht p4 3.4ghz, and I didnt see improvement in games...
They are rubbish, but they are still better than semprons.

ajgoodfellow · 15 Jan 2006 at 17:54

50/50 said:
They are rubbish, but they are still better than semprons.

Yes they are rubbish but fine for basic office type stuff. They're not better than Semprons

daz · 15 Jan 2006 at 18:49

Raikiri said:
Stop trying make what is clearly a crap cpu look anything but that.

Point is, they're not totally crap. They output little heat and are perfect for running office and web applications.

I'm not entirely sure as to the variables of that particular encode benchmark, but any search on the net will reveal that the Celeron is no slouch when it comes to encoding.

Edit: on this test, you'll see that it's raw clock speed that seems to have the biggest effect. http://images.tomshardware.com/2003/02/17/benchmark_marathon/image030.png

Raikiri · 15 Jan 2006 at 18:52

Daz, that image doesnt load...bet their server is running a celeron

(j/k!)

easyrider · 15 Jan 2006 at 18:56

lol^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If I was building an office budget pc I would pick a sempron over the celeron!
And I reckon theres a few on here that would agree with me

gamesaregood · 15 Jan 2006 at 18:57

daz said:
Point is, they're not totally crap. They output little heat and are perfect for running office and web applications.

I'm not entirely sure as to the variables of that particular encode benchmark, but any search on the net will reveal that the Celeron is no slouch when it comes to encoding.

Edit: on this test, you'll see that it's raw clock speed that seems to have the biggest effect. http://images.tomshardware.com/2003/02/17/benchmark_marathon/image030.png

That was 3 years ago!!!!!

Its a little unfair to compare with todays current processors.

m3csl2004 · 15 Jan 2006 at 19:32

i will do any encoding bench mark with my celeron

need an athlon guy to do the same and then you can all stop arguing

chopchop · 16 Jan 2006 at 03:29

do this encoding test: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17520929

i got ~60fps with my 1700@2400

Johny Boy · 16 Jan 2006 at 09:13

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

xpm 2400 are bartons, so what are you talking about.