XP2100-2400. vs. 2.4 Celeron (comp for gf)

G

Glow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 20, 2002
Messages
4,834
I don't want to fan boy attacks here just honest answers and opinions. I am building a SFF for my gf and I want a processor that costs under $70 I don't really want to risk a ton in buying a processor that might not end up OCing too high but I will OC it. So tell me for the price/ performance what should I go with? I heard some of the new Cellies are OCing pretty high and a guy doing video editing said his 2.4 celly only took 2 seconds more than his 3.2 P4 thats pretty impressive to me anyway.
 
Treat her good. Get her some Athlon XP luvin'. P4-Celery is BS. I don't know if I could be a fanboy cause I love Northwoods. The P4-Celery is just horrible beyond words. I would only recommend it if it were a placeholder so that you can drop a Northwood in later.

edit- sorry I didn't mention overclocking. But think about it like this: the P4-Celery gains less from each frequency increase than the P4-Willamette (original P4). Remember that stinker? Well, it takes a P4-Celery overclocked to 3GHz in most, or virtually all, apps to compare to an Athlon XP 1600+. That's an Athlon XP with 256KB of cache running at 1.4GHz. Now most Athlon XP chips based on the Thoroughbred core are routinely overclocking to well over 2GHz with little to no voltage bump (they start needing more juice around 2.2GHz). With an Athlon XP at a modest overclock of 2GHz it will mop the floor with a P4-Celery at well over 3GHz. But also take into account heat output. You may have heard in the past that if you didn't want to deal with all the heat, you'd go Intel. But the tables have turned especially at high frequencies. From Sandpile.org:

59.8 W (2.4 GHz 0.13 µm µPGA478 @ 1.525 V with 128 KB L2)
~77 W (2.4 GHz 0.13 µm µPGA478 @ 1.525 V with 128 KB L2)

1733B MHz TH CPUID=681: 55.9 W (1.60 V)
1733B MHz TH CPUID=681: 62.1 W (1.60 V)

The former is a P4-Celery at 2.4GHz and latter is a Thoroughbred 2100+, both with typical and maximum wattage. As you can imagine, that P4-Celery will start pumping out the heat at 3GHz and higher while the TBred barely breaks a sweat at 2GHz.

So here is what I would recommend: the cheapest Thoroughbred you can find. I think that would be the 1800+ at the moment. OC that sucker to an easy 2GHz and it will serve your SO well. Good luck.
 
I just put a P4 2.4 Celery into my g/f's PC. It runs PC133 SDRAM and it sux gas bad. Go with the Athlon. Much better performance and if you undervolt them at stock speed they last forever and run cool.
 
A Celeron 2.4 will be about as powerful as a 1.5GHz P4. Mabye even less.

The Athlon will be a much better setup.
 
Alright so which XP now keep in mind under $70. I'm a bit surprised since these guys all have 266 and the celery has 400mhz but then again the celery only has 128 cache doesn't it? I know the 2500 Bartons are being locked now what about the ones below it? Still surprised I would get better performance out of a chip running at 2.0Ghz vs. one running 3.0Ghz
 
The reason why a celeron sucks ass so badly is that it executes less instructions per clock cycle than the P4. Please stay away from that crap. I'm not sure of the numbers, I am going off the top of my head, but its something like the celeron executes 2 executions per cycle and a P4 is like 4-5 or something like that. Piece of crappiola.:mad:
 
dunno about the above post, i've never heard that before...
but also.. if you get a P4 celeron most likely you'll get a board that supports 800mhz FSB. You could upgrade (potentially) all the way up to a prescott with that board. I'd keep that in mind. If you're not going to upgrade at all... hands down AXP lovin'.
 
Athlon XP for sure. Intel and anyone else who sells a "budget" system to a consumer with a P4 Celeron in it, should be ashamed of themselves. Grab 2100+ Tbred "B" and have some overclocking fun. This core should easily do 2200+ Mhz.

If you really care to see how bad the Celeron sucks, read this...

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927
 
Originally posted by freeloader1969
Athlon XP for sure. Intel and anyone else who sells a "budget" system to a consumer with a P4 Celeron in it, should be ashamed of themselves. Grab 2100+ Tbred "B" and have some overclocking fun. This core should easily do 2200+ Mhz.

If you really care to see how bad the Celeron sucks, read this...

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927
Click to expand...
One vote for 2100. What about if theres just one stick of 512?
 
I vote for athlon because it is much better than celeron. Celeron just has too low cache. If she will be playing some sorts of games. She will need athlon power :D
 
One stick will do just fine and 512 is great for Windows XP/2000. Get a decent stick of PC2700 if you're grabbing a 2100+ (133 FSB), IF the price difference is not much, then grab PC3200 instead. Always good for a "future proof" purchase. Of course the lower the latency, the better. XP's love tight memory timings.
 
Originally posted by Shinare
The reason why a celeron sucks ass so badly is that it executes less instructions per clock cycle than the P4. Please stay away from that crap. I'm not sure of the numbers, I am going off the top of my head, but its something like the celeron executes 2 executions per cycle and a P4 is like 4-5 or something like that. Piece of crappiola.:mad:
Click to expand...

No the Celeron on the P4 have the same core architecture. They execute the same number of instructions per cycle; they can both deal with 3 microp ops per cycle which is usually in the neighborhood of 1.5 to 2 instructions per cycle. There are other reasons why the Celeron is a terrible chip but at its heart the execution core identical to the P4.

Don't ever buy a Celeron. They are horrible chips and the low-cost Athlons are definately the way to go. Maybe you could think about getting use a Athlon XP 1800 or something from eBay :)
 
We have P4 Celerons here at work. They're great for booting up, and everything else. As long as you:

A) Don't open more than 1 program

B) Don't open a very large program.

There 128kb of cache kills most things, I get serious slowdown if I run Photoshop and have another intensive program open.

So get the Athlon.

BTW, this coming from a P4 & AMD owner, so I'm middle of the road :)
 
Originally posted by old skool
Don't ever buy a Celeron. They are horrible chips and the low-cost Athlons are definately the way to go. Maybe you could think about getting use a Athlon XP 1800 or something from eBay :)
Click to expand...
I know you probably mean just the P4-Celery, but in the past there have been two really good Celery cores. That would be the Mendocino with 128KB L2 (300A @ 450 anyone?) and the Tualatin-Celery with 256KB cache (though one latency cycle added compared to the P3-Tually but Tualeron still kept up clock for clock with the P3 Coppermine and overclocked like nobody's business). The Coppermine Celery and the current P4-Celery are just plain bad even for the amount of money Intel is asking for them (though P4-Celery makes CuMine Celery look like an Athlon :D).
 
1700,1800, 2100, not sure what else OC's well but what does your vote go for?
 
What kind of budget are you on where you would buy a 1700-2100. on newegg a 1800+ is around 50 dollars for an OEM chip, so u still have to buy a hsf which is like another 10 bucks for a cheap one like a TT Volcano 6+Cu. Thats 60 dollars, for 30 dollars more you can get a barton 2500+ with 333fsb and 512cache. Tbred's were fun last year for overclocking, the 30 bucks is very well spent, the 512 cache rocks.
 
Taking into account that AMD is locking not only the Bartons but all of the Athlon XP's now, and only FSB overclocking is available (with NF2 boards) at the moment, I would probably go with the 2100+ or 2000+. The 2100+'s stock speed is 1733MHz, or 13*133. At 166MHz it would be 2158MHz which might take some more juice and some good cooling. The 2000+'s stock is 1666 and 166MHz bus would be 2075 which seems more doable without too much trouble. But with any of these chips, for cooling I'd recommend a ThermalTake Silent Boost (~$25) or Vantec Aeroflow (same). These are quiet solutions that come with fans and are a good price/performance choice. The actual cores of all these CPUs are basically capable of very similar overclocks but the locked multi limits choices. Good luck :)
 
It will be in a Shuttle XPC so the coolings covered there. So which XP's are now pretty much for sure going to be locked when ordered from newegg? which OC's at least to 2.2? 1700, 1800, 2000, 2100? just parranoid about newer steppings and being locked.
 
Originally posted by Glow
It will be in a Shuttle XPC so the coolings covered there. So which XP's are now pretty much for sure going to be locked when ordered from newegg? which OC's at least to 2.2? 1700, 1800, 2000, 2100? just parranoid about newer steppings and being locked.
Click to expand...
From reading the comments of each of these CPU's @ the Egg, it seems that some are still available unlocked. However, the one which moves the least amount of stock will likely have the unlocked ones (being an older chip). I think the 1700+, 1800+, and 2100+ would be more popular than the 2000+ though with the 2100+ a close second. Unfortunately, newer CPUs tend to overclock better so in that respect you'd want one of the CPUs that move more stock but they're more likely to have locked multis. You could get lucky and have it both ways though.

In short I'd probably go with the 2100+ for a target clock of 2.2GHz because if it comes locked, you could still get to 2.2GHz easily with a 169MHz FSB and most any PC2700 will run that nicely. Keep in mind 2.2GHz may require a bit of a voltage bump though in case you run into stability issues.
 
Originally posted by PliotronX
In short I'd probably go with the 2100+ for a target clock of 2.2GHz because if it comes locked, you could still get to 2.2GHz easily with a 169MHz FSB and most any PC2700 will run that nicely. Keep in mind 2.2GHz may require a bit of a voltage bump though in case you run into stability issues.
Click to expand...
With all that in mind and different places moving certain amounts of stock where would you guys order a 2100 from? I think I'm going to go with that chip.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top