Celeron Upgrade Help pls!

Vulgr

Distinguished
Sep 18, 2001
5
0
18,510
0
Hi, I need alittle info on the major differences between the celeron processor and the pentium? Basically I was looking to squeeze out some more use from my current PC before I go ahead and buy a new one at the end of this year and pass this one over to my boy. Will upgrading to say a 1 ghz celeron have that much of a difference vs the 450 pentium I have now?

Current system specs:
Asus P2B-F mobo
Pentium III 450 mhz cpu
512 MB SDram 100 (upgrade from 128 since it was so cheap)
geforce 2 MX 200 (upgrade from a diamond viper 770)
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Editor
It would be a little faster. If you live in the U.S., the PIII 700 goes for about $6 less and performs on par with a Celron 950. But here's the kicker-the PIII 700 can be easily overclocked to 933, where it will beet ANY speed Celeron.

Back to you Tom...
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Editor
Oh, is your MX200 faster than your Viper 770? I would really be surprised considering the MX200 has a 64-bit SDR memory interface, but the Viper 770 has a 128-bit SDR interface (and the 770 Ultra had a 128-bit DDR interface!).

Back to you Tom...
 

Vulgr

Distinguished
Sep 18, 2001
5
0
18,510
0
I did notice that after you pointed it out to me but the card specs for the MX were 256 bit graphics architecture, 32 MB DDR ram which I figured was an upgrade from the viper 770 (not the ultra)...
 

Matisaro

Splendid
Mar 23, 2001
6,737
0
25,780
0
The gf2 is much faster than a v770, I used to have a v770 ultra, it generally scores 2000 or so in 3dmark 2000(the older one) gf2's (even mx's) generally score in the 4000 range. Even though 3dmark should never be used alone, I think those scores mean something.

~Matisaro~
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
~Tbird1.3@1.5~
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Editor
I just got curious so I put a V770 (not Ultra) in a system previously tested with an MX200 and got a better score with the TNT2 card. In fact, I got about the same score with a TNT2/Celeron 850 as I did with an MX200/PIII 933! Memory is not perfect, so maybe someone will look up my old post and find out what my MX200 score was. I think my scores were as follows:
MX (original, like the MX400), on PIII 933: ~5800
Same card on a Celeron 850................: ~4500

MX 200, on a PIII 933.....................: ~3200
Same card on a Celeron 850................: ~2800

Now heres the kicker:
TNT2 (via Viper 770), Celeron 850.........: 3285

I was VERY IMPRESSED with the performance of the V770, considering it's age. It does have a 128-bit memory path going to 6ns Ram. All these scores are for overclocked cards at their maximum stable speeds, which were, to the best of my knowledge, 220/190 for the MX200, 220/190 for the MX, and 150/185 for the TNT2 (older memory modules retain heat better, 190 only worked for a few minutes but 185 was stable).
Oh, and there was NO JERKINESS in the later parts of the test (the ones with the rope coil looked especially nice, as did the one in the tube). I always get some jerkiness with my newer cards, even a stock clocks. The Helicopter tests were the ones were the GeForce cards did the best over the TNT2.


Back to you Tom...
 

Matisaro

Splendid
Mar 23, 2001
6,737
0
25,780
0
Interesting, do you remember what driver revisions you were using, because madonions score average seems to dissagree with your assessment.

~Matisaro~
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
~Tbird1.3@1.5~
 

Matisaro

Splendid
Mar 23, 2001
6,737
0
25,780
0
OK I looked it up on madonion, the ULTRA highest score for a v770 Ultra (tnt2 ultra) was 4200

the HIGHEST for a gf2 mx was 8011

these were all on p3 systems, I did not search for equal processors however, hold on.


a p3950 gf2 mx got 6772(highest)
and the average of the first page is 6000

a p3 950 with a v770 ultra got4215(higest)
and the average of the first page was 3800

The results are waiting at madonion, the gf2 mx is a better videocard than the v770.




~Matisaro~
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
~Tbird1.3@1.5~
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Editor
You don't seem to understand that the MX and MX400 are about 50-100% faster than the MX200, and 3D-Mark does NOT differentiate! They don't differentiate between the GTS and PRO either, which puts the PRO at an unfair advantage since it has faster memory. I'd ask you to look up the scores on a MX200, but you CAN'T, their mixed in with all the MX and MX400 score with no way to know which is which! Also many of those MX's on the first page are the new super fast GAinward cards with 3.5ns memory! The MX200 uses 6ns memory, so it not only has half the bus width, but at half the memory clock of those cards!
Oh, the driver revision is 6.31, which works very well in spite of what you might think about it's age (I couldn't get more than about 5% better with the newest Det4 driver, and that driver causes high-speed jerkyness).

Back to you Tom...
 

Matisaro

Splendid
Mar 23, 2001
6,737
0
25,780
0
Even so, the mx in general is a better card than the v770 I checked the ULTRA scores, and they were much less, I did not intend to discredit you or anything, I was just showing the 3dmark scores I saw myself. It may be true that 3dmark does not seperate the mx 200 from the 400, however the averages speak for themselves.

~Matisaro~
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
~Tbird1.3@1.5~
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Editor
NO, averages don't speak for themselve, take a class in statistics. For example, if braindead people have an IQ of 0, and I had a brainded person in my family, I was IQ 140, and the other three members of my family dead average at 100, the avaerage IQ for my family would be 88. If you tried to apply that average to me it would give you a very inacurate view. Most people who post at MadOnion are performance freaks. How many of them do you think own the MX200? How many of them an "ultra fast" version of the MX (such as gainwards)? Would it be safe to say such a performnace freak would be more likely to buy the fastest card?

Back to you Tom...
 

Matisaro

Splendid
Mar 23, 2001
6,737
0
25,780
0
Crashman, that same law applies to the tnt2 scores on madonion! So that argument applies both ways, I got both sets of scores from madonion. I agree that the mx200 is not differentiated at madonion, which makes those results not entierly accurate, as I said my post was not meant to say you were wrong, I basically was asking you why madonions scores differ from your reported scores. Which you explained, I still however believe that the mx200 is a better card than the tnt2 (not ultra) if even only barely.

~Matisaro~
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
~Tbird1.3@1.5~
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Editor
I know for sure that the MX200 lost on MY spare system in THAT benchmark. If I still had the MX200 I would run some other graphics benchmarks and post a review in the Graphics Cards forum. But since I don't, I can only go by the one test I did run, 3d Mark 2000.
You do have to admit that a 128-bit memory interface is a HUGE advantage for the TNT2, even if you believe that it can't offset the weaker graphics processor.

Back to you Tom...
 

Matisaro

Splendid
Mar 23, 2001
6,737
0
25,780
0
I will agree to that, it is double the performance nearly. I am now intrigued and will look up more benchmarks online to find out which card is better, if a gf2 is outperformed by a tnt2 that would make it the red headed bitch of videocards LoL.

~Matisaro~
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
~Tbird1.3@1.5~
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Editor
Is the TNT2 (NOT the M64 with similar castration, but the regular version) still in production? Because if it is, and it beets the MX200, this information could be very bad news for MX200 sales, should it become common knowlege!

Back to you Tom...
 

AMD_cErTiFiEd

Distinguished
Jul 11, 2001
592
0
18,980
0
Of course the MX200 is faster then the tnt2 ultra
considering the tnt2 ultra was a bit slower then the original geforce 256, and on par with the voodoo 3 3000
I have owned all 3
My Guillemot Maxigamer Xentor 32 was one of the fastest ultras aside from the Hercules version and the Asus 256 beat me switching both with same Detonators, and my wifes MX regular smoked my geforce 256 and tnt2 ultra

Blame the newbies not the technology
 

AMD_cErTiFiEd

Distinguished
Jul 11, 2001
592
0
18,980
0
She had a regular MX and the other machines I benched had the MX200 32mg and 64mg both beating the Diamond Viper770 ultra and maxigamer xentor 32 Me and my boss are gamers and screw around with HW when there are no machines to be done..
Granted the MX200 is crippled, but is indeed faster than the TNT family of cards,
sorry for not being as clear as I could have been

Blame the newbies not the technology
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Editor
An MX200 CANNOT beet a NORMAL TNT2, let alone an Ultra. I have the test scores myself ON THE SAME DRIVER!!!!!! WTF was wrong with your TNT2 I'll never know, but I got signifiaclntly better scores with the TNT2. I also tried a regular MX which stomped both the MX200 and the TNT2. Again on the same system/same driver.

Back to you Tom...
 

AMD_cErTiFiEd

Distinguished
Jul 11, 2001
592
0
18,980
0
Settle down there fella... I am only talking here, grow up..
I am only stating my opinion here and that is what I found.
So what if I dont agree with you. And yes I think an MX200 will beat a tnt2

Blame the newbies not the technology
 

Similar threads


ASK THE COMMUNITY