Celeron Equivalent

[tifc8lraz]

I own a 2.66 ghz Intel Celeron (on signature as well), and am wondering what the speed would be when compared to a pentium 4 (ex. Intel Celeron 2.66ghz = P4 1.7ghz)? Help!

 

[pcaceit]

The 2.66 celeron is definately going to be faster than the 1.7P4.

A 64bit or Dual Core P4 at 1.7(if there is one) might match up in performance. Even though P4 is newer it wont make up speed difference of almost 1Ghz.

 

[eazy_duz_em]

yes it does , cellerons are super slow belive me me and my friend bought 2 computers this summer he bought a Celly 2.4Ghz and i got an Athlon 64 3500+.
my counter-strike loading times are like 10X faster then his and compared to my brothers Athlon 1000Mhz the celly is just slighty faster.
Check TomsHardware for some cpu benchmark an entire list compare is present there.
Celly sucks !!!! look in SuperPi topic for that guy's 2.8Ghz Celly time..it's 2 min 40sec on 1M!!! that pentium 4 @1.7Ghz should get 3min 30 sec or so on 2M!
check the CPU charts and look at game benchmarks the P4 gets from10 FPS to 20FPS faster than the celly.

 

[KingCody]

that's not an easy question to answer. there is much more to a CPUs performance than just it's clock speed. there is a big difference performance wise between a celleron and a pentium. and each CPU will perform different from system to system.

you really can't compare a celeron to a P4. as far as I know (I could be wrong ) celerons are basically pentiums that didn't make the cut. they all roll off the assembly line together, then each chip is tested to see its max performance at the default voltage. the good chips are labeled P4s and the speeds are locked at whatever they tested it's max stable speed at. the damaged/less than good chips are crippled and labeled cellerons. that's my theory anyways (I have no proof to back up what I just typed... hehe )

out of curiosity, why do you need to know?? the fact is that a celleron is made for basic computing (word processing, web browsing, basic programs, non-intense games), if you do anything more demanding with your system, then the P4 is the way to go if you want to stay Intel.

 

[an0nym0us]

that's not an easy question to answer. there is much more to a CPUs performance than just it's clock speed. there is a big difference performance wise between a celleron and a pentium. and each CPU will perform different from system to system.

you really can't compare a celeron to a P4. as far as I know (I could be wrong ) celerons are basically pentiums that didn't make the cut. they all roll off the assembly line together, then each chip is tested to see its max performance at the default voltage. the good chips are labeled P4s and the speeds are locked at whatever they tested it's max stable speed at. the damaged/less than good chips are crippled and labeled cellerons. that's my theory anyways (I have no proof to back up what I just typed... hehe )

out of curiosity, why do you need to know?? the fact is that a celleron is made for basic computing (word processing, web browsing, basic programs, non-intense games), if you do anything more demanding with your system, then the P4 is the way to go if you want to stay Intel.

there's more to the processors than just making the cut. celerons have a very small amount of L2 cache whereas P4's have up to 16 times the L2 cache that makes the processor faster. also, there is no comparison between a A64 3500+ and a 2.4ghz celeron, of course the AMD will run faster. the best cellys IMO are the dothan core celerons for notebooks, i have a 1.5ghz with 512kb of cache in my notebook and it runs real smooth.

 

[pcaceit]

Spot on guys.
if you look at benchmark charts they can sometimes be of no help unless supported by full detailed data on the test conditions. I can just like a lot of you set a low cpu clock speed processor to outperform one rated higher just by configuring windows. so the system's purpose and setup is always got to be considered when making comparisons. how's this one then. built a 2.4ghz P4 and an athalon Xp 1800+ running at 1.499ghz, Asrock MB with Sis chipset for the P4, and ASROCK MB with Via chipset for the Athalon xp. memory HDD graphics, os and all software etc.. all identical. and yes... you guessed it the athalon system outperforms the p4 system except for when we tried burning a dvd and scanning a document at the same time the p4 just did it but the athalon failed the dvd burning, But the p4 installed windows faster by about 3mins and when you open add remove progs the p4 took ages to populate the list but the athalon put it up in about 2 secs. so not an easy thing to decide.

 

[eazy_duz_em]

yeah but this is p4 vs Celly not P4 Vs Athlon and a 2.4ghz p4 outperforms almost any celly outthere.

 

[KingCody]

there's more to the processors than just making the cut. celerons have a very small amount of L2 cache whereas P4's have up to 16 times the L2 cache that makes the processor faster.

modern celeron cores are identical to the pentium cores of the same micron manufacturing process.

as far as I know (although I am not certain of this) the celerons have the physical large cache on die, but have most of it disabled. the celerons are basically pentiums with a crippled L2 cache, and a slower FSB.

here is a good read on the similarities between celerons and pentiums