Results 1 to 25 of 38
Thread: Celeron vs P4?
-
04-23-2004, 09:11 PM #1Junior Guru
- 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?
-
04-23-2004, 09:17 PM #2Web Hosting Master
- 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!
-
04-23-2004, 11:11 PM #3Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2001
- Posts
- 8,076
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
-
04-24-2004, 12:21 AM #4Registered User
- 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...
-
04-24-2004, 12:23 AM #5Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2001
- Posts
- 8,076
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
-
04-24-2004, 05:36 AM #6Disabled
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Posts
- 287
Well...P4 is, of cause, better than Celeron of the same class. But Celeron 2.4 Ghz is more preferrable than P4 1.4
-
04-24-2004, 07:57 AM #7Web Hosting Master
- 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...
-
04-24-2004, 02:11 PM #8Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2003
- Posts
- 2,733
I would say that celeron is good for cheap solutions but p4 kicks it
-
04-24-2004, 05:29 PM #9Registered User
- 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.)
-
04-24-2004, 07:02 PM #10Web Hosting Master
- 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...
http://Ethr.net jay@ethr.net
West Coast AT&T / Level3 / Savvis Bandwidth, Colocation, Dedicated Server, Managed IP Service, Hardware Load Balancing Service, Transport Service, 365 Main St, SFO / 200 Paul Ave, SFO / PAIX, PAO / Market Post Tower, 55 S. Market, SJC / 11 Great Oaks, Equinix, SJC
-
04-25-2004, 08:39 AM #11Web Hosting Master
- 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.)
-
04-26-2004, 11:25 AM #12WHT Addict
- 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?
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.
-
04-26-2004, 04:16 PM #13Problem Solver
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Location
- California USA
- Posts
- 13,681
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
-
04-26-2004, 04:55 PM #14WHT Addict
- 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.
-
04-26-2004, 05:10 PM #15Temporarily Suspended
- 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.
-
04-26-2004, 05:13 PM #16Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Oct 2003
- Posts
- 1,479
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.
-
04-26-2004, 05:14 PM #17WHT Addict
- 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.
-
04-26-2004, 05:17 PM #18WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Oct 2003
- Posts
- 124
Originally posted by Dan Grossman
I think all computers should be running AMD Athlon XP 2500+s (Barton).
-
04-26-2004, 05:21 PM #19Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Oct 2003
- Posts
- 1,479
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.
-
04-26-2004, 05:24 PM #20WHT Addict
- 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.
-
04-26-2004, 05:25 PM #21WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Posts
- 162
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.
-
04-26-2004, 05:26 PM #22Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Oct 2003
- Posts
- 1,479
Athlons are cheap enough that you don't need to look at Duron anyway.
-
04-26-2004, 09:01 PM #23Junior Guru
- 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.
-
04-26-2004, 09:30 PM #24Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Location
- Fairfax, Virginia
- Posts
- 6,834
I don't think AMD handles too many idling processes at the same time very well... at least that's what I have heard.
-
04-27-2004, 09:54 AM #25Web Hosting Master
- 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 XP’s, I want to see the Opteron take the stage. 64-bit, just like the days of the MIPS R10k. Mmmmm… 1999 and 8way 64bit proc O2k’s.