Celeron 420 vs A64 vs Sempron

pauldh · Feb 25, 2008

Just curious as to what single core A64 or Sempron you would compare the Celeron 420 to (at stock speeds)? Can it beat an A64 3000+ for games? BTW, I'm not looking for alternatives like the e2140.

rockbyter · Feb 25, 2008

open the CPU Chart, then on the right click Chart 2005, and you'll see those processors. Celeron 420 seems to land right next to the P4 521 (2.8 GHz). They would perform generally in this order:

Athlon 64 3000
Celeron 420
Sempron below 3000.

Spikeli27 · Feb 25, 2008

i think a64 wins hands down

Gravemind123 · Feb 25, 2008

If you don't mind overclocking the Celeron seems to clock like the Core2s do, and Xbit-Labs got theirs up to 3GHz. Another review got it up to 3.2GHz and even at 3GHz stock voltage.
If you aren't overclocking I'd have to say it would be close between the 3000+ and Celeron, so go with whatever one is cheaper if there will be no overclocking.

rockbyter · Feb 26, 2008

with the ability to Get an X2 3800 for under $50, you do what you gotta do. Theres no limit to the number of combinations you can make that will do exactly what you want in a budget scenario or not.

pauldh · Feb 26, 2008

Thx for all the replies.

I actually bought a cheap cpu/mobo combo just for fun to try, and if it's stable I may throw it in an occasionally used HTPC. I was just curious how it compared to other chips. Currently that HTPC has an NF7-S rev 2 in it and a mobile XP2500+. But because of heat/noise I don't typically OC that chip and at stock speeds it is very slow for newer games. Isn't even playable for test drive unlimited 800x600 low details. (paired with iceQ x1650XT). So I know how a stock A64 3000+ compares to the Athlon XP as I have compared them in the past(1.8Ghz A64 3000+ easily beats the mobile XP @ 2.6GHz even). But I had no idea where this celeron fits in.

I want to run it stock speeds and voltage for as low temps as possible. That's also why I didn't want dual core on this one...I was attracted to the claimed 35 watts.

Anyway, thx for the replies. I was hoping it could match the A64 3000+, but if not I know it should still beat even a 2.2GHz Athlon XP with easy. SHoot, I don't even know how the cheap PCCHips mobo will be, I may find after testing it that I never want to install it in a case even. I have a S939 mobo and X2 3800+ I could have used and may still if this thing doesn't work out. Just wanted a matx instead and coudn;t resist a $60 mobo/cpu combo as it's not an important system to me.

pauldh · Feb 26, 2008

For laughs, Here's the $20 mobo.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813185107

And not trusting it I wanted the cheapest chip, and wanted the coolest running cpu for it too, so I chose the 420 combo over the e2140 combo (Yeah, I can imagine your thoughts) BTW, I already had all other needed components, so this was very cheap to try.

joefriday · Feb 27, 2008

hey Paul, after you get the 420 and mobo combo, if you could be so cool as to update this thread with the following information, I'd really appreciate it.

1. Does the Celeron 420 have speedstep enabled? Supposedly it should not, but there have been a few people with Celeron 420s that would clock down to 6x multiplier when idling in windows (1200 MHz idle).

2. Does this PC Chips board support Suspend-to-ram (S3) standby? It's absolutely necessary to have this function for any HTPC application, and places like Tom's and Anandtech won't touch this cheap stuff with a ten foot pole.

Thanks.

Joe

pauldh · Feb 27, 2008

Alright, will do on #1. And #2, Yeah, it does support STR as S3 is the bios default ACPI suspend type.

And I usually won't touch the cheap stuff either. Not since a few K7S5A problems. But for $60 for the combo, and no pressure for it to be trouble free(spare rig to keep myself), I couldn't resist. Plus been stocking up on so much DDR2, I needed an excuse to use some of it.

pauldh · Mar 6, 2008

No speedstep on this one. And just an update...been stress testing this setup in games and benchmark loops and it's been rock solid stable at default speeds. So if it lasts, it was well worth it for a $20 mobo. It's not an overclocker though. Probably no PCI/PCI-e lock at all. Best I could do in quick attempts was 215 bus (failed at 220). That makes for 1.72 GHz. Also, when I try to set it at 266 (1066) and save bios settings, it just reverts back to 200 when it posts. No crash or delay, the FSB setting just doesn't take. I was hoping this little 420L would run 266 and avoid the locking issues on this mobo. The chip should have no problem at 2.128GHz, but I can't seem to get the mobo to cooperate. Oh well it's stable, but a stock Celeron 420 has limited uses for sure.

Gravemind123 · Mar 7, 2008

It's a PC Chips board, you can't ask for more then pure stock running to be honest, especially at $20.

joefriday · Mar 7, 2008

thanks for the speed step update. Perhaps the board will take to a little pin mod on the Celeron?

That's one way to get to 1066 fsb.

pauldh · Mar 7, 2008

Hey thanks. I didn't know that. Not sure if I'll try it or not, but I'll definately read up on it and then decide. Any links discussing this? Is it common to not be able to not run 1066 without doing this? Or just on crap non-overclockable mobos like mine?

joefriday · Mar 7, 2008

it's common on crap overclocking board to do a pin mod to jump to the next higher fsb. You can even do it on Dells. It essentially fools the mobo into thinking that a 1066 fsb cpu is in the socket, so the mobo sets the correct fsb/ram and fsb/pci ratios, giving you stable 1066 fsb operation. Not every mobo out there will take to a pin mod, as some use different methods to determine the cpu fsb frequency, but they are the exception and not the rule.

Very long discussion on the topic here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/228129-28-e4300
Note my ridicule of the proposed method about a dozen posts from the top. The mod works as is, but it's not the easiest way to do it. Also, on page 4, I list all possible pin mod combinations. 0=has voltage, or connected (zero resistance), while 1=no voltage, or not connected (infinite resistance). To change a 0 to a 1, put tape over the pad. To change a 1 to a 0, you must pull up voltage either from a standard voltage pin (as shown in the pic above), or from another BSEL pin that has voltage to it already (the simpler, faster, easier way), using conductive ink.

Hope that helps.

pauldh · Mar 8, 2008

Thank You. I'll look that over for sure.

One other question. I bought an e4500 to put on the PC CHips board for now anyway. Is there a fairly cheap (under $100 anyway) S775 DDR2 mobo you would recommend for OC'in? Can be ATX or MATX. Plan is to push this Celeron as high as I can on air. Then later on do the same with say an e8400 or 8500.

edit: I had the MSI P35 Platinum or P35 Neo2 FR in mind, but wouldn't mind finding one alot cheaper.

joefriday · Mar 8, 2008

Paul,

I wish I could help you there. I haven't looked into bang for the buck mobos since the Asrock dualcore VSTA was all the rage over a year ago. I'm stuck on my Asrock 775i65g, b/c I have more than enough AGP cards and DDR ram to use before finally getting with the times and moving on to DDR2 and PCIe. It used to be that if your budget board could do 350 mhz fsb, you were doing well, but with CPUs that have defualt 333 fsb nowadays, I'm as lost as you when it comes to finding a decent budget board that offers good overclocking headroom and support for modern 45nm CPUs. Since I got nothing I want to do tonight, I might stumble around New Egg and see what's for sale, but I hope someone else chimes in on a good under $100 board for overclocking Intel CPUs.

pauldh · Mar 8, 2008

Alright thanks. Don't worry about looking into it as I can reasearch some myself. Just thought I'd ask as I'm a bit out of the loop OC'in these current chips. My Q6600 does 3.0GHz with ease on my system, but I'm just using the stock cooler so have not pushed it to see where it can go as temps are high enough for me as is in a quiet SOnata II case. My last pure overclocking system was an Abit NF7-S and Mobile XP2500+. Noisy beast, but it did 2.6GHz on air vs 1.86GHz stock. But that's puny compared to what people are doing with these S775 chips. Thanks again.

tlmck · Mar 8, 2008

pauldh :

For what it is worth, on basic tasks such as web surfing, e-mail, word processing, etc., the 420 responded much slower than my old Athlon 2600+ Barton, or my old Athlon 64 3200+ Newcastle. This test was done using Windows XP SP1 on all the same hardware, except MB. I used the 420 on an ECS transition board with the same ATA133 HDD, AGP video, and DDR400 ram that was used in the other boards. Gaming, such s Far Cry and Quake4 was far superior on the 3200+. The AMD 2600+ and the Celeron were pretty much a dead heat. I did not try any modern games.

The one area the Celeron did excel was video encoding using Avidemux. I guess it had something to do with the clock cycles of the newer core. It was on average 30% faster than the 3200+. The 2600+ was slooooooooow.

pauldh · Mar 8, 2008

All I could get with my Athlon Xp 2400+ was 2.16GHZ from 1.99GHZ

yeah, I had an XP2400+ that didn't go far either. In contrast, every XP2500+ I tried could do 2.2GHz. Some had unlocked multipliers too.

But the mobile XP's OC'ed even better and all had unlocked multipliers. I ended up with two mobile XP chips, the first hit 2.4GHz, and the second did 2.6GHz. Here is a thread I started in 2004 about mobile XP's. http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/59743-28-mobile-xp2500

:ouch:

shoot, I can't believe it's been over 4 years already. :ouch:

pauldh · Mar 8, 2008

tlmck, thanks for sharing that. Interesting about it feeling slow in daily tasks yet so good in Video encoding. And farcry usually shows good cpu scaling so that was interesting to see. I haven't done much with the 420L except stress it and bench/play a few newer games. For NFS:Carbon and Test Drive Unlimited, Mine is a bit below the XP3200+ but easily ahead of the XP2500+ at stock. I used an X1650XT AGP vs 2600 pro PCI-e in the two rigs, but tested 800x600 res so things should be CPU bound. Anyway, at stock speeds, the 420L is too slow for the gaming I hoped it could do. TDU is still basically on the verge of unplayable ... in the un-enjoyable range anyway even at 800x600 low details. The game just has so few video options to tweak. Carbon is playable with high details. But yeah, I'd have to say from what I have seen too, an A64 3000+ is easily better than Celeron 420L in gaming.

joefriday · Mar 9, 2008

Hey Paul

It seems you have the entire spectrum of Core CPUs. Could you give some subjective analysis on what it feels like to use the Celeron, vs the Core 2 Duo, vs the Quad? Does the Celeron still feel like a Core CPU during mundane Windows tasks like web browsing, word, etc, or is it too crippled?

endyen · Mar 9, 2008

pauldh :

Thanks for the stroll down memory lane. That was a fun thread.

pauldh · Mar 10, 2008

Thanks for the stroll down memory lane. That was a fun thread.

Yeah, Fun days for sure. I was surprised a quick search brought that old thread up. Do you still have yours? Too bad they are so pathetic now.

pauldh · Mar 10, 2008

joefriday :

Well, In all honesty, the lil 420L has felt pretty good so far except for gaming. But I have far from put it to any extensive testing. I'll need some time on the celeron first before being able to say. I also don't have the e4500 yet as I ordered from ZZF and their free shipping takes a week to me. But no tax and slightly cheaper price saved me $10 over Newegg. I'll try messing with it and maybe even side by side with an X2 4200+ doing the same tasks. Once the e4500 comes, I'll bench both for fun like I usually do before upgrades. I'm also determined now to try this pin mod on the 420L and am so hoping for an easy 1066 bus.

pauldh · Mar 10, 2008

joefriday :

Just wanted to say thanks. I did this 1066 pin mod with defogger repair liquid and it worked first try. And I now have a functioning speedstep too.

Celeron 420 vs A64 vs Sempron

Illustrious

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Illustrious

Illustrious

Distinguished

Illustrious

Illustrious

Distinguished

Distinguished

Illustrious

Distinguished

Illustrious

Distinguished

Illustrious

Distinguished

Illustrious

Illustrious

Distinguished

Splendid

Illustrious

Illustrious

Illustrious

Share this page