Hello fellow geeks, :pimp:
I have no experience with this machines 1G celeron and 1G duron, so whois better?

I personally wouldn't use either in a server, but I voted Celeron.

I voted Celeron, but I wouldn't use either as a server. I would go for a PIII.

I have now decided to stick with 'Intel' servers, let it be a Pentium chip or a Celeron, it's really just personal choice though. I believe that Intel processors are more reliable than AMD processors, Intel ones are also cooler, and in a server environment that's very important. Also, Robert Marsh's (HeadSurfer, Rackshack.net owner) post that he made a few days ago giving us an update mentioned that he's no longer using AMD processors and going to stick with his Intel range as he had many problems with AMD, mainly the temperature.

Alan

Originally posted by rochen
I voted Celeron, but I wouldn't use either as a server. I would go for a PIII.
You mean like PIII 1G vs Celeron 1G? whats the difference? they are both intel anyway.

Originally posted by jeffrylee

You mean like PIII 1G vs Celeron 1G? whats the difference? they are both intel anyway. A PIII 1GHz is more powerful than a Celeron 1GHz. The Cerleron is Intel's cheaper version and not as good, it's the Intel budget processor I guess :).

To add to my post above, I would also prefer to use Intel PIII processors now, in a dual configuration of course.

Alan

Once you got to the Celeron 1.3, it included the 100 Mhz front side bus as well as a 256k cache.

The 1 GHZ P III, has this as well. (100 MHZ FSB and 256k Cache)

When Intel decided to end of life the P III, it added back some of the capabilities of the Celeron that it had stripped away.

The Celeron and the P III are essentially built on the same platform.

As the owner of a few thousand of each, AMD and Intel, primarily Duron 1 GHZ and Celeron 1.3s, the Celeron is BY FAR a more stable product. It produces less heat and everything else in the server works better under cooler circumstances ... memory, hard drives, and the motherboard.

We found the failure rate on the XP 1900s too high due to heating even after we added substantial additional cooling and used fan/heatsinks that came with the processor. In fact, we pulled all unsold XPs and returned them to our vendor to be replaced with Celerons. The XPs that work, seem to work well but I'm not up for the hassle. Any that fail now are being replaced with Celeron 1.3s.

The Durons also had a heating problem but we were able to easily overcome that problem with additional case cooling. Now, when a Duron fails (as in chip or MB failure) , we replace that with a Celeron based system.

The Celeron systems have had a failure rate of less than 1/5th of 1%, similar to the failure rate of the Compaq DL 320s.

If I had it to do all over again, I would stick 100% with Intel based systems, as I am doing now.

My vote, a very LOUD Intel!

Originally posted by headsurfer

We found the failure rate on the XP 1900s too high due to heating even after we added substantial additional cooling and used fan/heatsinks that came with the processor. In fact, we pulled all unsold XPs and returned them to our vendor to be replaced with Celerons. The XPs that work, seem to work well but I'm not up for the hassle. Any that fail now are being replaced with Celeron 1.3s.



So does this mean that you guys will come out with another great deal, like the xp 1900, except this time intel? any time soon?

I'd go with the Celeron, but give me a 486 and an OpenBSD bootdisk and I'll be happy. :)

Originally posted by jeffrylee
Hello fellow geeks, :pimp:
I have no experience with this machines 1G celeron and 1G duron, so whois better?

Hmmm... Are you talking about a desktop machine or server?

For a desktop, Duron all the way.
For a server I wouldnt use a low-end chip, I would use a P3.

IMO

:nuts:
mmm... confused.. im convinced that intel celeron is better than Duron but Duron winning the votes 13 to 5.

The Duron 1ghz has 192kb of cache, while the CeleronA 1ghz has 256kb of cache (that little increase boasts a significant performance improvement). Furthermore, the CeleronA is based on a .13 micron technology, while the Duron is based on a .18 micron technology. This difference causes the CeleronA to use less electricity/generate less heat. In data centers with large numbers of servers, the difference in electrical usage as well as heat dissipation can make a big difference in terms of monthly electricity cost.

With me being and AMD fan, I am going to say Celeron. Durons get to hot, plain and simple, RackShack will not be offering anymore duron servers due to this.

AMD only!

Neither one.

I wouldn't really want a duron or a celeron for even my desktop system - I would consider them for a computer used only for surfing the web, email, and office apps, but I'd prefer a real CPU for a server if it's only a little extra setup fee.

and what you guys have to say about P4 ?

P4's are crap. We have a P4 1.6 in a server, and our P3's with a slower CPU speed outperform it by far.

My P4 1.7 Ghz is only very slightly faster than a P3 1 Ghz. I'm going only by how long it takes to complete a heavy perl script (58 seconds vs 61 seconds) but do not know yet how it will compare when it is heavily loaded all the time (number of processes vs. single large processes, etc). So far it seems snappy enough, and if you can get it for less I would go for it. If it's the same, I'd probably go with the P3's, and definitely if I could get one of the newer 1.13 or 1.26 Ghz Ghz P3's for close to the same price.

Yes, some of the lower speed P4 are even slower than some P3. The reason is because of the cache size. Some newer P3 has 256KB while P4 have 512KB, hence the difference in performance.

Peter

P.S. Matt - have you tried any of the P4's with 512k cache like the 2.2 Xeons, etc? I though someone said that the 2.0 Ghz + performed a little better than the underachievers below that, and especially those with a decent amount of cache, not just because of the few extra Mhz?

We haven't had chance to try any Xeons yet, but I saw some impressive benchmarks...

Hi Guys,

Since I used to own a computer store I can tell you what is fast. First let me make a little list of each component:

Celeron Original has 128K Cache and runs on 66MHz Bus
Celeron 2 has 128K Cache but now runs on 100Mhz Bus
Celeron 1.7GHz+ is Socket 478 and runs on 400MHz Bus

Please note the bus is actually 100 x 4 , it's quadruple pumped.

Duron are made to run on the 200MHz bus will run on 266MHz (192K Cache Level 2) and more L1 Cache than Celeron

This is also either 100 x 2 or 133 x 2

P4's have either 256K Cache and 512K Cache, and either on 400MHz bus or 533MHz bus.

P3's older generation had 256K Cache and ran on 100 or 133MHz Bus. Now you have the newer P3's which utilize 512K Cache and run at 133MHz Bus. Basically this is a P4 which runs on the older bus technology.

Amd Thunderbirds have 256K Cache and run at 266MHz Bus, and memory runs at 266MHz or newer chipsets support 333MHz Bus.

The AMD MP or Multiprocessor CPU is identical to the Thunderbird just so called tested for Dual. Note we run Dual Thunderbirds all day long!

And of course there is the XEON which is basically a Dual P4 with some new instruction sets and has 512K Cache. In recent test performed by Anandtech.com the Dual MP outperformed the Xeon is most tests.

Well I guess that should cover that without going into any more details like chipsets. But I can guarantee you that NO Celeron will outperform the Duron at the same clock speed. The new Celeron 1,7GHz and 1.8GHz come very close just now on some benchmarks beats the Duron.

Also regarding cooling we our self also run hundreds of rackmount systems and the majority have been AMD processors. If the cooling is done right a AMD system will be as stable as a Intel. Every month we make new systems with the latest chipset, please people out there realize that not just the CPU matter. You need to look at CPU, Memory, Chipset, etc.

Well if anyone has any questions I will gladdly answer them ;-)

If your P4 is only a little faster than a PIII system, then there is something seriously wrong!

P4 bus is 400MHz and the memory runs at the same speed, there is NO WAY a P3 with old SDRAM running at 133MHz memory will even come close.

The ONLY reason that most hosts still use P3 systems is the fact that they recycle the systems from one customer to another. AND they are not in the system building market, do you see any new P3 systems sold out there?

Also take a look at CPU prices, there really is NO reason to buy a Celeron.

It's not an apples to apples comparison - the P3 runs RDRAM while the P4 runs SDRAM (I know that's backwards to the optimal, but the P3 is a home where I can build it however I want and the P4 is a dedicated server.) I believe the P4 is also loaded with PC100 SDRAM instead of PC133 but I don't know how to verify this from the command line. On a SETI work unit the P3 clocks in at around 6:15-6:30 while the P4 dedicated server clocks in at 5:35, so there is a little improvement there. Another P4 1.7 Ghz I just built at home to run office apps / email for the family runs a SETI work unit in 5:15 with PC133 SDRAM (to save money)

What are Athlons like?

The athlons are the best in my opinion. You can get a sense of the performance by using AMD's performance index and compare that to intel's clock speed. For example, the AMD althon MP 1900+ that I run at home should have a performance that exceed 1.9Ghz.

The AMD index is actually very modest. It is usually under what it can actually perform.

Peter

The old "Willimate" P4s need about 400+Mhz to give you equal performance compared to a P3 or Athlon XP processor. I'm pretty sure this is even with RDRAM. The new "northwood" P4s with the increased cache perform better, but still need a decent Mhz lead over a P3 or XP to compare. That's why XPs have the 1900+ etc names. It means they can compare to a P4 at 1900 Mhz, even though the XP would only be running around 1650Mhz. Putting a P4 on Sdram hurts it's performance a lot too. I would only choose a P4 running RDram with a 300Mhz lead over an XP. But that's for home use. For a server I go P3 or dual P3. Maybe P4 Xeon, but that will get very hot too, especially in the 2Ghz+ range.

Originally posted by Goose
Celeron Original has 128K Cache and runs on 66MHz Bus
Celeron 2 has 128K Cache but now runs on 100Mhz Bus
Celeron 1.7GHz+ is Socket 478 and runs on 400MHz Bus


Not sure what a Celeron 2 is but the new Celeron's 1.2 and above have 256K Cache and a 100 MHz FSB.

I don't have a few thousand like Rackshack (I wish I did) but the Celeron's we have vs the PIII 1 GHz (which you can't even find anymore) run better and we haven't had a single problem with them.

First of all there is NO celeron on the market that has a higher cache than 128K. Get-Hosted yes running SDRAM on a P4 is just plain stupid, it was pushed into the marketplace to get the P4 to market. And NO P3 can run RDRAM it dosn't exist.

And yes a same clock speed Athlon XP is faster than a P4. But also remember that is why you have the XP rating of 1900+ and 2000+, this means it's equivalent to the P4 1900MHz and 2000MHz.

Right now the only problem that AMD has is the fact they top out at 2200MHz and there current product line cannot scale up much more....

Originally posted by Goose
First of all there is NO celeron on the market that has a higher cache than 128K.


Where do you get your information at? Wal-mart?

ALL celeron's from 1.0A (there is a difference between 1 gig and 1.0A gig celeron) to 1.3 ghz have 256k cache. 1.7 and 1.8 ghz celerons have 128k cache on the socket 478/400mhz fsb boards.

And to address your misinformation about P4 cpu's compared to P3's... it depends on the two comparisons. First of all... ALL p4 cpu's are misrepresented. 100mhz FSB running on 4 channels and advertised as 400 FSB is not TRUE 400 FSB speed and is not that fast on typical applications. The P4 was designed to run 64 bit applications and will ourperform anything else when running TRUE 64 bit applications. So a P3 1 ghz cpu w/ 512k cache IS faster than some P4's. The P4 1.6 has 512k cache but the 1.7 P4 has 256k cache.

Originally posted by MikeA


Not sure what a Celeron 2 is but the new Celeron's 1.2 and above have 256K Cache and a 100 MHz FSB.

I don't have a few thousand like Rackshack (I wish I did) but the Celeron's we have vs the PIII 1 GHz (which you can't even find anymore) run better and we haven't had a single problem with them.

Celeron's with 256k cache and 100 fsb started with the 1.0A ghz celeron.

PIII 1 ghz cpus w/ 512 are hard to find. PIII 1 ghz w/ 256 are plentiful and 1.13 are pretty easy to find as well. The 1.13 comes in 256k and 512k cache versions.

Originally posted by headsurfer
Once you got to the Celeron 1.3, it included the 100 Mhz front side bus as well as a 256k cache.

The 1 GHZ P III, has this as well. (100 MHZ FSB and 256k Cache)

When Intel decided to end of life the P III, it added back some of the capabilities of the Celeron that it had stripped away.


Intel is still producing the PIII 1.13, 1.2 and not that long ago started production on the PIII 1.4 ghz cpu.

Celeron's starting at 1.0A have 256k cache and 100 fsb. The 1.13 ghz PIII have 256k and 512k versions.


The Durons also had a heating problem but we were able to easily overcome that problem with additional case cooling. Now,

Then you need to add additional cooling to your center. A 1 gig Duron does not need supplimental cooling. No, I don't have as many as you in all, but proportional to the size of the DC I am in to the number units is about the same. A 1 gig Duron runs perfectly in 1U cases and small slimline desktop cases we put them in. And from what I understand yours are in tower cases which should be even better and no case fan should be needed...
or another explanation would be (since I do know you have adequate cooling :) ) is your supplier is giving you $2 cpu cooling fans that were not suited for the CPU to begin with.

The XP is a different story and I've stated many times that they should not be used in a server. I did one advertisement for them due to so many requests and the ones that I did are in towers with multiple fans... it's just not worth it.

Originally posted by ckpeter
Yes, some of the lower speed P4 are even slower than some P3. The reason is because of the cache size. Some newer P3 has 256KB while P4 have 512KB, hence the difference in performance.

Peter

The 1.6 P4 has 512k cache, but the 1.7 only has 256k. Not all P4's have 512.

Cache does make a difference.. but I can say I am pretty impressed with the 1.7 and 1.8 ghz celeron cpus (which I call P4 celerons :) ). Amazingly they only have 128k cache (which it probably would have cost $5 more to put another 128k on them)..... but I've built a few 1.7 celerons and they pretty impressive for what they are. My 1.3 ghz durons though seem to be as fast but have have more cache.

rastoma I have been building systems for years, not just rackmount systems. And yes let me appologize there are a few that have 256K Cache ;-( Shows how many Celeron systems I have built recently, LOL.

And I am sorry but there is no way a P3 will be faster than a P4. And I did mention the FSB is Quad Pumped. Not to mention the price factor why would I pay $121 for a 1.2GHz Tualatin when I can get a P4 1.6GHz w/512K Cache for $137.

Basically Tualatin is becoming old technology, buy something that will support you for the future.

Originally posted by Goose
rastoma I have been building systems for years, not just rackmount systems. And yes let me appologize there are a few that have 256K Cache ;-( Shows how many Celeron systems I have built recently, LOL.

And I am sorry but there is no way a P3 will be faster than a P4. And I did mention the FSB is Quad Pumped. Not to mention the price factor why would I pay $121 for a 1.2GHz Tualatin when I can get a P4 1.6GHz w/512K Cache for $137.

Basically Tualatin is becoming old technology, buy something that will support you for the future.

Again... don't be offended :) but you need to find other sources for your information and not be lulled into Intel's stupid commercials that make the average consumer think just because the number 4 is higher than the number 3 that it's a faster chip.

On AVERAGE, P4's within a SIMILAR ghz range are slower than a PIII and Athlons. There are so many combinations of chips that this can't hold up across the board, but from my own experiences and also reviews and benchmarks done from independant reviewers show the PIII beats the P4 up to about the P4 1.7 ghz. Yes there are now higher P4's that are faster than a PIII.

This one benchmark is but a sample of many that shows a 1 gig PIII is faster than even an overclocked P4 1.6:

http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/00q4/001120/p4-19.html

And this test shows the PIII with ONLY 256k of cache is as fast and on the whetstone test even FASTER than a P4 1.6:

http://www.turbotech.ch/articles2000/001125-p3dual_vs_p4k7-02.html

So take a PIII w/ 512k cache and it blow away a P4 1.6 or 1.7.

I can't find any benchmarks on the latest PIII.. the PIII 1.4 but it would go without saying that it too would blow the P4 away probably up to up the 1.8 P4.

I was looking at the same benchmarks earlier. You and I both know that Cache makes a big difference. The big problem is the Tualatin is maxed out at 1.26GHz and uses older technology like SDRAM.

The P4 1.6GHz with 512K being approx $15 more, I really dont see anyone purchasing the older PIII. And I hope you will agree with me that the 1.6Ghz w/512K is faster then the Tualatin 1.26GHz?

We currently run approx 80-90% of AMD and 10-20% of Intel systems. Don't get me wrong we do run a few Tualatins systems, but they are all Dual.

On our network environment our systems are primary XP's and recently there has been a demand for P4 and we are building them left and right! Not to mention DUAL MP's have been hot also.

Our customers just dont ask for a single Tualatin or even dual anymore. We build custom systems for all our clients so every month we are playing with the latest and greatest.

Intel Celeron is better:D

Originally posted by Goose
I was looking at the same benchmarks earlier. You and I both know that Cache makes a big difference. The big problem is the Tualatin is maxed out at 1.26GHz and uses older technology like SDRAM.

The P4 1.6GHz with 512K being approx $15 more, I really dont see anyone purchasing the older PIII. And I hope you will agree with me that the 1.6Ghz w/512K is faster then the Tualatin 1.26GHz?



No one is asking for PIII cpu's including the Tualatin because they are not advertised and just think they are outdated. I get requests from people who do webhosting that know the power the PIII every day for these CPU's.

And that's the point I'm making and by looking at the benchmarks above.... a 1.6ghz with 512k PERFORMS SLOWER than a PIII 1 gig with 512k cache. And is not any faster notably than the pIII 1 gig with only 256k cache.

You're comparing numbers that 1.6 is faster because 1600 mhz is a higher number than 1260 mhz. That's not what I'm comparing.... real world benchmarks shows the p4 1.6 is the same speed or slower than a PIII 1/1.13 ghz cpu. Period. The tests you read on those benchmarks is showing a PIII with 256k cache running with and beating a p4 with 512k cache. It just doens't get any simplier than that.

I'm not trying cause a heated debate... it's not that serious of a discussion. So I don't want any tempers here or harsh feelings so I'll just leave it that :)

Originally posted by Goose
I was looking at the same benchmarks earlier. You and I both know that Cache makes a big difference. The big problem is the Tualatin is maxed out at 1.26GHz and uses older technology like SDRAM.

The P4 1.6GHz with 512K being approx $15 more, I really dont see anyone purchasing the older PIII. And I hope you will agree with me that the 1.6Ghz w/512K is faster then the Tualatin 1.26GHz?

We currently run approx 80-90% of AMD and 10-20% of Intel systems. Don't get me wrong we do run a few Tualatins systems, but they are all Dual.

On our network environment our systems are primary XP's and recently there has been a demand for P4 and we are building them left and right! Not to mention DUAL MP's have been hot also.

Our customers just dont ask for a single Tualatin or even dual anymore. We build custom systems for all our clients so every month we are playing with the latest and greatest.

Well we are sticking wit P3's for the time being, so there's someone purchasing them. As I mentioned higher up the thread, our P3's outperform by far our P4's - both using SDRAM. P4's may be more suitable for the home environment, but for servers, P3's or Xeons are the way to go.

Originally posted by Goose
I was looking at the same benchmarks earlier. You and I both know that Cache makes a big difference. The big problem is the Tualatin is maxed out at 1.26GHz and uses older technology like SDRAM.


Tualatin currently maxes out at 1.4 ghz. There is a Tualatin-s 1.4 and a Celeron 1.4. There are DDR-supporting socket 370 motherboards (Iwill).

Originally posted by Goose
And NO P3 can run RDRAM it dosn't exist.
Huh? I've been running a dual P3 1 Ghz built on a Tyan Thunder i840 motherboard with 4 RDRAM slots on my desktop for over a year now, so I believe it does exist :)

Hard to take a part seriously that sounds like it should be in a salad. The name really sucks!

Yeah we should just all build in what we believe in! ;-) Just like some people only buy Cisco I think there are better deals out there for the same performance ;-).

And which Iwill uses DDR memory for the Tualatin?

panopticon yeah your right they did make a RDRAM dual P3, but I wonder why it's not made anymore. Man I have been building PC's for the past 6 years and 2 years now of Rackmount systems, it never amazes me what you will find out in a forum ;-)).

I still would like to test my theory out that a P4 1.6Ghz 512K is faster than any Tualatin ;-)

Ok guys was fun chatting with you! I am sure a lot of people learned alot through our little hardware discussion ;-)