Results 1 to 38 of 38

Thread: Celeron vs P4?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    211

    Celeron vs P4?

    How does Celeron compare to P4 when it comes to running applications? If a server has to do a lot of various processing, how would a Celeron compare to P4?

    Would a 2.4 Celeron run on par with 1.4 P4?

    Or may be 2.4 Celeron would be closer to 1 Ghz P4?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1,715
    Half speed is a reasonable working estimate. Either of your guesses could be correct, depending on how the actual applications interact with the processor.
    Game Servers are the next hot market!
    Slim margins, heavy support, fickle customers, and moronic suppliers!
    Start your own today!

  3. #3
    The Celeron 2.4 would outperform the P4 1.4 but would not be matched to the P4 2.4. The Celeron 2.4 is exactly identical to the P4 2.4 CPU, the only thing that is different is the L2 cache on the CPU.

    For basic needs the Celeron can actually work with no issue but if there is going to be a lot of processing than a fast CPU + more RAM would indeed help.
    http://www.batchimage.com - Offering Batch Image Processing and TIFF/PDF Software Solutions

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    933
    Wondering offtopic however: NEVER use a Celeron for webhosting. Frankly, Celerons tell your customers that instead of using quality, your are taking the-cheap-route. The least you should use for a hosting application is a 1.7 P4 regardless of traffic. At least a P4 (or an AMD or A p3 tulatin) doesn't carry a bad reputation. Perhaps I am a little crazy about this, but I sincerly believe that Celerons (oh yeah, and AMD-Durons) should not be used for hosting.

    Now returning to the topic at hand...

  5. #5
    Of course if you are offering web hosting services than you should use the fastest machine which is reasonable for that needs. But if you are like me and just hosting a few personal sites or a small or medium site than the Celeron would do fine.
    http://www.batchimage.com - Offering Batch Image Processing and TIFF/PDF Software Solutions

  6. #6
    Well...P4 is, of cause, better than Celeron of the same class. But Celeron 2.4 Ghz is more preferrable than P4 1.4

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Home, chair
    Posts
    723
    Originally posted by z280 Hosting
    Wondering offtopic however: NEVER use a Celeron for webhosting. Frankly, Celerons tell your customers that instead of using quality, your are taking the-cheap-route. The least you should use for a hosting application is a 1.7 P4 regardless of traffic. At least a P4 (or an AMD or A p3 tulatin) doesn't carry a bad reputation. Perhaps I am a little crazy about this, but I sincerly believe that Celerons (oh yeah, and AMD-Durons) should not be used for hosting.

    Now returning to the topic at hand...
    I have to retort here and ask you: have you been using Celerons for a long time for webhosting? Have you done necessary tweaking on the servers to ensure a smooth run? I can assure you that Celerons are very good workhorses, provided you treat them properly, more RAM is a plus too. They can do wonders, if you know what you're doing and at a less cost. Your customers wouldn't care what you are using if things are running smoothly for them. You can provide crappy service even with the bleeding edge Xeons, Opterons, whatever. It's more important how you manage your hardware, software, that is, your resources. Four years ago there were no P4s, was there no webhosting then? I must say, you have an ungrounded prejudice against Celerons, I got this idea from reading your post. If you provided any proof to why you believe Celerons are no good, then it would be a more informative post. How about taking that challenge?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,734
    I would say that celeron is good for cheap solutions but p4 kicks it

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    933
    Yeah, celeron is fine for if you want a cheap solution for maybe a few websites, but definantly not for hosting (unless you want to do the very minimal.)

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    2,780
    Celeron are quite slow for webhosting. We end up swapping all the Cele out for P4 2.4, woh, what a big difference it makes...

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Home, chair
    Posts
    723
    Originally posted by z280 Hosting
    Yeah, celeron is fine for if you want a cheap solution for maybe a few websites, but definantly not for hosting (unless you want to do the very minimal.)
    You keep repeating the same thing over and over without giving any grounded argument, which makes me think you don't have any. Alright then, I shut up here.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    124

    Re: Celeron vs P4?

    Originally posted by MetaData
    How does Celeron compare to P4 when it comes to running applications? If a server has to do a lot of various processing, how would a Celeron compare to P4?

    Would a 2.4 Celeron run on par with 1.4 P4?

    Or may be 2.4 Celeron would be closer to 1 Ghz P4?
    A 2.4 Celeron would blow them both out of the water.

    Lots of misconceptions about Celerons out there. Very good processor for the money. They are simply full-on pentium processors with limited bus speeds and limited cache to force them to be slower than full pentiums, hence they can be sold cheaper to compete with lower-priced processors. They're not so much slower that it's going to amount to 1Ghz worth of clock speed difference though!

    One reason that Celerons in this game are often poor performers is that the celeron packages include lesser hardware...such as SDR memory instead of DDR. This has nothing to do with the Celeron itself though.

    Personally I'd like to see more hosts offering Athlon XP processors. Then there'd be no need to debate P4 vs Celeron, because the XP provides more bang for the buck than either.

    P.S. - it's pretty silly to tell your customers what kind of hardware they're on unless you're running dual xeon scsi systems.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    California USA
    Posts
    13,290
    Well slack, mysql will perform alot better with a larger cache size
    Steven Ciaburri | Industry's Best Server Management - Rack911.com
    Software Auditing - 400+ Vulnerabilities Found - Quote @ https://www.RACK911Labs.com
    Fully Managed Dedicated Servers (Las Vegas, New York City, & Amsterdam) (AS62710)
    FreeBSD & Linux Server Management, Security Auditing, Server Optimization, PCI Compliance

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    124
    Please quantify "a lot". You'll be hard pressed to convince me that MySQL on a P4 1.4Ghz will run as well as MySQL on a Celeron 2.4Ghz (as suggested at the top of this thread) just because of the extra L2 cache. No one is arguing that the P4 isn't a better processor.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    504
    One of these thread's comes up almost everyday, and every time I say P4 way over Celeron.

  16. #16
    I think all computers should be running AMD Athlon XP 2500+s (Barton). They're a steal and will handle your hosting junk fine
    Last edited by Dan Grossman; 04-26-2004 at 05:16 PM.
    Dan Grossman - dan @ awio.com
    My Blog | Affiliate Program for Web Hosts

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    124
    You can say that all you want, but if the P4 is overkill for the application, then you just had a guy waste $300-600 over the course of a year because of some ill-concieved notions about the actual performance of the Celeron processor.

    I could recommend a supercomputer in every case and be absolutely correct. Sure 99.9% of your money will be spent idling, but it'll be hella fast if anything ever does happen.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    124
    Originally posted by Dan Grossman
    I think all computers should be running AMD Athlon XP 2500+s (Barton).
    Agreed. Best processor for the money right now by far.

  19. #19
    XP 2500+ which can do a lot more than a Celeron 2.8 (4x the cache helps), $70 or less, versus $120 for the Celeron... crazy server sellers need to stop wasting money on Intel.
    Dan Grossman - dan @ awio.com
    My Blog | Affiliate Program for Web Hosts

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    124
    Originally posted by Dan Grossman
    XP 2500+ which can do a lot more than a Celeron 2.8 (4x the cache helps), $80 or less, versus $120 for the Celeron... crazy server sellers need to stop wasting money on Intel.
    Yep, I'm over at RS and headsurfer stated publically that he'd never deal with AMD processors again because of their bad luck with some Duron servers a while back. AMD gets pretty bad rep because of the machines they're installed into sometimes.

  21. #21
    I hate AnandTech's search functions but I remember an article on their comparing the Duron to the Celeron and P4 and the Duron winning quite a few of the tests.

  22. #22
    Athlons are cheap enough that you don't need to look at Duron anyway.
    Dan Grossman - dan @ awio.com
    My Blog | Affiliate Program for Web Hosts

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Long Island, New York
    Posts
    220
    If they started using Athlons they couldn't charge a premium for P4's anymore. Celerons offer lower peformance at a lower price, that's why they use 'em.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia
    Posts
    6,835
    I don't think AMD handles too many idling processes at the same time very well... at least that's what I have heard.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    551
    This is a very complex issue. you should check out arstechnica's CPU Theory & Praxis:
    http://arstechnica.com/cpu/index.html

    back in the day of the P3, the celeron wasn't terribly crippled. Today the celerons are based off the P4 with their VLSI (Very Large Scale Integration) they really need the L2 cache to efficiently fill up the pipeline.

    Forget the XPís, I want to see the Opteron take the stage. 64-bit, just like the days of the MIPS R10k. MmmmmÖ 1999 and 8way 64bit proc O2kís.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    California USA
    Posts
    13,290
    Originally posted by ambirex
    Forget the XPís, I want to see the Opteron take the stage. 64-bit, just like the days of the MIPS R10k. MmmmmÖ 1999 and 8way 64bit proc O2kís. [/B]
     

    Ever seen a opteron compile kernel. So fast!
    Steven Ciaburri | Industry's Best Server Management - Rack911.com
    Software Auditing - 400+ Vulnerabilities Found - Quote @ https://www.RACK911Labs.com
    Fully Managed Dedicated Servers (Las Vegas, New York City, & Amsterdam) (AS62710)
    FreeBSD & Linux Server Management, Security Auditing, Server Optimization, PCI Compliance

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    551
    Originally posted by thelinuxguy
     

    Ever seen a opteron compile kernel. So fast!
    Haven't played with an opteron yet, would like to.

    I would like to see IBM 2/4way PowerPC 970 servers come to play at competitive prices as well. With big blue backing linux, I think those would be some fun boxes.

  28. #28
    AMD ATHLON Practically host faster than you can imagine and that's really proved but most Data Centers never use it because the power wasting and power billing.

  29. #29
    Celeron 2.4 is better than p4 1.4!

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    958
    This is 2004 calling and we want our thread back!

    /thread

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,108
    Quote Originally Posted by phpdeveloper View Post
    I have to retort here and ask you: have you been using Celerons for a long time for webhosting? Have you done necessary tweaking on the servers to ensure a smooth run? I can assure you that Celerons are very good workhorses, provided you treat them properly, more RAM is a plus too. They can do wonders, if you know what you're doing and at a less cost. Your customers wouldn't care what you are using if things are running smoothly for them. You can provide crappy service even with the bleeding edge Xeons, Opterons, whatever. It's more important how you manage your hardware, software, that is, your resources. Four years ago there were no P4s, was there no webhosting then? I must say, you have an ungrounded prejudice against Celerons, I got this idea from reading your post. If you provided any proof to why you believe Celerons are no good, then it would be a more informative post. How about taking that challenge?
    the thing is though - many end-users know the celeron as the "trash" chip..
    semi-retired

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    330
    This debate comes out every year or and its SO OLD.

    On a different topic: Google started with few thousands Celeron based servers in their cluster. They take advantage of scaling out with a huge web farm.

    To give you an idea, here are little stats on how many servers Google used in the past:
    5,000 in 2000
    15,000 in 2003
    79,000 in 2004

    You can read this great e-book about Google's anatomy:

    http://www.slideshare.net/ultradvork...uster-innards/

  33. #33
    In all fairness, why are people even still talking celeron aka celery processors and p4?!!! Where is the price justification of this? These servers are old timers and yes, may only be used for basic tasks but surely a nice fresh dual core of low clock rate such as the 1.8 or 2ghz would be much more viable due to the sheer potential, thermal design and power consumption.

    Celery processors and P4, I thought these were SERIOUSLY done about a year ago and for the better. Just adding some input though.

  34. #34
    Two popular choices base on the software you'll be running.

    Multicore - triple and quad perform better per $ than dual for apps designed with SMP and/or multicore support.

    Single core - high clock rate provides excellent performance for single threaded apps like web and cache servers.

    Inexpensive Celerons or any cheap single proc chip with high clock rates and inexpensive memory can provide a high performance web or cache server for low cost. Web and cache servers can be volatile. All data is stored on a SAN, NAS or loaded from the db server upon joining the cluster.
    10 Celeron SATA web systems clustered $500 per box against 1 SMP dual quad-core ECC ram, SCSI $5000. Under medium to high load, the Celeron cluster will leave the single box in the dust. Plus the Celeron cluster will have over 10 times as much available hard disk space.

    DB servers utilize cores well and are better suited to multi-core procs.
    SMP boxes have multiple IO channels also. The best cost/performance currently is Dual SMP with two Quad core proc chips running to 10k SATA's striped, served through dual bonded gigabit ethernet nics, clustered, with a FC or ISCSI SAN or NAS for a stable high speed storage back-end.

    SATA VS. SCSI is dependent on usage, CPU vs. IO. SCSI is more expensive and faster overall, lower cpu, faster available, 15k. Many systems are cpu bound and with dual quad-core chips SATA raid can serve adequately, especially if DB's are clustered.

    Standard LAMP servers, containing a database server and many apps running on one system, often perform better with better disk io systems. This usually means SMP and SCSI. If you get SMP, you might as well get multi-core chips also.

    Just like a moped and a Mack truck, each does things the other doesn't do as well and there's a huge cost difference. Try using a Mack truck to do lunch deliveries in the big city. In the right circumstance little and cheap can out perform big and expensive.

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    829
    Celerons are great if speed is not the #1 need. Like if I was to get a server strictly for file storage/backup I'd just get the lowest end celeron and add a TB or so of space in it. Cheaper then an actual backup solution.

    For small hosting it should do as well. (ex: personal sites/ no high value customer sites)

  36. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Oztrayla Mate!
    Posts
    572
    A Commodore 64 with dual 1MB drives in RAID, on a 300baud "port" along with a datacassette to RSync backups is the ideal hosting solution based on my benchmarks.

    Guys this thread is from 2004 lol.
    Great Host = WiredTree.com Managed VPS Hosting

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    829
    lol had no idea it was that old never noticed...

    ACtually know what would be fun? hosting websites on a hacked xbox. Get Linux running on there and set it up in a rack. Rack mountable xbox blade servers.

    It's probably already been done.... I did see a 3xbox cluster a long time ago.

  38. #38
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    EU
    Posts
    94
    Intel Celeron E1200 eats P4 alive. It costs like 50$ from newegg.com and has 2 cores. Awesome price / performance wise.

    Based on CPU benchmark, E1200 is as good as 2/3 of "Core 2 duo E6600".

Posting Permissions

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