Which CPU is better? Socket A, Athlon XP 2100+ or Celeron D 320, Socket 478?

[Threepwood]

My old mobo that ran the Athlon fried so I had to start using this Celeron, but I'm sure I have slightly slower performance with it.

Main place I noticed is that in Morrowind (PC Game), when the music changes the pause is slightly longer, long enough to be irratating.

So I think I'll take my parents' Socket A board and give them my celeron.

Main other system differences :

Athlon XP:
Soltek nForce 2 chipset
DDR400 support
AGP 8X

Socket 478:
Foxconn, I think via or sis chipset
DDR333
AGP 4X

I'm using a GeForce FX 5200 graphics card, and 512mb DDR400 with these. Could my other specs (DDR speed and AGP data rate) cause much performance difference?

I haven't been able to find a direct comparsion between the two cpus, but from what I have found I think the Athlon ought to be at least slightly faster.

Anyone have maybe a benchmark, or does anyone have a reasonable idea of performance difference?

 

[koffiejunkie]

The AthlonXP is older but I'd still go with it, given the choice. Celeron D320 is a 2.4GHz with something like 16kb L1 cache, while the AtlonXP is 1.7GHz and has 128kb L1 cache. That makes a huge difference. The AthlonXP also has a much higher IPC (Instructions Per Clockcycle).

In my old job we did training with 4 virtual machines running on each desktop. The hardware a mix of exactly the above. Not exactly the same speeds, we had various models as the machines were not all bought at the same time. Anyway, the Celerons didn't cope.

BTW, Soltek used to make excellent Athlon motherboards, so I don't think you'll be sorry. Especially with the faster memory.

 

[Threepwood]

It definately sounds like you know what your talking about.

I didn't know the XP had such a bigger cache, or that it had a more IPC.

Thanks.

 

[The_Techie]

Avoid the Celeron

 

[boramk]

Avoid the Celeron

Except the E1200 if you are low on cash

 

[realbigdreamer]

+1 for Athlon XP

 

[Glordit]

Except the E1200 if you are low on cash

Daul core almost for free!

 

[koffiejunkie]

I didn't know the XP had such a bigger cache, or that it had a more IPC.

Dude every thing has a higher IPC than anything based on the Pentium 4 family (which that Celeron is). The very last Pentium III CPUs, which was never really popular because it didn't have WOW GHz of the P4 and the Athlons were cheaper and faster anyway, was called the Tualatin core, had 512kb L2 cache, and laid waste to just about any P4 up to about 2GHz (unless you were encoding video, which directly benifits from high clock rates).

I had an interesting case at a client who had a dual 2GHz HT Xeon server, 2GB DDR, running as a Windows terminal server, which didn't cope with the load. They deployed one of their older servers, a Dual 1.13GHz P-III (not even Xeon) with half the memory (PC133) and slower discs, as a second terminal server - as a stop gap measure, until they had the moolah for a new server - and move some of the users over. Well, to cut a long story short, the Xeon box got nuked in a power surge, so for what was going to be a short while, all users had to use the P3 box. Guess what? It coped. It coped with cycles to spare. I no longer work for that company, but as far as I know, they're still running that same box.

 

[The_Techie]

Dude every thing has a higher IPC than anything based on the Pentium 4 family (which that Celeron is). The very last Pentium III CPUs, which was never really popular because it didn't have WOW GHz of the P4 and the Athlons were cheaper and faster anyway, was called the Tualatin core, had 512kb L2 cache, and laid waste to just about any P4 up to about 2GHz (unless you were encoding video, which directly benifits from high clock rates).

I had an interesting case at a client who had a dual 2GHz HT Xeon server, 2GB DDR, running as a Windows terminal server, which didn't cope with the load. They deployed one of their older servers, a Dual 1.13GHz P-III (not even Xeon) with half the memory (PC133) and slower discs, as a second terminal server - as a stop gap measure, until they had the moolah for a new server - and move some of the users over. Well, to cut a long story short, the Xeon box got nuked in a power surge, so for what was going to be a short while, all users had to use the P3 box. Guess what? It coped. It coped with cycles to spare. I no longer work for that company, but as far as I know, they're still running that same box.

And that is why the Core series is closer to the Pentium III range than Pentium 4

 

[koffiejunkie]

And that is why the Core series is closer to the Pentium III range than Pentium 4

It's based on the Pentium-III architecture. That's right, Intel pretty much dropped the P4 (Netburst) architecture. The problems just outweighed the benefits.

 

[Nameite]

So would my 3ghz p4 be slower than my 2000+ anthlon xp? They feel the same actually...

 

[koffiejunkie]

No, I dont think so. The P4 would outperform it for some things - video encoding, for instance, benifits from huge clock speeds.

 

[Glordit]

No, I dont think so. The P4 would outperform it for some things - video encoding, for instance, benifits from huge clock speeds.

Yea, Intel always had the upper hand in encoding.
I had a Celeron 2Ghz & Sempron +2600 the Celery would beat it hands down when ecoding DVD.iso - Xvid AVI buy about 2 hours!