In article <egid3k$15t$1@hefestos.uned.es>, dieymir <dieymir@yahoo.es> wrote:
> Svein wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have an older PC (Pentium 4, 1,5 Ghz) where I want to upgrade the
> > processor with a second-hand cpu.
> >
> > Because of 400 fsb limit I have two "best" choices:
> >
> > Pentium 4 2,6 Ghz, 400 fsb, 512 KB L2-Cache
> >
> > Celeron 2,8 Ghz, 400 fsb, 128 KB L2-Cache
> >
> > Now, which is the faster processor, and by how much?
> >
> > Svein
>
> I'll go with the Pentium, cache makes a big difference and besides that the
> Pentium probably supports HT. BTW, Are you sure that your board supports
> that kind of CPUs ??
>
> Hope this helps.
To make your decision easier, there exists a Pentium 4 2.8Ghz FSB400
512KB L2 cache:
I would definitely choose P4 2.8 over Celeron 2.8 . Your
comparison above is harder to make, as the Celeron in
the example has a faster clock. The P4 has more cache.
Maybe the P4 has better support for SSE ? Not sure about
that. To make the selection easier, go shopping for a
P4 2.8GHz/FSB400/512KB S478 processor, as when the
clocks are equal, the P4 is definitely better than
the Celeron.
For example, here is one on Ebay. At least now you know
not to bid more than $122 :-)
> I'll go with the Pentium, cache makes a big difference and besides that the
> Pentium probably supports HT. BTW, Are you sure that your board supports
> that kind of CPUs ??
>
> Hope this helps.
I actually have the Celeron one "on loan" and it works after updating
the BIOS. There is a speed improvement as compared to the P4 1,5 Ghz
but I was wondering if the fastest possible P4 for my board would make
a better choice than the Celeron....
> Hello,
>
> I have an older PC (Pentium 4, 1,5 Ghz) where I want to upgrade the
> processor with a second-hand cpu.
>
> Because of 400 fsb limit I have two "best" choices:
>
> Pentium 4 2,6 Ghz, 400 fsb, 512 KB L2-Cache
>
> Celeron 2,8 Ghz, 400 fsb, 128 KB L2-Cache
>
> Now, which is the faster processor, and by how much?
>
> Svein
I'll go with the Pentium, cache makes a big difference and besides that the
Pentium probably supports HT. BTW, Are you sure that your board supports
that kind of CPUs ??
In article <1160563514.765396.34400@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups. com>, "Svein"
<svein4@excite.com> wrote:
> Paul wrote:
> >
> > To make your decision easier, there exists a Pentium 4 2.8Ghz FSB400
> > 512KB L2 cache:
> >
> > http://processorfinder.intel.com/Det...px?sSpec=SL7EY
> >
>
> Thanks! I've looked at this list
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...icroprocessors)
> and the 400 fsb one that you refer to is not on that list, only a 533
> one....
>
> > I would definitely choose P4 2.8 over Celeron 2.8 .
>
> What about P4 2,6 Ghz vs. Celeron 2,8 Ghz? Will the Pentium's bigger
> cache more than make up for the slower clock speed?
>
> Svein
OK, I found a benchmark. They compare three things:
P4 1.6A
Celeron 1.8 (nominal FSB, not overclocked)
Celeron 1.8 at 2.25GHz (overclocked by 25%)
Be careful when reading the charts. In SuperPI, a lower
execution time is better. In Sysmark, a higher rating is
better. Notice that gaming type apps seem to be happier
with the P4. Your job is to decide how your mix of
applications, compares to those benchmarks.
When an piece of executable code fits in the L1
cache, and the L2 cache is not being used, that
is when the extra clock speed (however tiny) of
your Celeron, would make it faster than the P4.
I'm not sure how the floating point units of the
two processors compare, and if they are equal implementations
or not. They may have the same SSE instruction set.
Trying to analyse them by architectural features is
tough, if Intel hasn't provided detailed info.
The "new" 2,8 Celeron is definitely faster than the old P4 1,5.
The PC is used by my daughter for games (specifically Guild Wars, but
also others). This ran fine on the old cpu, I guess it runs better with
the Celeron.
But the report you quote indicates that a 2,6 Ghz P4 will do a better
job with gaming than the Celeron 2,8 Ghz.....?
In article <1160571651.475810.325730@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups. com>, "Svein"
<svein4@excite.com> wrote:
> Thanks for your answer, Paul.
>
> The "new" 2,8 Celeron is definitely faster than the old P4 1,5.
>
> The PC is used by my daughter for games (specifically Guild Wars, but
> also others). This ran fine on the old cpu, I guess it runs better with
> the Celeron.
>
> But the report you quote indicates that a 2,6 Ghz P4 will do a better
> job with gaming than the Celeron 2,8 Ghz.....?
>
> Svein
If you look at the Quake 3 Arena results on this page:
The P4 had a higher frame rate, and higher is better for that one.
At least for the Quake3 game, the P4 with its lower clock is winning.
It means the L2 cache on the processor is helping it to beat the Celeron.
Actually, if you look around, there is mention that the video card
makes some difference for Guild Wars. Details have to stay on low, if
you are using a card like an MX400. An ATI 9600XT seems to give pretty
good results. It could be that you are sweating over the processor
detail, without also considering the video card. You probably don't need
more than a 9600XT for the game, according to those forums.
This thread is just a listing of hardware configurations that people
used. I read another thread that mentioned the 9600XT as the most
you'd need (more is always better, but better for some other game
perhaps).
Again, the search engine is your friend. There are Guild Wars forums
of one sort and another, and you can find the odd discussion about
hardware and what impact it has. I have a suspicion that you could be
happy with either processor choice - if you have the budget, maybe
changing the video card could help too. It all depends on what you
are currently using, and what sort of budget you have.
In terms of frame rates, there is "Fraps". This might be useful
if you had access to both the Celeron 2.8 and the P4 2.6 and
wished to compare them. You would need to go through a scene
the same way twice, to get some idea if there was a difference
between them. Fraps is a better idea, if you have a playback
script of some sort that makes the action in a game the same
each time - maybe that just isn't possible in this case.
"Svein" <svein4@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1160563064.271356.154740@b28g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>
> dieymir wrote:
>
>> I'll go with the Pentium, cache makes a big difference and besides that
>> the
>> Pentium probably supports HT. BTW, Are you sure that your board supports
>> that kind of CPUs ??
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>
> I actually have the Celeron one "on loan" and it works after updating
> the BIOS. There is a speed improvement as compared to the P4 1,5 Ghz
> but I was wondering if the fastest possible P4 for my board would make
> a better choice than the Celeron....
>
> Svein
>
I should go for the P4 anyways. Note also that there is probably no
difference between a P4 2.6 and a 2.8, except the multiplier and the
labeling. Depending of the market demand and on some tests, the processors
are sold as 2.4, 2.6, 2.8 GHz or more. I' ve actually a 2.8 Ghz that runs
since a year at 3.2 GHz without any problem and at a maximum temp of room
+18°C stressed.
But price could of course also be an argument.
The Pentium 4 with its more effective and efficient design, and its larger
cache is FAR faster than the Celeron. The Celeron is merely a simply
designed budget design that Intel put out to meet a very low selling price
point.
--
DaveW
----------------
"Svein" <svein4@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1160556410.902381.237530@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
> Hello,
>
> I have an older PC (Pentium 4, 1,5 Ghz) where I want to upgrade the
> processor with a second-hand cpu.
>
> Because of 400 fsb limit I have two "best" choices:
>
> Pentium 4 2,6 Ghz, 400 fsb, 512 KB L2-Cache
>
> Celeron 2,8 Ghz, 400 fsb, 128 KB L2-Cache
>
> Now, which is the faster processor, and by how much?
>
> Svein
>
"Svein" <svein4@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1160556410.902381.237530@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
> Hello,
>
> I have an older PC (Pentium 4, 1,5 Ghz) where I want to upgrade the
> processor with a second-hand cpu.
>
> Because of 400 fsb limit I have two "best" choices:
>
> Pentium 4 2,6 Ghz, 400 fsb, 512 KB L2-Cache
>
> Celeron 2,8 Ghz, 400 fsb, 128 KB L2-Cache
>
> Now, which is the faster processor, and by how much?
>
> Svein
Depends what you are doing, in a lot of applications the extra cache makes
no
difference so the celeron will be about 8-9% faster, however in some
applications
it makes a difference (games in particular it would seem) which can be 20%
faster for the
pentium.
This is based on results for a 1.7 Ghz processor but I would expect a
similar pattern.
Check these benchmarks http://tomshardware.co.uk/2002/09/03...rs/page10.html
I would say maybe go for the pentium but it depends on your requirements
somewhat.
Eitherway I doubt you will notice the difference between the two chips in a
blind test,
except perhaps if u a re a gamer (in which case the pentium would be your
choice)
Svein wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have an older PC (Pentium 4, 1,5 Ghz) where I want to upgrade the
> processor with a second-hand cpu.
>
> Because of 400 fsb limit I have two "best" choices:
>
> Pentium 4 2,6 Ghz, 400 fsb, 512 KB L2-Cache
>
> Celeron 2,8 Ghz, 400 fsb, 128 KB L2-Cache
>
> Now, which is the faster processor, and by how much?
>
> Svein
The p4 2.6 is faster. But the celeron will do better than your current
processor.
On 11 Oct 2006 01:46:50 -0700, "Svein" <svein4@excite.com>
wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I have an older PC (Pentium 4, 1,5 Ghz) where I want to upgrade the
>processor with a second-hand cpu.
>
>Because of 400 fsb limit I have two "best" choices:
>
>Pentium 4 2,6 Ghz, 400 fsb, 512 KB L2-Cache
>
>Celeron 2,8 Ghz, 400 fsb, 128 KB L2-Cache
>
>Now, which is the faster processor, and by how much?
>
>Svein
Pentium 2.6, the Celeron's 128KB L2 cache is still a bit on
the small side, a 256MB L2 shows good performance gains for
many uses.
In article <1160563064.271356.154740@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>, svein4@excite.com says...
>
> dieymir wrote:
>
> > I'll go with the Pentium, cache makes a big difference and besides that the
> > Pentium probably supports HT. BTW, Are you sure that your board supports
> > that kind of CPUs ??
> >
> > Hope this helps.
>
> I actually have the Celeron one "on loan" and it works after updating
> the BIOS. There is a speed improvement as compared to the P4 1,5 Ghz
> but I was wondering if the fastest possible P4 for my board would make
> a better choice than the Celeron....
>
> Svein
>
>
I replaced a 400 FSB Celeron, 2.5 gig with a 400 FSB Pentium 4 2.4 gig
and am much happer with the Pentium 4. Those cache #'s make all the
difference. The fastest cpu my board will take is a 400 FSB Pentium 4
2.8, a rare beast.
Hope that helps.
--
The solution is:
Winrar and/or DvdDecrypter.
Install the ac3 audio codec.
Which is the faster/better CPU? 
Linear Mode
