Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 15:45:02 06/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 16, 2004 at 09:57:31, Francesco Di Tolla wrote: >>As far as Celerons go, they can be a mixed bag. The P4 core Celeron (starting at >>1.7GHz) is abysmally slow in just about everything. In games and such a Celeron >>2.4GHz is somewhere on the order of the speed of a Duron 600MHz to 1GHz >>depending on the game tested. > >This seems strange to me: I've compared a 2.4 GHz (P4 core) and a 1.4 GHz >Celeron (P3 core). >The gain is little, but still the 2.4 is faster. >And the 1.4 Celeron is identical to regular Pentium III@1.4, clearly faster than >any Duron in the 600MHz to 1GHz. > >The Celeron of the P4 generation is not much faster at 2.4, compared to a 1.4 >GHz, since the bus is slow as in the P3 generation, and not 4x as the P4@2.8 and >the like. >What I've see is that in 3D games the "2.5" Barton and even a 1.7 GHz Duron did >outperform a 2.4 Celeron. But in regular applications the Celeron was between >the two and sometimes on top. > >ciao >Franz The bus is the same, Franz. The only difference is the lack of and speed of L2 cache in the Celeron chip. I'm not sure where you compared the chips (maybe off of some Intel biased webpage?), but if you run some benchmarks yourself you'll see the P4 cored Celeron is absolutely horrid. In Quake3 for example.. my Epox 8RDA with a Duron 600 running at 600MHz got identical FPS to a Celeron 2.4GHz, this was with the same ram and videocard. We tested more stuff, like GCC compiling, Unreal Tournament 2003, MSVC compile times (which was REALLY bad on the Celeron), etc. I didn't find one thing where the Duron clocked at 1GHz was slower than the Celeron other than chess, where it was 50% faster. Which was identical to a P4-2.4GHz in speed / 1.5GHz Athlon (1800+).
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.