2.8GHz Celeron Worth it?

[MustangVlad]

I was considering building a P4 system, but am thinking about trying to save some $$$.
Would a Celeron 2.8GHz be worth it to try OC'ing?
I'd probably pair it w/a Radeon 9600 256MB & 1GB PC3200 RAM.

What's a good Mobo for OC'ing this Celeron?

Performance is important to me, so should I just go for a 3GHz P4?

Guess I'm just torn - save $ or high performance?

 

[Nebor]

Don't get a celeron, and don't get a 256mb 9600. You don't need that much memory on your vid card, especially not a mid range vid card.

Celeron's suck... Other people may go into detail as to why, but I believe a p4 @ 2.8ghz nearly doubles the performance of a celeron @ 2.8 in games and other 'real world' tasks.

 

[MustangVlad]

I plan on using Win XP Pro SP1 if that matters.

Thanks Nebor - Anyone else? Are the newest Celerons really that sucky?
Last Celeron I bough was a 1GHz for a crappy box I built just for web surfing & email.
It has a PCI vid card - LOL :Q

 

[Sunny129]

i wouldn't say that a pentium of specific clock speed will double the performance of an equivalent celeron, but it will be significantly better than the celeron just b/c they are built on different instruction sets and architectures. but i feel that the celeron was built for exactly what you used it for in your old box...web surfing and checking email...and that's about it. if you want performance in games and applications, get a pentium.

 

[VIAN]

Agreed. Celeron is a gaming no no. And so is mid-range cards with rediculously high amounts of memory.

 

[joe2004]

I don't think Celeron is good for anything, there is no justification to pay for a crapy processor like that when there is Athlon XP around. Celeron is a shameful skeem to get money from ignorant people based on "megahertz myth".

 

[Corporate Thug]

the 2.8 ghz is $127 @ newegg, for another $50 you can get a p4 2.6C that will wipe the floor with the celeron

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: Sunny129
i wouldn't say that a pentium of specific clock speed will double the performance of an equivalent celeron, but it will be significantly better than the celeron just b/c they are built on different instruction sets and architectures. but i feel that the celeron was built for exactly what you used it for in your old box...web surfing and checking email...and that's about it. if you want performance in games and applications, get a pentium.

The statement in bold is incorrect. A Celeron, as they are sold now, is a willamette with half the cache and a 400Mhz bus. So the architecture and the instructions sets are identical to the P4, except this version is a weakend Willamette, which as we all know was pretty weak in the firstplace.

Any Northwood A, B or C revision would be better, almost regardless of clock speed.

 

[dguy6789]

Dont get a 9600 256MB. You may get exta mem(which is not helpful at all) and the memory clock is a full 200MHz slower then a 9600 pro 128MB. Get a 9600Pro 128MB, and try to get a cheap nforce 2 board and an athlon xp. ehck an athlon xp 1500+ would be faster then that celeron.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

The 2.8ghz Celeron is actually northwood based, not Williamette *A Willy@2.8GHZ? get real *, and would still show strength in some areas like video encoding. That being said the 2.6c is far superior and well worth it. The IS7 is a great inexpensive board for that CPU@100$ too. Overclock that 2.6c on the IS7 and you're cookin' with fire.

 

[Sunny129]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: Sunny129
i wouldn't say that a pentium of specific clock speed will double the performance of an equivalent celeron, but it will be significantly better than the celeron just b/c they are built on different instruction sets and architectures. but i feel that the celeron was built for exactly what you used it for in your old box...web surfing and checking email...and that's about it. if you want performance in games and applications, get a pentium.

The statement in bold is incorrect. A Celeron, as they are sold now, is a willamette with half the cache and a 400Mhz bus. So the architecture and the instructions sets are identical to the P4, except this version is a weakend Willamette, which as we all know was pretty weak in the firstplace.

Any Northwood A, B or C revision would be better, almost regardless of clock speed.

my mistake...looks like we're both wrong about the core though...i did not know that the celeron 2.8 was on a northwood core. anyways i decided to research it a bit this time before i spit out some false statements. when we talk cache, we are referring to L2 cache, correct? if that's the case, the celeron 2.8 has 1/4, not 1/2, the cache of the P4, coming in at 128KB of L2 cache. either way though, a smaller cache and a 400mhz fsb seriously cripples it in comparison to a pentium 4C processor.

 

[Jon187]

All the Celerons from the 2.0 were based on the Northwood core. They also overclock quite well (3.0 was quite common for a 2.0).

JOn...

 

[robcy]

This is a case where we see just how efficient the PR departments of computer hardware manufacturer are. Classic example of the biger is better thought.

You would be better served by;
128mb 9600PRO
2.66ghz P4 533mhz (2.4C if you are an overclocker)
512mb of 3200DDR (with the rest of the listed hardware 1gig would be overkill)

This would be a pretty sweet setup, and probably cheaper than your original setup.