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%
Results 1 to 25 of 44
-
06-22-2002, 09:05 AM #1Junior Guru Wannabe
- 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?
-
06-22-2002, 09:10 AM #2Web Hosting Master
- 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
-
06-22-2002, 09:23 AM #3Web Hosting Master
- 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.
-
06-22-2002, 09:25 AM #4Web Hosting Master
- 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.
AlanAlan Ho
Former Systems Administrator
-
06-22-2002, 09:35 AM #5Junior Guru Wannabe
- 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.
-
06-22-2002, 09:39 AM #6Web Hosting Master
- 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.
To add to my post above, I would also prefer to use Intel PIII processors now, in a dual configuration of course.
AlanAlan Ho
Former Systems Administrator
-
06-22-2002, 10:59 AM #7Eternal Member
- 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
-
06-22-2002, 11:34 AM #8Disabled
- 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.
-
06-22-2002, 11:50 AM #9Junior Guru
- 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
-
06-22-2002, 12:03 PM #10is a threadkiller
- 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?
For a desktop, Duron all the way.
For a server I wouldnt use a low-end chip, I would use a P3.
IMODon't like what I say? Ignore me.
-
06-22-2002, 01:41 PM #11Junior Guru Wannabe
- 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.
-
06-22-2002, 02:00 PM #12Web Hosting Guru
- 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.
-
06-22-2002, 02:40 PM #13Russ
- 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.
-
06-22-2002, 02:50 PM #14Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Feb 2002
- Posts
- 985
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."
-
06-22-2002, 03:31 PM #15Web Hosting Master
- 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
-
06-22-2002, 04:28 PM #16Web Hosting Master
- 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
-
06-22-2002, 04:48 PM #17Web Hosting Master
- 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
-
06-22-2002, 05:02 PM #18Web Hosting Master
- 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.
-
06-22-2002, 05:11 PM #19Web Hosting Master
- 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
-
06-22-2002, 05:12 PM #20Web Hosting Master
- 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
-
06-22-2002, 05:15 PM #21Web Hosting Master
- 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
-
06-22-2002, 09:38 PM #22Junior Guru
- 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 ;-)
-
06-22-2002, 10:25 PM #23Junior Guru
- 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.
-
06-22-2002, 11:00 PM #24Web Hosting Master
- 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
-
06-22-2002, 11:01 PM #25Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- windy city!
- Posts
- 87
What are Athlons like?