View Poll Results: Which is better Celeron or Duron?

Voters
57. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1G Celeron

    27 47.37%
  • 1G Duron

    30 52.63%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 44
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    82

    Which is better - Celeron or Duron

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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,931
    I personally wouldn't use either in a server, but I voted Celeron.
    Matthew Russell | Namecheap
    Twitter: @mattdrussell

    www.easywp.com - True Managed WordPress, made easy

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    2,688
    I voted Celeron, but I wouldn't use either as a server. I would go for a PIII.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    United kingdom
    Posts
    1,003
    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
    Alan Ho
    Former Systems Administrator

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    82
    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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    United kingdom
    Posts
    1,003
    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
    Alan Ho
    Former Systems Administrator

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    695
    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!
    Robert Marsh
    Head Surfer

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,963
    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?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    186
    I'd go with the Celeron, but give me a 486 and an OpenBSD bootdisk and I'll be happy.
    - joey

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,155

    Re: Which is better - Celeron or Duron

    Originally posted by jeffrylee
    Hello fellow geeks,
    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
    Don't like what I say? Ignore me.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    82

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

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    South California
    Posts
    333
    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.
    Matt Mahvi
    Staminus, Infrastructure DDoS Protection and Appliances
    @ 200+ Gbps global ddos mitigation network. Local or Remote. Proxy, GRE, and direct cross connects.
    @ Available in Amsterdam, New York, Los Angeles and Orange County. Anycast BGP.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,517
    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.

  14. #14
    AMD only!
    Powered by AMD & FreeBSD.
    "Documentation is like sex:
    when it is good, it is very, very good;
    and when it is bad, it is better than nothing."

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    848
    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.
    Dedicated Servers at Steadfast Networks and Softlayer : Virutal Hosting at FutureQuest : VPS at FutureHosting

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Matrix
    Posts
    2,469
    and what you guys have to say about P4 ?
    CPHosting - Web Hosting Experts Since 1998.
    United States | Europe | Singapore | Australia
    Visit Us! www.cphosting.com

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,931
    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.
    Matthew Russell | Namecheap
    Twitter: @mattdrussell

    www.easywp.com - True Managed WordPress, made easy

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    848
    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.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Posts
    1,593
    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

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    848
    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?
    Dedicated Servers at Steadfast Networks and Softlayer : Virutal Hosting at FutureQuest : VPS at FutureHosting

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,931
    We haven't had chance to try any Xeons yet, but I saw some impressive benchmarks...
    Matthew Russell | Namecheap
    Twitter: @mattdrussell

    www.easywp.com - True Managed WordPress, made easy

  22. #22
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    180
    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 ;-)

  23. #23
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    180
    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.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    848
    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)
    Dedicated Servers at Steadfast Networks and Softlayer : Virutal Hosting at FutureQuest : VPS at FutureHosting

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    windy city!
    Posts
    87
    What are Athlons like?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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