Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Is there a significant difference in speed between the 2G celeron and the 2G P4-m cpu

  1. #1
    disabled account
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    between pain, bliss and the Garden State
    Posts
    6,176

    Is there a significant difference in speed between the 2G celeron and the 2G P4-m cpu

    Helping someone pick a laptop. The price difference is substantial.
    I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful. Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth! I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer.

  2. #2
    Imperial Impotentate brembo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    crawlspaces
    Posts
    18,725
    Speed is not the main difference, its the battery consumption rates, at least I think it is. The P4 *m* is mobile and has a more efficient design than a regular chipset. I could be miles off, but I do know the mobile designation means it sips battery juice comapred to the regualr chip designs. Now the celey could have a similar design too..I dunno.
    Tao_Jones Cult Member since 2004
    I gave Miss Manners a Dirty Sanchez, and she LIKED it.

  3. #3
    Morterator Immortal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Mississauga, Ontario , Canada. Behaviour : Good
    Posts
    22,670
    Originally posted by brembo
    Speed is not the main difference, its the battery consumption rates, at least I think it is. The P4 *m* is mobile and has a more efficient design than a regular chipset. I could be miles off, but I do know the mobile designation means it sips battery juice comapred to the regualr chip designs. Now the celey could have a similar design too..I dunno.
    I'd guess and agree on the battery consumption. I also want to add there could be adifference in their cache size as well.

  4. #4
    disabled account
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    between pain, bliss and the Garden State
    Posts
    6,176
    The cache is 512K for the "m" and 256K for the celeron. The celeorn does have a step down feature, though nowhere near as advanced as the "m".
    I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful. Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth! I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer.

  5. #5
    Morterator Immortal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Mississauga, Ontario , Canada. Behaviour : Good
    Posts
    22,670
    If he has the price budget mind, go with the celeron. There is not much difference... depending on what he uses it for.

    If he has money, definately go for hte p4m. It should replace a desktop comp. Also good for on the road since it should last 2-3 hours.. on average... I think.

  6. #6
    Moderator YeOldeStonecat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Somewhere along the shoreline in New England
    Posts
    50,913
    Depends on what they are using it for. Compare each to the other, and the P4 will beat it in benchmarks. But honestly, seat of the pants feel of the Celeron's lately...they really feel a lot more sluggish. Years ago, with Win95 and Win98, Celeron's didn't feel as slow. But trying to run an NT based OS (Win2K/XP)...man do they really..just...seem to struggle.

    I'd rather have a P4 1.8 than a Celeron 2.2.
    MORNING WOOD Lumber Company
    Guinness for Strength!!!

  7. #7
    Originally posted by YeOldeStonecat
    Depends on what they are using it for. Compare each to the other, and the P4 will beat it in benchmarks. But honestly, seat of the pants feel of the Celeron's lately...they really feel a lot more sluggish. Years ago, with Win95 and Win98, Celeron's didn't feel as slow. But trying to run an NT based OS (Win2K/XP)...man do they really..just...seem to struggle.

    I'd rather have a P4 1.8 than a Celeron 2.2.

    I second that!

  8. #8
    Elite Member TonyT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,338
    With today's systems, speed is determined more by how the system is set up for performance than the actual processor speed. It does not matter how many windows one has opoened at one time, for one can only work in one of the open windows at a time anyway.

    For a server, absolutely, the celeron noticably slower, because it is processing many many more tasks at the same time. But for a home system or a laptop, I doubt anyone will see a noticable difference between a celeron and p4, unless possibly gaming or doing heavy graphics/video editing.

    I am dual booting win98 and win2kpro on my system with a 500 celeron. My win98 runs faster than any P3 0r P4 1G-2G I have ever seen because my system is optimized for performance and used only for what I want to use it for. On the same box, win2k is even faster than win98 because it too is set up well and has only 11 services and maybe 8 processes running at boot up. Plus, get this, it's running at 66 mHz w/ a 128 cache!

    I'd say get the celeron. Any difference in speed will be in nanoseconds anyway.
    No one has any right to force data on you
    and command you to believe it or else.
    If it is not true for you, it isn't true.

    LRH

  9. #9
    Moderator YeOldeStonecat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Somewhere along the shoreline in New England
    Posts
    50,913
    Originally posted by TonyT

    I am dual booting win98 and win2kpro on my system with a 500 celeron. My win98 runs faster than any P3 0r P4 1G-2G I have ever seen because my system is optimized for performance and used only for what I want to use it for. On the same box, win2k is even faster than win98 because it too is set up well and has only 11 services and maybe 8 processes running at boot up. Plus, get this, it's running at 66 mHz w/ a 128 cache!
    I agree on optimizing all the way. Take two people, have them build two systems of the same exact hardware, but one does a generic setup, the other knows how to tweak, tune, lean out, optimized...etc...and you will get two totally differently performing systems. But now, take a well optimized system, and compare in on a Celery, vs a full Pentium of the same clock speed.

    I was a big fan of the Celery's back in the early days, the legendary 300a could be overclocked to run at 450 mHz. And it would go toe to toe with a PII 450 in gaming benchmarks. Everyone played QII back then, it would run the same. But games are not cache intensive. Now, take a Celery and put it in a business environment...running business apps, such as databases based on Access, or VFoxPro, or SQL...and they draaaaaaaaaaaagggg.....because those apps really depend on utilized the cache on the CPU. I see the differences every day on my job working between various machines on the same network running the same software at those locations where the owner tried to skimp on some money and get a Celeron.

    Same thing goes for a Server...actually a Celeron is OK for some servers...again, depends on what it's running. I've seen game servers at LAN parties running on Celeries...and they've done fine. Again...the key point is it depends on what it's doing, and running a game servers doesn't really use cache...there's not much data loading. Compared to say a database production server running SQL, or an Exchange mail server.

    When a person asks which CPU to get, I'll always ask "What are you going to use it for?" Surfing the web, hanging out in forums, doing AOL or e-mail, some light gaming, occasional work documents and light spreadsheets...a Celery is fine. If you do more business class applications, accounting software, etc....then you'll really see where a Celeron hurts.
    MORNING WOOD Lumber Company
    Guinness for Strength!!!

  10. #10
    R.I.P. 2013-11-22 blebs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    North Canton, Ohio
    Posts
    12,819
    P4 and that's final.

  11. #11
    Second Most EVIL YARDofSTUF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    69,992
    i say the P4 as well, its a moblie P4 which is a plus and the 512k cache is great!

  12. #12
    disabled account
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    between pain, bliss and the Garden State
    Posts
    6,176
    I am not questioning whether or not the P4-m is superior. I was wondering how much better is it than the eqvuivalent speed celeron.
    I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful. Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth! I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer.

  13. #13
    Second Most EVIL YARDofSTUF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    69,992
    Originally posted by nepenthe
    I am not questioning whether or not the P4-m is superior. I was wondering how much better is it than the eqvuivalent speed celeron.

    if hes doing multitasking or paintshop pro, gaming, or stuff like office i would think the extra cache would be very handy.

  14. #14
    Elite Member TonyT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,338
    If I had to equate "better speed than the P4" in terns of $'s, I'd say the speed difference is worth at most $200.00. Some laptops have a $500.00 price difference between cel & P4 because the MB will be different, it usually must support one or the other. Of course, this is just my opinion, not actual bench test results.

    Truthfully, if I was going to buy a laptop, and was able to spring for the xtra few hundred, I'd do it cause I'd want to install a partition w/ linux and apache so I could play and learn right at home, instead of risking trashing the CGI-BIN at my hosts!
    No one has any right to force data on you
    and command you to believe it or else.
    If it is not true for you, it isn't true.

    LRH

  15. #15
    R.I.P. 2017-10-02 Joint Chiefs of Staff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    The Sandbox
    Posts
    42,832
    Originally posted by YARDofSTUF
    i say the P4 as well, its a moblie P4 which is a plus and the 512k cache is great!
    I love my Dell Inspiron P4m, 512DDR and 512 cache.
    >>Cult Master of International Affairs<<

  16. #16
    Moderator YeOldeStonecat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Somewhere along the shoreline in New England
    Posts
    50,913
    Originally posted by nepenthe
    I am not questioning whether or not the P4-m is superior. I was wondering how much better is it than the eqvuivalent speed celeron.
    Hinting this a 3rd time....it depends on what they use it for. Common lightweight applications....there isn't much performance difference. Heavy duty applications such as database, accounting, the latest games....then there is a huge performance difference.

    How much better a P4 is than the equiv speed Celeron...well, that varies on what you're benchmarking it with. Because they'll both run Internet Explorer on some forum about the same speed. They'll both open up Outlook Express and check for e-mail about the same speed. They'll both open up Word and let you type a document about the same speed.

    But are you going to have this computer in an office, or small home office, and generate reports out of MYOB or Peachtree accounting software? Then you'll see a P4 rip it out in 3 minutes, and the Celery will take maybe 15 minutes. Differences like that. Or if you do home video's...the Celeron will wimper. You'll notice anti-virus real time file protection will bog down the Celery a bit more.

    There's other things that often hurt a Celeron machine's performance that does beyond just the CPU...Celerons are often on budget machines, with a lesser mobo, lesser grade hard drive, perhaps older and slower PC133 RAM instead of DDR, entry level computers with only a 1 year warranty, just a small form factor case that you cannot upgrade easily, with perhaps a 180 watt power supply, etc. Just other details to think about, there's often more components than just the CPU that are degraded.
    MORNING WOOD Lumber Company
    Guinness for Strength!!!

  17. #17
    disabled account
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    between pain, bliss and the Garden State
    Posts
    6,176
    Originally posted by YeOldeStonecat
    Hinting this a 3rd time....it depends on what they use it for. Common lightweight applications....there isn't much performance difference. Heavy duty applications such as database, accounting, the latest games....then there is a huge performance difference.

    How much better a P4 is than the equiv speed Celeron...well, that varies on what you're benchmarking it with. Because they'll both run Internet Explorer on some forum about the same speed. They'll both open up Outlook Express and check for e-mail about the same speed. They'll both open up Word and let you type a document about the same speed.

    But are you going to have this computer in an office, or small home office, and generate reports out of MYOB or Peachtree accounting software? Then you'll see a P4 rip it out in 3 minutes, and the Celery will take maybe 15 minutes. Differences like that. Or if you do home video's...the Celeron will wimper. You'll notice anti-virus real time file protection will bog down the Celery a bit more.

    There's other things that often hurt a Celeron machine's performance that does beyond just the CPU...Celerons are often on budget machines, with a lesser mobo, lesser grade hard drive, perhaps older and slower PC133 RAM instead of DDR, entry level computers with only a 1 year warranty, just a small form factor case that you cannot upgrade easily, with perhaps a 180 watt power supply, etc. Just other details to think about, there's often more components than just the CPU that are degraded.
    <sigh>

    YOSC,

    This is a laptop, as mentioned earlier. It will be used for Word, web, Quicken and the occasional game. We were looking for a quantitative answer, and now we guess we have it. Thank you .

    The laptop in question is a Toshiba and the price difference between the 2GHz Celeron and the 2GHz P4-m is 400 dollars (30 vs 40G hard drive is in the mix as well ).

    edit>> On a personal note.... I would spend the extra....

    shant,
    david
    I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful. Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth! I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer.

  18. #18
    Morterator Immortal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Mississauga, Ontario , Canada. Behaviour : Good
    Posts
    22,670
    I'd say go for the celeron.. much cheaper, good enough for work and all.

  19. #19
    Moderator YeOldeStonecat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Somewhere along the shoreline in New England
    Posts
    50,913
    Originally posted by nepenthe
    [BWe were looking for a quantitative answer, and now we guess we have it. Thank you [/B]
    I looked around the web for a while trying to find "quantitative" benchmarks with "apples to apples" comparisons. Only one I could find was at Toms Hardware, and it compared the latest Celery against the latest AMD against the latest P4 (which happened to be a 3.06...so naturally, guess who won?). I wanted to find an article comparing the 2.0 Celery against a 2.0 P4....would have been a better illustration.

    One other website had an entire list of CPU's, a homemade benchmark of sorts, and the 2.0 Celery was a dead tie with a PIII 1.4GHz. But no details of the benchmark.

    I guess it come down to user experience...what they are used to in computers performance wise. If they're upgrading from say an early PII, then it'll feel zippy to them. If they have later model PIII that they're upgrading from, well, may not feel all that much more faster. There's really no "concrete answer" out there for you, it's all up to what they expect from it. I see that all the time in my field. You try to talk them into getting something better, because you may know it's better, you're "driven one"....but they haven't. They want to save money, then don't know what they'll be giving up. But honestly, the bargain one may indeed be good enough for them. Quicken, probably going to be a single home account on it...so nothing that extensive. Seeing that basic intended use...I'd not worry about them having a Celeron that much.

    Tips for laptops.

    *Have them double the RAM at least...laptops with their slower disk subsystems...you don't want that pagefile being used at all....max out the RAM....it's hardly any more $ these days from Crucial. Plus, it extends battery life also because of less hard drive hits.

    *If the model does not have a built in modem or LAN, try to get PCMCIA cards that are type III's...a single double-space model that takes up both slots at the same time. The phone and/or data cable plugs right into the card...no dongle or x-jack to break.
    MORNING WOOD Lumber Company
    Guinness for Strength!!!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •