Old Processor

[Upendra09]

I am currently running a celeron tualatin on my desktop

I looked this processor up and i read some pretty disturbing things.

I have heard that it is pretty much an OCed rebranded PIII, is this true?

and i have been planning to build a new rig for a while now and i just got into video editing, what kind of processor should i get from AMDfor my new rig. My budget is under 700 USD.

my following specs are

AMD Regor 240......58
DDR3 patriot 133 mhz RAM.......44
gigabyte mobo AM3 HD4200............90
LG Optical drive........29
HIS Radeon 5750.....142
Hanns-G monitor 21.5'.........150
SATA II 250 gb 7200 RPM........47
Corsair 450watt.........80

total: 640 USD

Is hanns-g a reliable montior brand?

what is the difference between SATA and SATA II? I know about the 6 gb/s data transfer rate of SATA II is double of SATA but is it noticeable?

 

[crazy359]

LOL UR CPU SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
sorry i just had to put that out there.
other than that great UPCOMING setup exept go for at least 320gb HDD

 

[Upendra09]

i know right, can't do anything on it thankfully i have a better laptop that i can use, a C2D processor

 

[jsc]

I am currently running a celeron tualatin on my desktop
I looked this processor up and i read some pretty disturbing things.
I have heard that it is pretty much an OCed rebranded PIII, is this true?

I do not understand your concern. Is the P3 Tualatin Celeron based on the P3 Tualatin core? Yes, just like the P4 Celerons were based on the corresponding P4 microarchitectures. OC'd? The P3's were all multiplier locked and binned at their rated speeds. Rebranded? I do not know what you mean here. They are all Intel CPU's.

what is the difference between SATA and SATA II? I know about the 6 gb/s data transfer rate of SATA II is double of SATA but is it noticeable?

The SATA III's are 6 Gb/s devices. After that, google is your friend.

 

[Upendra09]

I mean, i thought my processor was better than a PIII. by rebranded i meant was the tualatin celeron just an overlcocked PIII that git renamed as a celeron because it was faster but older?

i am basically asking more info on this proccesor like what can it be used for today? and more info on its arch. If there is anything good about this piece of crap

 

[crazy359]

dude why does it matter? your sayin ur pissed that ur cpu is like a P3, well like w.e it still sucks as a celeron,
lets say if it was like amd quad core and u found out it is a ctually crappy triple core then there is sometin to be dissapointed to be bout

 

[rolli59]

I mean, i thought my processor was better than a PIII. by rebranded i meant was the tualatin celeron just an overlcocked PIII that git renamed as a celeron because it was faster but older?

i am basically asking more info on this proccesor like what can it be used for today? and more info on its arch. If there is anything good about this piece of crap

It can run office applications. Tualatin was the last generation of P III and celerons based on them. Biggest difference was that the Tualatin P III had 133mhz fsb and the celerons 100mhz. If the motherboard used for the celerons supported 133mhz people got 33% overclock on those celerons just by raising the fsb to 133.

 

[cheesesubs]

I am currently running a celeron tualatin on my desktop

I looked this processor up and i read some pretty disturbing things.

I have heard that it is pretty much an OCed rebranded PIII, is this true?

and i have been planning to build a new rig for a while now and i just got into video editing, what kind of processor should i get from AMDfor my new rig. My budget is under 700 USD.

my following specs are

AMD Regor 240......58
DDR3 patriot 133 mhz RAM.......44
gigabyte mobo AM3 HD4200............90
LG Optical drive........29
HIS Radeon 5750.....142
Hanns-G monitor 21.5'.........150
SATA II 250 gb 7200 RPM........47
Corsair 450watt.........80

total: 640 USD

Is hanns-g a reliable montior brand?

what is the difference between SATA and SATA II? I know about the 6 gb/s data transfer rate of SATA II is double of SATA but is it noticeable?

recommandation: you need 500w or above if you want to to run on quad core + 5700. 450w seems to be not enough

PS: i remember these taulatin celeron were once trumple the sale of pentium 4 s423 based platform and some performance can even rival to high end pentium 4 at the time...and more powerful and effecient than p4 celeron w128.

 

[Upendra09]

what?

your saying that the PIII celeron is actually competitive to the P4?

and thanks for the recommendation, its funny people were saying an efficient 450 watt should be fine but thanks for the input

 

[Upendra09]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817341016

is this good?

OCZ 500 watt

 

[cheesesubs]

what?

your saying that the PIII celeron is actually competitive to the P4?

and thanks for the recommendation, its funny people were saying an efficient 450 watt should be fine but thanks for the input

yes by far. tualatin core was pwned p4's sale really bad until intel discontinue it. a celeron 1ghz will take a p4 northwood at 1.6ghz to comptete the performance. willamette will have to oc'ed to 2.4ghz to tie the difference. so far that celeron you have was the best processor for money at the time(2000-2002) it ultterly beat p4 at cost/performance. but of cause tualatin p3 is far greater than celeron and even beat athlon in many benchmark. saddly intel discontinue it because of stupid megahertz myth had took over these leadership's brain space.....

 

[Upendra09]

could you elabotate more on why this is so good? like microach, cache, and how it was able to beat a P4?

 

[cheesesubs]

could you elabotate more on why this is so good? like microach, cache, and how it was able to beat a P4?

tualatin celeron has 64 k l1(32k+32k), 256k /512k(pentium 3) l2 compare to willamette pentium 4's 8k l1 + 12kuops trace engine, 256k l2. coppermine's 32k l1(16k+16k), 256k l2, tualatin hand down. in cache size.

for bus, taulatin is basically the same as coppermine in i/o buss as that limit pentium 3's banwidth vastly. pentium 4 trumple pentium 3 in quad data rate of 400mhz compare to p3's single channel. but pentium 3 was relativily cheap and maintain the same performance with p4 that is in much higher clockrate with narrow banwidth.


pentium 4 was expansive and low performance.

 

[warmon6]

yes by far. tualatin core was pwned p4's sale really bad until intel discontinue it. a celeron 1ghz will take a p4 northwood at 1.6ghz to comptete the performance. willamette will have to oc'ed to 2.4ghz to tie the difference. so far that celeron you have was the best processor for money at the time(2000-2002) it ultterly beat p4 at cost/performance. but of cause tualatin p3 is far greater than celeron and even beat athlon in many benchmark. saddly intel discontinue it because of stupid megahertz myth had took over these leadership's brain space.....

Well, i was about to say sound like something wrong here but once i found this....


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/benchmark-marathon,590.html

He is right.


man...... this hurts my head. to many old cpu's :lol:

 

[cheesesubs]

Well, i was about to say sound like something wrong here but once i found this....


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/benchmark-marathon,590.html

He is right.


man...... this hurts my head. to many old cpu's :lol:

tualatin would pwn pentium 4 (willamette and some early model of northwood)only if support front speed bus and ddr.

 

[Upendra09]

why didn't intel use tech from tualatin into P4? would have owned Athlons then

 

[rolli59]

why didn't intel use tech from tualatin into P4? would have owned Athlons then

In the Netburst years Intel gathered a team in Israel that worked on a different architecture which finally got them the performance lead with the introduction of core2duo which was based on their centrino technology which was based on their P III architecture.

 

[cheesesubs]

In the Netburst years Intel gathered a team in Israel that worked on a different architecture which finally got them the performance lead with the introduction of core2duo which was based on their centrino technology which was based on their P III architecture.

yeah randy steck and his loser teammate should got their a$$ out of intel in 2002-2003, and most important key people of netburst project- craig barretts ould have be fired as early as well. these idiot honest believe raw clockrate can bring performance..

netburst sucks..

 

[joefriday]

recommandation: you need 500w or above if you want to to run on quad core + 5700. 450w seems to be not enough

PS: i remember these taulatin celeron were once trumple the sale of pentium 4 s423 based platform and some performance can even rival to high end pentium 4 at the time...and more powerful and effecient than p4 celeron w128.

Ya, this is a lie. I penned the vast majority of the wiki article on Celeron, and I can tell you this: no Taulatin Celeron ever outperformed a Williamette based P4 Celeron. Lower power consumption, yes, but never was the Tualatin actually faster.

 

[joefriday]

yeah randy steck and his loser teammate should got their a$$ out of intel in 2002-2003, and most important key people of netburst project- craig barretts ould have be fired as early as well. these idiot honest believe raw clockrate can bring performance..

netburst sucks..

You seem to have forgotten the Northwood days, when the A and B series were neck and neck with the Athlon XP processors, both performing the same, but with Intel CPUs consuming much less power and running much cooler. Then, Northwood C processors came along, with hyper threading, and virtually dominated AMD's Athlon XP. The XP 3200 could only compete with the 2.6C Northwood on most benchmarks, and only in a few games could it perform closer to the 3.0C. It was dark times for AMD then, they limped along selling their midrange CPUs for peanuts, and only when the Athlon64 was finally launched, and in sufficient quantity, did AMD have a competitive cpu line up once again. We all know what happened next: Intel's failure with Prescott and their fall from dominance for the next two years (2004-2006). It is Prescott that stains the Pentium 4 name. Cedar Mill was a much improved design and overclocked very well, but unfortunately it was overshadowed by the looming presence of Core 2 Duo's launch, with the preview on March 2006 sending shockwaves throughout the performance community.

 

[Pointertovoid]

Apart from Fsb=100MHz vs 133MHz and L2=256kB vs 512kB, Tutu celerons have another difference with Tutu PIII, in that their signal voltages allow them to use older mobos and chipsets.

That is, Celerons were really designed to modernize older computers that couldn't have worked with a Tutu PIII.

-----

My PIII 1400MHz brings as much computing performance (7z, SuperPi and so on) as a P4 2000MHz, except in games. The few SSE instructions more by the P4 probably don't explain it, but the very slow write speed of sdr-sdram is a good explanation. It writes about half as fast as it reads, as opposed to ddr-sdram, giving a factor of 4 or much more in favour of the P4.

The Tutu celeron 1400/100MHz I tested had slightly less computing performance with my PIII 1400/133MHz but even less performance in games. So overclock it to 133MHz at least, as this will keep the AGP at normal frequency.

Also notice that Ram speed has a BIG impact on Tutu performances, as opposed to a C2D for instance. CL3 to CL2 gives a 10% general improvement. Northbridge is even more important, with the i815ep (step B) giving a 30% faster computer than Via for instance.

-----

Nearly a PIII Tutu with quad-pumped Fsb does exist. It's called a Pentium-M and was used for laptops. Very good stuff: low power and fast (within the P4 epoch).

The Pentium-M is an ancestor of the Core which is an ancestor of the Core 2, so in some sense the Tutu has children whereas the Netburst is dead.

-----

Don't understand me wrongly: my newer C2D @4GHz (before raising voltages) is 6 to 20 times faster than my older Tutu @1.5GHz, even on single-task applications. But I completely skipped the P4 step because of limited improvement over the PIII and because of huge power consumption.

Now, you have the Atom, which gives performance similar to the Tutu but with ddr-sdram, Sata, Usb2, sometimes Pci-E. A new mobo with Cpu +Ram is about as expensive as a used Tutu +Mobo +Ram.

 

[cheesesubs]

You seem to have forgotten the Northwood days, when the A and B series were neck and neck with the Athlon XP processors, both performing the same, but with Intel CPUs consuming much less power and running much cooler. Then, Northwood C processors came along, with hyper threading, and virtually dominated AMD's Athlon XP. The XP 3200 could only compete with the 2.6C Northwood on most benchmarks, and only in a few games could it perform closer to the 3.0C. It was dark times for AMD then, they limped along selling their midrange CPUs for peanuts, and only when the Athlon64 was finally launched, and in sufficient quantity, did AMD have a competitive cpu line up once again. We all know what happened next: Intel's failure with Prescott and their fall from dominance for the next two years (2004-2006). It is Prescott that stains the Pentium 4 name. Cedar Mill was a much improved design and overclocked very well, but unfortunately it was overshadowed by the looming presence of Core 2 Duo's launch, with the preview on March 2006 sending shockwaves throughout the performance community.

another major issue that held back tualatin's performance is lack of instruction set, floating-point and banwidth. and they did only support crappy synchronous sdram which make unfair to compare to p4 line.

and northwood is running cool? really? i had a northwood 2.6ghz fsb400 with pc800 and it ran above 60c when idle and 95c under full load with stock cooling. that is what you called "cool"? but indeed it is cooler compare to prescott and willamette. but no where near tualatin 1.4ghz's idle temp of 40c(for 180nm that is impressive.)

Apart from Fsb=100MHz vs 133MHz and L2=256kB vs 512kB, Tutu celerons have another difference with Tutu PIII, in that their signal voltages allow them to use older mobos and chipsets.

That is, Celerons were really designed to modernize older computers that couldn't have worked with a Tutu PIII.

-----

My PIII 1400MHz brings as much computing performance (7z, SuperPi and so on) as a P4 2000MHz, except in games. The few SSE instructions more by the P4 probably don't explain it, but the very slow write speed of sdr-sdram is a good explanation. It writes about half as fast as it reads, as opposed to ddr-sdram, giving a factor of 4 or much more in favour of the P4.

performance with my PIII 1400/133MHz but even less performance in games. So overclock it to 133MHz at least, as this will keep the AGP at normal frequency.

Also notice that Ram speed has a BIG impact on Tutu performances, as opposed to a C2D for instance. CL3 to CL2 gives a 10% general improvement. Northbridge is even more important, with the i815ep (step B) giving a 30% faster computer than Via for instance.

-----


The Tutu celeron 1400/100MHz I tested had slightly less computing Nearly a PIII Tutu with quad-pumped Fsb does exist. It's called a Pentium-M and was used for laptops. Very good stuff: low power and fast (within the P4 epoch).

The Pentium-M is an ancestor of the Core which is an ancestor of the Core 2, so in some sense the Tutu has children whereas the Netburst is dead.

-----

Don't understand me wrongly: my newer C2D @4GHz (before raising voltages) is 6 to 20 times faster than my older Tutu @1.5GHz, even on single-task applications. But I completely skipped the P4 step because of limited improvement over the PIII and because of huge power consumption.

Now, you have the Atom, which gives performance similar to the Tutu but with ddr-sdram, Sata, Usb2, sometimes Pci-E. A new mobo with Cpu +Ram is about as expensive as a used Tutu +Mobo +Ram.

agree!

 

[joefriday]

Apart from Fsb=100MHz vs 133MHz and L2=256kB vs 512kB, Tutu celerons have another difference with Tutu PIII, in that their signal voltages allow them to use older mobos and chipsets.

That is, Celerons were really designed to modernize older computers that couldn't have worked with a Tutu PIII.

You'll have to elaborate on this to truly prove your point. Tualatin Celerons ARE NOT pin compatible with older socket 370 boards. Hell, even coppermines will not work in early socket 370 boards built for the Mendocino Celeron. The ONLY thing the Taulatin celeron had going for it in terms of backwards compatibility is the 100MHz fsb. Due to pin reassignments, the Tualatin Celeron would not work in any motherboard that did not have a modern enough chipset to support it, and since the Tualatin line launched after the P4, very few boards were produced that supported Tualatin. Specifically, only later revisions of the 810e 815 chipsets had support. VIA offered the apollo 133T, and 266T (with DDR ram support). SIS and Ali also each had a chipset with Tualatin support at the end, but you can't think that you can simply slap a Tualatin Celeron in place of a 633MHz coppermine on an i810 chipset mobo and expect the thing to work. It won't happen, not without an adapter (such as the rare Lin Lin adapter, of which I happen to own two). Without an adapter, a lot of hardware hacking was involved to make a Tualatin work in a non-Tualatin board. You need to look at the Lunchbox website (saved from the Geocities website) that deals with all the modifications that must take place to make a Taulatin work in an older board. I've done it myself, using a 1200MHz Tualatin Celeron in an HP Pavilion 6835 motherboard (i810 chipset). If I remember correctly, I had to break off the pins, and then short about 18 others to make it work in that board. Hardly plug and play compatible.

My own experience with Tualatins:
1. Modded 1200MHz tualatin celeron in HP Pavilion 6835
2. Modded 1300MHz Tualatin Celeron in Dell Dimension r450 (on a slocket)
3. 1266MHz Tualatin Pentium-IIIs with Lin Lin adapter on Intel 810e chipset mobo.

Lunchbox website:
http://home.graffiti.net/RoseBaker/

 

[joefriday]

and northwood is running cool? really? i had a northwood 2.6ghz fsb400 with pc800 and it ran above 60c when idle and 95c under full load with stock cooling.

Then you either had a faulty motherboard sensor, or a poor chip, or perhaps a poorly ventilated case. My own Northwood CPUs (a 2.0 Celeron @ 3.0GHz, a 2.4B, a 2.4C undervolted to 1.3vcore, and a 2.6C), all idled at mid to high 20's, and loaded in the mid thirties Celcius (edit: these were running in a basement with ambient air temp of 65 F), all with stock thermal solutions. But yes, the Northwood CPU was the coolest running P4 of them all, and ran cooler than any Athlon XP it competed against. Even more telling is the power consumption figures. Tell me, did you ever measure the system power consumption of your Northwood computers? Well, I did, and I was surprised to find idle power consumption of 50-60 watts, with loads at close to 100 watts (the undervolted 2.4C idled at 45 watt and loaded at 66 watt). In comparison, a 1200MHz AMD Duron idled at 80 watts, and loaded at 130, while an AMD Athlon XP 2800 Barton core idled at 70 watts, and loaded at 125. I used the same PSU, hard drive, and graphics card on both Intel and AMD setups, so the only true difference to account for the power consumption is in CPU and motherboard. If you are curious, the temps in my AMD systems idled in the high 40's/ low 50's, and loaded in the high 50's / lower 60's. They also sounded like jet engines with their 5,500 rpm fans.

 

[C00lIT]

500 gigs is only a few dollars over the 250 so go with 500

Since you are planning on video editing, I suggest going with the Athlon II 630... should cost around 110$

4 gigs of ram recommended on new builds and something like a Thermaltake 500W, that should give you a great up to date machine.

___________
Edit

Nice read on P3's... I skipped from Older Celeron 850 to an AthlonXP2400... Very satisfied with that chip... The future upgrade to Barton3000 didn't do a big difference but still fair for the price.