Why is this thread still going strong? who cares? If op doesn't understand what all the people are saying, just give up people. The op came here to announce his find. He's happy with it, so I am for him. There's no point yelling to a deaf person. Just close this thread already.
I'm so happy that I've never actually owned a celeron in my life. I've seen them in a friends house and was like, wtf this will ....erm.... take a while.....
I'm so happy that I've never actually owned a celeron in my life. I've seen them in a friends house and was like, wtf this will ....erm.... take a while.....
Well, thats nice. I have build many celeron systems for people that couldn't afford a faster proc. I also ran many benchmarks on both the celerons and my own P4 (and Xeon) based systems and hardly found much of a performance difference. As long as you pair them with a good board and ram, they aren't so bad. I can post some benchmark comparisons a bit later if you or anyone would like to see. It maybe take me a couple hours to do this though... since i would have to use the same video card for both.
dasickninja
Splendid
- May 16, 2006
- 7,557
- 0
- 30,810
You kidding me? The difference in performance from a Celeron 3.06 with 533MHz and crippled cache to a P4 3.06 with 800Mhz and a full cache is quite noticeable. I can put a Celeron in a system that has 2 x 1GB DDR2 533 with 3-3-3-9 timings and a 7950GX2 all on DQ6 and it'll still perform like crap. Its a budget processor. You get what you pay for.
m25
Distinguished
- May 23, 2006
- 2,363
- 0
- 19,780
Tell me something i don't know, lol. but really that applies to the P4s and PDs as well. I also wasn't comparing them on a clock for clock basis... more price/performance 😉 As for the "arithmetics" statement... i could provide some sandra and drystone whetstone comparisons for you, if you would like.
Of course, and even better if you add some encoding and rendering values if possible
Tell me something i don't know, lol. but really that applies to the P4s and PDs as well. I also wasn't comparing them on a clock for clock basis... more price/performance 😉 As for the "arithmetics" statement... i could provide some sandra and drystone whetstone comparisons for you, if you would like.
Of course, and even better if you add some encoding and rendering values if possible
I don't have many rendering benches... but i could run bryce. i just got the latest version (and its finally multi-threaded!)
btw, you might have to wait until tonight to get the benches because someone is using the celeron system currently... i cant just ask them to stop so i can run a few benchmarks.
dasickninja
Splendid
- May 16, 2006
- 7,557
- 0
- 30,810
m25
Distinguished
- May 23, 2006
- 2,363
- 0
- 19,780
Most of the people writing here (me included) actually have, and since budget CPUs sell a lot, it makes sense to talk about them.
To cwj717:
Trying to find an answer for you (and mee too) I found this interesting and quite up to date (December the 4th 2006) review:
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/404/1
Sempron is head and shoulders above it
Most of the people writing here (me included) actually have, and since budget CPUs sell a lot, it makes sense to talk about them.
To cwj717:
Trying to find an answer for you (and mee too) I found this interesting and quite up to date (December the 4th 2006) review:
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/404/1
Sempron is head and shoulders above it
Oh, yes. I would say the sempron is definitely faster than the celeron.
First round of benches:
Sandra Arithmetic Benchmark:
P4 2.8GHz:
Dhrystone: 5409 MIPS
Whetstone: 3389 MFLOPS
Celeron 2.8GHz:
Dhrystone: 5170 MIPS
Whetstone: 3274 MFLOPS
Sandra Multi-Media Benchmark:
P4 2.8GHz:
Integer: 11145 it/s
Floating-Point: 13823 it/s
Celeron 2.8GHz:
Integer: 12573 its/s
Floating-Point: 13050 its/s
Bryce 6 (Render Time in Minutes:Seconds)
P4 2.8GHz - 2:30
Celeron 2.8GHz - 2:46
Next up, ill do Tmpg times and after that some gaming benches 😉
Games i have to test:
Quake3
Doom3
and i might possibly bench FEAR.
Sandra Arithmetic Benchmark:
P4 2.8GHz:
Dhrystone: 5409 MIPS
Whetstone: 3389 MFLOPS
Celeron 2.8GHz:
Dhrystone: 5170 MIPS
Whetstone: 3274 MFLOPS
Sandra Multi-Media Benchmark:
P4 2.8GHz:
Integer: 11145 it/s
Floating-Point: 13823 it/s
Celeron 2.8GHz:
Integer: 12573 its/s
Floating-Point: 13050 its/s
Bryce 6 (Render Time in Minutes:Seconds)
P4 2.8GHz - 2:30
Celeron 2.8GHz - 2:46
Next up, ill do Tmpg times and after that some gaming benches 😉
Games i have to test:
Quake3
Doom3
and i might possibly bench FEAR.
dasickninja
Splendid
- May 16, 2006
- 7,557
- 0
- 30,810
Test Bed -
3.06GHz Celeron D 533MHz FSB
2 x 1GB DDR2 533 4-4-4-12
Nvidia 7950GX2
Gigabyte 965P DQ6
3.06GHz Pentium 4 800MHz FSB
2 x 1GB DDR2 800 4-4-4-12
Nvidia 7950GX2
Gigabyte 965P DQ6
Control -
2.93GHz x6800 1066MHz FSB
2 x 1GB DDR2 667 4-4-4-12
Nvidia 7950GX2
Gigabyte DQ6
Note:
I put my old Celeron D and Pentium 4 into the DQ6 and just changed the RAM to a model I have that is the closest match to the FSB so that the test would be relatively uniform without any variables that could affect the test.
First the synthetics:
(Dhrystone)
(Default Settings)
Now real world apps.
By the way, next tests yourself.
3.06GHz Celeron D 533MHz FSB
2 x 1GB DDR2 533 4-4-4-12
Nvidia 7950GX2
Gigabyte 965P DQ6
3.06GHz Pentium 4 800MHz FSB
2 x 1GB DDR2 800 4-4-4-12
Nvidia 7950GX2
Gigabyte 965P DQ6
Control -
2.93GHz x6800 1066MHz FSB
2 x 1GB DDR2 667 4-4-4-12
Nvidia 7950GX2
Gigabyte DQ6
Note:
I put my old Celeron D and Pentium 4 into the DQ6 and just changed the RAM to a model I have that is the closest match to the FSB so that the test would be relatively uniform without any variables that could affect the test.
First the synthetics:
(Dhrystone)
(Default Settings)
Now real world apps.
By the way, next tests yourself.
dasickninja
Splendid
- May 16, 2006
- 7,557
- 0
- 30,810
Thanks. I'm running 1600 x 1400 resolution and also using 8xS AA/AF. By the way, nice tests bro.
Wow, that is a NICE video card. hehe. Anyways. I ran Tmpgenc (latest version) and I converted a music video in MPEG1 to MPEG2 (default settings):
P4 2.8GHz - 1:06
Celeron 2.8GHz - 1:04
(ill run all this stuff on the sempron... if i can find a working HDD around here that isn't SCSI, lol)
dasickninja
Splendid
- May 16, 2006
- 7,557
- 0
- 30,810
Wow, that is a NICE video card. hehe. Anyways. I ran Tmpgenc (latest version) and I converted a music video in MPEG1 to MPEG2 (default settings):
P4 2.8GHz - 1:06
Celeron 2.8GHz - 1:04
(ill run all this stuff on the sempron... if i can find a working HDD around here that isn't SCSI, lol)
Nice. Sweet. Heres a link to a graph maker if you want to use it.
http://nces.ed.gov/nceskids/createagraph/
enforcer22
Distinguished
- Sep 10, 2006
- 1,692
- 0
- 19,790
I cant believe its come down to running benchmarks to show everyone something they should already know from years of benchmarks where value cpus always come up slower aside the strang duron that was able to beat the athlon in a couple benchmarks.
Seriously ninja said what no one else really said. you get what you pay for and the difference is amasingly noticable i have a duron and a couple celeron computers i have torn down recently because of hte lack of power they had. I then rebuilt them in systems with crappy parts because there is no point in hell to put them into a system with top of hte line parts.
O then i gave them away since i didnt want to store the garbage in my closet.
Seriously ninja said what no one else really said. you get what you pay for and the difference is amasingly noticable i have a duron and a couple celeron computers i have torn down recently because of hte lack of power they had. I then rebuilt them in systems with crappy parts because there is no point in hell to put them into a system with top of hte line parts.
O then i gave them away since i didnt want to store the garbage in my closet.
Wow, that is a NICE video card. hehe. Anyways. I ran Tmpgenc (latest version) and I converted a music video in MPEG1 to MPEG2 (default settings):
P4 2.8GHz - 1:06
Celeron 2.8GHz - 1:04
(ill run all this stuff on the sempron... if i can find a working HDD around here that isn't SCSI, lol)
Nice. Sweet. Heres a link to a graph maker if you want to use it.
http://nces.ed.gov/nceskids/createagraph/
Ok, thanks.
Well, here are the other benches:
Doom3 (1280x1024 HQ):
P4 2.8GHz - 49.9 FPS
Celeron 2.8GHz - 42.7 FPS
Quake3 (1280x1024 x16AF NO AA):
P4 2.8GHz - 216.6 FPS
Celeron 2.8GHz - 212.3 FPS
Also, it looks like the sempron won't be included... the board wont even post at its default clocks. I have to jumper it to 100MHz bus. Any suggestions?
So, how do you benchmark oblivion? fraps? or does it have a built in benchmark? I have oblivion on both systems... and im sure the celeron doesnt get frame rates lower than 20. although it has different settings. i cant really compare oblivion on my systems though, since they have so many different mods on them... (for testing purposes) anyways, i can graph this stuff tomorrow. ill also try to get the sempron running too (i have a few other psus and such)
- Jan 18, 2006
- 1,076
- 0
- 19,280
Thanks JoeFriday. I was wrong about the Celeron Ds.
I never said the Celerons were great performers, but they're great performers for the price. I've built a few of them, and I've played with mainstream celeron systems, and it's night and day.
Very few people would buy a $50 celeron and pair with with a $200 mobo and $250 video card. If you pair a celeron with a budget asus MB, some decent RAM, and a half-decent hard drive, then you really get a good system for the price. I've never built a sempron system, so I can't say how they fare against semprons.
There's no doubt that Celerons are lesser chips than Pentiums. That's the point, and to say anything contrary is just stupid. I was just saying, on a sidepoint, that Celerons are not crap. It's obviously an arguable point because, again, it was an opinion.
The Celeron has about 20% less performance and 40%~50% lower price (with a few exceptions both ways). That makes it a pretty good deal if you're not looking to do anything hardcore with your comp.
I couldn't agree more.
Before the Core 2, it's exactly what qualified a celeron. Intel changed that with the core 2. That's the ONLY point I was trying to make.
I never said the Celerons were great performers, but they're great performers for the price. I've built a few of them, and I've played with mainstream celeron systems, and it's night and day.
Very few people would buy a $50 celeron and pair with with a $200 mobo and $250 video card. If you pair a celeron with a budget asus MB, some decent RAM, and a half-decent hard drive, then you really get a good system for the price. I've never built a sempron system, so I can't say how they fare against semprons.
There's no doubt that Celerons are lesser chips than Pentiums. That's the point, and to say anything contrary is just stupid. I was just saying, on a sidepoint, that Celerons are not crap. It's obviously an arguable point because, again, it was an opinion.
The Celeron has about 20% less performance and 40%~50% lower price (with a few exceptions both ways). That makes it a pretty good deal if you're not looking to do anything hardcore with your comp.
I couldn't agree more.
Before the Core 2, it's exactly what qualified a celeron. Intel changed that with the core 2. That's the ONLY point I was trying to make.
- Jan 18, 2006
- 1,076
- 0
- 19,280
Most of the people writing here (me included) actually have, and since budget CPUs sell a lot, it makes sense to talk about them.
To cwj717:
Trying to find an answer for you (and mee too) I found this interesting and quite up to date (December the 4th 2006) review:
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/404/1
Sempron is head and shoulders above it
Not to nitpick, but they paired a sempron on a gigabyte mobo to a celeron on a PC Chips mobo with a via chipset. I admittedly don't know enough about AMD to know if the chipset was good for AMD, though, but I do know they pit a Gigabyte MB versus a PC Chips mobo...
I'm not arguing that the Celeron is better than the Sempron (That would surprise me actually 😉), but I would dispute the validity of this review.
Here are a few I found:
(X-BIT) New Budget Processors Comparison: Intel Celeron D vs. AMD Sempron
(Tech Report) AMD's Sempron 2800+ and 3100+ processors
TechReport uses an Intel mobo and chipset, which is something I would see as more of a typical setup.
On the one-hand, you have this:
On the other-hand, you have this:
I'm sure price/performance has changed since. I don't want to get into Celeron vs. Sempron (mostly cuz I don't care), but I just wanted to dispute that review originally posted. It looks shady.
AdamBomb42
Distinguished
- Dec 7, 2006
- 641
- 0
- 18,980
I understand the point that you make regarding the Allendale-Conroe and the Celeron-Pentium. But, to clearify the Celeron D-Pentium D. The Celeron D is a Prescott rather than a Northwood, and the D was added to distnguish it from the Celeron M.
- Jan 18, 2006
- 1,076
- 0
- 19,280
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
News Introducing the Tom’s Hardware Premium Beta: Exclusive content for members
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 43
-
Question Can my PC handle a NVIDA 3060 TI without upgrading anything else?
- Started by hexzero13
- Replies: 20
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram