CELERON AMD P4 CPU Benchmarks

[Charles Hammond]

I was looking at this article that was comparing benchmarks of low-end processors. Generally they looked at Celeron, P4, Duron, and Athlon processors on the Anandtech website:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=12

This test showed that the 1.6Gig Duron Processor and the P4 1.8A Gig Processor both out performed the Intel Celeron Processors. They only tested the one P4 Processor, and it was the cheapest one available on the market. I think a slower P4 processor would actually be a better buy, but Intel just does not make them. They would be a better buy than the Celeron's Available.

The Bottom line is a Celeron is not worth buying. They are basically junk. I think a 256k L2 Cache would significantly improve their performance. The present 128k L2 cache is just not large enough for the processor speed. So Buyer beware.

 

[Didou]

The 300a Celeron was the only worthwhile Celeron chip. It could OC to 450 & wasn't as crippled as the new versions have been ( slow FSB, small & crippled Cache, overall lackluster performance ).

For people that only use the PC for Office work, I guess it's not so bad. They don't heat much so they generally have very silent cooling systems.

Other then that, I don't see why anyone would want such a chip.

 

[TS | Crazyace]

I dont personally think the Celeron is a good chip for a gamer either, doesn't mean it's not good for most of the PC population I for one find it easier to play games on the xbox, less of a hassle you dont have to keep up with the latest video card which is usually $300! The Duron is definatly a better performer.

But, it's tough for me to take a processor comparison article serious when there is an advertisement for AMD on the same page.

 

[LNCPapa]

I ran my 300a @ 504 with my Whopper Celery Sandwich Was nice and stable for years.

 

[Krugger]

i just read that the other day, great review. Anandtech always has topnotch reviews