celeron sucks??? or ??

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
yes thats exactly what i was doing .. using an AGP video card.. (it was an asus v7100 ge-force 2mx, and now an ATI radeon 9100) and the PCI creative live player 1024! thats when the computer both refused to see an SB live card installed on an ASUS p3b-f (intel 440bx chipset).. and ECS P4VXASD2+ (via P4X266 chipset)..anyhow the live series card refused to work on the 1st PCI slot on both of the mobo's ... its not an extremely big problem for me but anyhow.. at some point it is anoying to see something like that happening... i just keep the 1st pci slot empty all the time.. anyway :) well btw what i know is celeron really sucks in tons of ways .. even compared to PIII ... don't let the high clock speeds of celeron fool you.. unless it is something like 2.0Ghz and over its not better than a 1.0 Ghz Pentium III... and i am so serious about this ...
 
I don't think you really need to explain that to crashman...

An overclocked tualatin celeron was a force to be reconed with....so not ALL celeries suck...just most of em...

If there is a option in the bios...try to disable the irq for the vga adapter...it is an option in most bioses...that may allow usage of your card in the 1st pci slot...but then again it sounds like this is not a very big deal...

If i put my k6 in a Ferrari it would be faster than your your pentium 4 or Athlon XP :tongue:
 
Tualatin Celerons lagged behind Tualatin PIII's by around 30%. Over half that could be made up by simply changing the bus speed to 133MHz. So my Tually Celly 1100@1466 did perform better than my PIII 1000EB. As for the P4 Celly, yes around 2GHz is needed to beat the old PIII 1000EB.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
 
i still cant believe the difference of clock speeds of a celeron 2.0Ghz and a pentium III 1.0 Ghz, if u are only making benchmarks using sisoft sandra :)) celeron will appear as a faster processor... but real life stuff is totally different. try to zip a movie with a celeron 2 ghz and with a 1ghz PIII, you will see what i mean .. of open tons of huge adobe photoshop files.. and see which one becomes breathless :)) celeron processors are great value, but only if you get something faster than 2.0 ghz..
How much of that difference do you guys think is caused by 128kb cache (celeron) vs 256kb (PIII)difference???
 
a lot of the diffrence is caused by cache...the rest is bus speed...

the tualatin celeron has 256mb of L2 cache...unlike the coppermine celeries...

If i put my k6 in a Ferrari it would be faster than your your pentium 4 or Athlon XP :tongue:
 
yeah wish celerons still could have 256kb with the p4 core.. while p4 has 512k ... that would really improve the cpu perf. no wonder it would increase the price too...
 
I see you're still breaking wind out your mouth. I said the TUALATIN Celeron 1100@1466 could beat a PIII 1000EB, and I meant it could at just about EVERYTHING.

Does the Tualatin Celeron have 128k cache? No. Is it a P4? No. Can it beat the Celeron 2.0GHz? Of course it can, if you overclock one to 133MHz bus. Which is why I mentioned the 1100@1466 specifically, it's the easiest to do.

Certainly you can overclock nearly any processor. But getting a Tualatin Celeron to perform well takes at least 133MHz bus speed. You can't overclock a PIII 1000EB to beat it. I doubt you could overclock a Celeron 2.0GHz to beat it, using SDRAM. Maybe with RDRAM or DDR SDRAM.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
 
hahaha. still at it crashman. The P3 architecture was good, even with the cellerons. The loss of cache and extra latency didnt fare too badly in the grand scheme.
It did though with the P4 as we all know. A chip design that demands cache and mem bandwidth... so what do they give it? crappy cache and low end SDRAM/ PC1600/2100 DDR. ugh.

I still laugh at that gaming benchmark i saw of a stock XP1600+ outperforming the overclocked 3Ghz celleron.

The only bigger shame is how well cellerons sell as they are "cheap".


<b>Regards,
Mr no integrity coward.</b>
 
well ... i know celerons are not good .. actually they are terrible.. but .. i dont think a athlon xp1600 can be faster than a 3Ghz celeron .. at least maybe in 1 or 2 tests... other than that .. its not really realistic..
 
a celeron 1.2 at stock speed is comparable if not better in some tests than a p4 1.7

If i put my k6 in a Ferrari it would be faster than your your pentium 4 or Athlon XP :tongue:
 
sure. in things that are pure Mhz related it flies (obviously)... but anything that needs cache or memory bandwidth it really boggs down.
And that unfortunately for celleron users includes most applications and especially games.

The celleron is a word, webbrowsing and emailing cpu. Not much more.

<b>Regards,
Mr no integrity coward.</b>
 
The biggest problem with the Coppermine Celerons is that...there weren't any speeds you could call "easy" to overclock to 133MHz bus The 800 was the first with a 100MHz bus, 133MHz bus would make it 1066MHz, very difficult to do with a Coppermine. If you could achieve that, it should have been comparable to a PIII 866EB.

But with the Tualatins, not only did you get a better architecture, but both the 1000MHz and 1100MHz versions were very likely to reach 133MHz FSB.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
 
my coppermine slot (100 mhz fsb) PIII 650mhz was so good about overclocking ... i still use it ... usually at.. 864mhz/133mhz fsb.. never seen it crash ..
 
Yes, but most Coppermines had a hard time getting past 1GHz.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
 
I'm looking at the TV at the same time I'm writing this and there is a woman about to have sex with another woman and that beat, every CPU, benchmark, mobo discussion ...time to quit my computer ....

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
 
thats great keep watching it :)) .... yes PIII it was hard for coppermines to reach speeds of 1.0Ghz ... but not for one of them... it was the last 100mhz fsb coppermine .. PIII 850 slot with 100mhz fsb ... and it could be overclocked to 133mhz fsb so easily with a tiny increase in the core voltage ... ... oh btw which channel was that ????????
 
god :O are your serious ... :O did they make a 1000mhz pIII with 100mhz fsb ... wish i could find one on ebay or somewhere ... that must be intel's best cpu .. i am serious .. i love PIII .. they are realy amazing cpu's...
 
Sorry to be late , but that was something like showcase and I dont know how my tv end up there, but that was very pleasant to look!!!

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
 
and what i realize about celeron is, they are not as overclockable as they were.. like in the days of PIII celeron had way more potential to be overclocked. but now its not better than P4's overclicking potential..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom