If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Upgrading from P3 800Mhz to Celeron 2.6GHz - Is that wise?
Any CPU-only benchmarks around that simply compare that various Intel
CPUs against each other? For example, and with all else being equal, what would be the gain in performance, if any, between a Celeron 2.6GHZ 400FSB and a Pentium 3 800MHz 100FSB? The mobo will get changed but I'm just wondering how much of a performance boost I might expect just based on the CPU change. -- __________________________________________________ __________ *** Post replies to newsgroup. E-mail is not accepted. *** __________________________________________________ __________ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 04:37:42 GMT, "*Vanguard*"
wrote: Any CPU-only benchmarks around that simply compare that various Intel CPUs against each other? For example, and with all else being equal, what would be the gain in performance, if any, between a Celeron 2.6GHZ 400FSB and a Pentium 3 800MHz 100FSB? The mobo will get changed but I'm just wondering how much of a performance boost I might expect just based on the CPU change. It'll vary by app, how much it's processor instead of PCI or disk I/O or (???) bound, but I'd ballpark it at a 175% average increase while the CPU is the most significant bottleneck, but ranging from a little to a lot higher in benchmarks. CPU-only benchmarks are of little use though, since modern CPUs are now by far the fastest part in a system. If the motherboard only supports ATA33, AGP 1, of course there are other significant bottlenecks too, as I'm sure you're aware. The primary factor is the most demanding and/or most important use of the machine. It's already seldom you'd wait on the GUI with a 800MHz CPU but if you're trying to do something like encode video realtime, play semi-modern games, it'll make all the difference. Dave |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
*Vanguard* wrote:
Any CPU-only benchmarks around that simply compare that various Intel CPUs against each other? For example, and with all else being equal, what would be the gain in performance, if any, between a Celeron 2.6GHZ 400FSB and a Pentium 3 800MHz 100FSB? The mobo will get changed but I'm just wondering how much of a performance boost I might expect just based on the CPU change. If you are just changing the mobo/cpu you probably won't see much "improvement" unless you are doing CPU intencive apps like photo/video editing. I p3/100 vintage system basically will have nothing useful for a new system inside it to reuse. Instead of a celron, I'd be looking at either a P4 2.4C or an AMD system depending on what the application is. -- Stacey |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"*Vanguard*" wrote in message news:qiAxb.237663$mZ5.1793377@attbi_s54... Any CPU-only benchmarks around that simply compare that various Intel CPUs against each other? For example, and with all else being equal, what would be the gain in performance, if any, between a Celeron 2.6GHZ 400FSB and a Pentium 3 800MHz 100FSB? The mobo will get changed but I'm just wondering how much of a performance boost I might expect just based on the CPU change. -- __________________________________________________ __________ *** Post replies to newsgroup. E-mail is not accepted. *** __________________________________________________ __________ Acccording to sandra twice the speed but whether this translates into actual performance increase depends on what apps and other hardware, CPU intensive apps will show a big improvement such as rendering or graphics. Match it with a good video card and you'll see a big boost in the newer games. Lane |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"*Vanguard*" wrote in message news:qiAxb.237663$mZ5.1793377@attbi_s54...
Any CPU-only benchmarks around that simply compare that various Intel CPUs against each other? For example, and with all else being equal, what would be the gain in performance, if any, between a Celeron 2.6GHZ 400FSB and a Pentium 3 800MHz 100FSB? The mobo will get changed but I'm just wondering how much of a performance boost I might expect just based on the CPU change. You could download SiSoftware prgram called Sandra and that shows different speeds of CPUs. http://www.sisoftware.co.uk/index.htmldir=dload& location=sware_dl_x86&langx=en&a= Nick |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
*Vanguard* wrote:
Any CPU-only benchmarks around that simply compare that various Intel CPUs against each other? For example, and with all else being equal, what would be the gain in performance, if any, between a Celeron 2.6GHZ 400FSB and a Pentium 3 800MHz 100FSB? The mobo will get changed but I'm just wondering how much of a performance boost I might expect just based on the CPU change. Thanks for the replies. I realize more gains are realized with a better mobo, higher ATA rates and using RAID for the disks, and such. All the other components were getting replaced, too. I was just wondering if the CPU alone when changing from P3 to Celeron but upping the clock would give me any *potential* boost, if any. Presumably an AMD Athlon XP 2500+ (333MHz, I think that's the Barton with the doubled L2 cache) would be better than the Celeron 2.6GHz and they're the same price ($85-$89). If I wanted to overclock the Athlon 2500+, will I have to do tricks with the traces (opening/shorting them) on the CPU, or can it simply be overclocked by changing the BIOS settings? I tend to prefer a stable system and haven't bothered to overclock any of my boxes yet. I previously used Pentiums, but it's something I'd think about with the AMD. Anyone experienced with the AOpen AK77-600 MAX motherboard (http://snurl.com/36vj)? I like their "watchdog" hardware-based failsafe (http://snurl.com/36vi) to reset back to detection defauts if you screw up the overclocking too bad without having to open the case and short the CMOS clear jumper. MSI is usually a good mobo brand, too, and the MSI KT600 Delta-LSR looks good (http://snurl.com/36vg). They have their Core Center utility with its auto testing that increases the FSB until the system reboots (presumably to whatever was the last good FSB value). AOpen's watchdog is in hardware. MSI's is in software so I still might have to clear CMOS via the jumper if the reboot hangs. However, I don't like that AOpen has me usurp the mic-in and line-in connectors to get 6-channel sound whereas the MSI can use its S-bracket (without the S-bracket you're stuck doing the same thing as AOpen). Couldn't get the manual for the Gigabyte boards (download was dead from them), and am still looking at Soyo and Asus (Abit and Biostar are out of the running after disqualifying them based on features, but I'm also leery of their quality). Previously I was thinking of getting mobos with the nForce2 Ultra400 because the dual-channel access to double the bandwidth sounded good, but benchmarks at tomshardware.com show the single-channel 400MHz (DDR400) that's now supported by KT400A and KT600 chipsets is almost equal to what the nForce2 provides. And with single-channel, I don't have to worry about getting the memory sticks in pairs to ensure they exactly match, so I could add one 512MB stick now and get another later (although I do match the architecture). -- __________________________________________________ __________ *** Post replies to newsgroup. E-mail is not accepted. *** __________________________________________________ __________ |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
*Vanguard* wrote:
Previously I was thinking of getting mobos with the nForce2 Ultra400 because the dual-channel access to double the bandwidth sounded good, but benchmarks at tomshardware.com show the single-channel 400MHz (DDR400) that's now supported by KT400A and KT600 chipsets is almost equal to what the nForce2 provides. And with single-channel, I don't have to worry about getting the memory sticks in pairs to ensure they exactly match, so I could add one 512MB stick now and get another later (although I do match the architecture). First off, AMD's don't benefit much from dual chanel ram, not like a P4 does. Second DO NOT buy a via chipset board over a nvidia unless you like dealing with flakey drivers etc. Those nvidia boards have proven themselves to be stable while Via has proven many times they release buggy software, hardware and drivers. What makes you think the KT400 chipset is faster than the nvidia in single channel mode? And they don't have to be "matched" pairs to work right.. -- Stacey |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
stacey wrote:
*Vanguard* wrote: Previously I was thinking of getting mobos with the nForce2 Ultra400 because the dual-channel access to double the bandwidth sounded good, but benchmarks at tomshardware.com show the single-channel 400MHz (DDR400) that's now supported by KT400A and KT600 chipsets is almost equal to what the nForce2 provides. And with single-channel, I don't have to worry about getting the memory sticks in pairs to ensure they exactly match, so I could add one 512MB stick now and get another later (although I do match the architecture). First off, AMD's don't benefit much from dual chanel ram, not like a P4 does. Second DO NOT buy a via chipset board over a nvidia unless you like dealing with flakey drivers etc. Those nvidia boards have proven themselves to be stable while Via has proven many times they release buggy software, hardware and drivers. What makes you think the KT400 chipset is faster than the nvidia in single channel mode? And they don't have to be "matched" pairs to work right.. Exactly. It isn't like dual-channel on P4 boards where you have to have exact matched pairs. nForce 2 boards (are great) have two, totally independant memory controllers. You just put the slower stick in the master socket and it sets the specs for the other channel to the same. -- ~misfit~ |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
stacey wrote:
First off, AMD's don't benefit much from dual chanel ram, not like a P4 does. Second DO NOT buy a via chipset board over a nvidia unless you like dealing with flakey drivers etc. Those nvidia boards have proven themselves to be stable while Via has proven many times they release buggy software, hardware and drivers. What makes you think the KT400 chipset is faster than the nvidia in single channel mode? And they don't have to be "matched" pairs to work right.. "Whereas dual-channel boards can give you problems if your RAM modules are less than perfectly identical (which is why manufacturers started selling matched DIMM pairs several months ago), single-channel systems are relatively problem-free." (http://snurl.com/376z) The article discusses nForce2 dual-channel versus VIA single-channel for AMD (it is not discussing Intel). When looking at http://snurl.com/376y, it mentions to be careful to not use x4 architectured memory and instead use x8 or x16, so you also have to be watchful of what type of sticks you use. Dual-channel still requires more care in picking your memory than does single-channel. It seems best to populate both slots in the nForce2 dual-channel mobo with identical memory when you first add memory (i.e., populate the slots at the same time). I did NOT say the single-channel KT600 was faster than the dual-channel nForce2 Ultra400. I said that it was nearly equal (which means the KT600 is *slower*) but the difference is often insignificant. The benchmarks show numbers whereas I typically check the percentage of difference so I can see how much better one is over the other. Also, some benchmarks are superfluous. Do you really notice when Quake is playing at 65 fps versus 68 fps? See http://www6.tomshardware.com/motherb...e2-400-11.html for some benchmarks. My problem was the nForce2 mobos didn't have the most critical feature that I required: RAID - and on both IDE and SATA ports. I could find good nForce2 mobos equally priced to the KT600 mobos. But once I checked against the requirement for RAID, lots of nForce2 mobos got chopped off the list. Of the nForce2 mobos left that had RAID, once I checked which ones provided not just RAID on the SATA ports but also on an IDE3 port then the rest got chopped off and I was left with an empty list. Regardless of all the hoopla over the wee bit faster memory, the hard disk is by far the slowest major subsystem so I want to speed that up by using RAID 0 stripping (I'll use disk images for backup/restore). My current drives which will get migrated to the new system are IDE-only so I need RAID that uses IDE ports. I would also like RAID on the SATA port for later drives upgrades, but the first requirement was RAID on IDE. As an example, if you choose MSI as the mobo maker, they have only one nForce2 mobo with RAID (http://snurl.com/376y) yet it only provides RAID on the SATA ports or by IDE3+SATA (one drive on IDE3 and the other on SATA1 or SATA2). Both my current drives to be reused are IDE only so this setup won't work for me. However, I will have to rethink my mobo selection criteria. While concentrating on having an IDE port for my current IDE-only drives to provide RAID, that probably won't help if only one IDE port supports RAID. For RAID to work well by overlapping read/write across multiple drives, they would have to be on separate IDE channels, so I'd need 2 IDE ports to successfully execute RAID. DOH! RAID for 2 drives on the same IDE channel probably won't help much. So I guess I'll be recompiling my mobo list. I'll have to use the old drives as non-RAID until I get a SATA drive later. However, the MSI nForce2 mobo gives me 1 extra IDE port and 2 SATA ports whereas the MSI KT600 mobo gives me the 1 extra IDE port and *4* SATA ports so I can add more drives later without having to usurp a PCI slot with a controller card. I'm looking at AMD for a CPU since the price differential from a P4 will pay for the mobo or a hefty chunk of it. This is for a home computer. If it were a business computer then I'd probably stick with a P4. As far as bugginess in drivers, there hasn't been one manufacturer that someone hasn't complained about. I've had problems with Creative, Intel, IBM, Logitech, Promise, Adaptec, and so on but I continue to use their products. The trick is to keep a historical store of all the drivers you have updated through so you can revert when the newest one turns out to cause problems for you. I tend to turn a deaf ear to those claiming flakiness in drivers since most of such reports are from personal experience rather than a statistical analysis across a large user population. However, if you have some industry statistical reports regarding VIA being more flaky than nForce2 then I'd like to read those. -- __________________________________________________ __________ *** Post replies to newsgroup. E-mail is not accepted. *** __________________________________________________ __________ |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CPU info.- Celeron 2.4 vs Intel P4 | Taishi | General | 20 | April 14th 04 06:12 AM |
pentium vs. celeron | Joshua Sparks | General | 3 | November 12th 03 12:17 AM |
P3-800 vs Celeron 1.4 --> video encoding time | PS | General | 15 | September 21st 03 06:14 PM |
Problem upgrading Abit BX6 rev 2 CPU | Mike | General | 3 | August 15th 03 10:18 AM |
Celeron powersupply | Phil Kusina | General | 2 | July 4th 03 05:40 AM |