Is anyone here running a Celeron CPU? Just wondering about the crunching times for them. Will be putting together a 2.93 GH Celeron for the wife next week.

They do about the same on CPDN, a bit slower with SETI from what I have seen. Seems like the smaller cache could slow it down with Rosetta.

Will be upgradeing it later to a P4, but will run the Celeron for a year or so first untill more work on the house is done and more spair money is around and I will keep my P4 working. It will be a lot faster than the Pentium 133 that she is using now.
Ray

---

Pizza@Home Rays Place Rays place Forums

The fastest Celeron I can find in the stats is a 2.8GHz. https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=6352
It takes about 3.5 hours per WU on average.

My 2.8GHz Pentium 4 (Laptop) in comparison takes about 2 3/4 hours.

I have one Celeron (only a 1.7GHz) but don't use it much for crunching (or anything else). On Einstein it took about 60% longer than my P4/2.4 (no HT). I haven't bothered putting it to work on CPDN. On Rosetta it takes about 50% longer than my P4/2.4 (no HT) based on averages over the last 10 WU done on each machine. They have identical motherboards and the same amount of RAM.

I won't be buying any more Celerons myself, They're fine for playing games but (IMHO) useless for number-crunching. I'd rather get an Athlon (my XP3000+ zips along at speeds comparable to a 3.4GHz Pentium 4)

---

*** Join BOINC@Australia today ***

The fastest Celeron I can find in the stats is a 2.8GHz. https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=6352
It takes about 3.5 hours per WU on average.

My 2.8GHz Pentium 4 (Laptop) in comparison takes about 2 3/4 hours.

I have one Celeron (only a 1.7GHz) but don't use it much for crunching (or anything else). On Einstein it took about 60% longer than my P4/2.4 (no HT). I haven't bothered putting it to work on CPDN. On Rosetta it takes about 50% longer than my P4/2.4 (no HT) based on averages over the last 10 WU done on each machine. They have identical motherboards and the same amount of RAM.

I won't be buying any more Celerons myself, They're fine for playing games but (IMHO) useless for number-crunching. I'd rather get an Athlon (my XP3000+ zips along at speeds comparable to a 3.4GHz Pentium 4)

My wife uses hers mostely for games also, would have gotten a P4 if it was for me. AMD is also good but no AC whare the system is, would rather see an Intel slow down rather than melting an AMD. I tried SETI before on the old Pentium 133, stopped it after 50 hours, forgot what percent it was at. At least her system board is made for a P4 so I can upgrade that later.

The P4 2.4 (no HT) that I am using has about the same times that you mentioned for yours. May upgrade this next year rather than hers, will have to see what times she gets first. We got that whole system (not put together) for less than a new CPU for this one, so it should not be that bad. Better than her P 133 running al the time doing nothing when she is not at it.
Cheers
Ray

---

Pizza@Home Rays Place Rays place Forums

Hi Ray......I'm running a 2.93GHz Celeron on one of my boxes and its CPU running time is about 9000-10000 seconds/WU. It's a standard box with no overclocking and 512Meg Ram with shared video (ie 480Meg for processing) I'm running WinXP Home and have it set for a 2Gig swap file. Hope this helps. Cheers, Rog.

---

... would rather see an Intel slow down rather than melting an AMD.

amd fixed this, they shut down now as well when getting too hot. i am a long time intel supporter but right now one has to admit that amd is ahead of them, both in speed and heat generation (meaning they are cooler). this will change again maybe when the next pentiums are build upon an advanced pentium m design.
i personally would like to see intel pushing the itanium design in affordable regions for workstations as well, i think it is about time to have a new design approach after 20+ years of x86 (x64 is just an modification to that, nothing real new) so we could get away from a20 gates, memory holes and other tricks to keep the whole thing working somehow...

---

--
Florian
www.domplatz1.de

You can build a faster machine for less money if you'd go with a Sempron socket 754 CPU. The latest version has all the bell en whistles of the AMD64, but with a smaller cache.

The socket754/939 CPU's are very cool CPU's, especialy when compared to P4/Celeron's based on the Prescott core.

---

You can build a faster machine for less money if you'd go with a Sempron socket 754 CPU. The latest version has all the bell en whistles of the AMD64, but with a smaller cache.

The socket754/939 CPU's are very cool CPU's, especialy when compared to P4/Celeron's based on the Prescott core.

I have to agree with the cooling issue. I have a Pentium 4 630 (3 Ghz) overclocked to 3.152 Ghz at load and it runs around 60C, even with a big giant Zalman 120mm CPU cooler and arctic silver thermal paste. Then again, my machine is built to be quiet, not cool, so all my fans run at low speeds. That aside though, 55-60C is normal for a Prescott P4 on stock cooling, as opposed to something like 10C lower on the San Diego AMD's

---

Hi Ray......I'm running a 2.93GHz Celeron on one of my boxes and its CPU running time is about 9000-10000 seconds/WU. It's a standard box with no overclocking and 512Meg Ram with shared video (ie 480Meg for processing) I'm running WinXP Home and have it set for a 2Gig swap file. Hope this helps. Cheers, Rog.

Those are about the same times that I get with a P4 2.4, so not bad at all. When her system comes in I will have to get more memory for it, only came with 256 Megs. Well maby I will get a Gig for this system and put my 512 Megs in her system. Than if I have the extra money mext year upgrade both CPU's.
Ray

---

Pizza@Home Rays Place Rays place Forums

You can build a faster machine for less money if you'd go with a Sempron socket 754 CPU. The latest version has all the bell en whistles of the AMD64, but with a smaller cache.

The socket754/939 CPU's are very cool CPU's, especialy when compared to P4/Celeron's based on the Prescott core.

Don't know if I could beat this at $120, was working up diferant systems on paper, and always ran a lot higher. But of course I was looking for more. Karen got tired of waiting for me and ordered the Celeron. Everything not in it we had extras of around the house. If I can buuild a good AMD system for under $150 (MB, CPU, PS and Memory) I may for crunching, the curent systems are for other things, but run all the time so they still do a lot of number crunching.
Ray

---

Pizza@Home Rays Place Rays place Forums

You can build a faster machine for less money if you'd go with a Sempron socket 754 CPU. The latest version has all the bell en whistles of the AMD64, but with a smaller cache.

The socket754/939 CPU's are very cool CPU's, especialy when compared to P4/Celeron's based on the Prescott core.

As I was planning/pricing out my next "basket" cruncher I started down my usual path of finding prices on Athlon XPs. Was hoping to find another 2800 DTR version but couldn't locate one. Then, after reading some articles on the newer Semprons and their ability to overclock, I decided to price out a 754 socket set up instead of my usual socket A. Yup, looks like the price / performance line has finally shifted to the Semprons. Next cruncher will be based on the later revision of a Palermo (OPN with the BO in it, I think) core. Looks like around $240 for a reasonable mobo with some OC ability, memory(CL2), S64 2800+, HSF and a 40GB HDD.

BTW, here's a good place to compare CPUs running the SETI reference benchmark work unit... http://www.marisan.nl/seti/reference.htm

Notice the Sempron 3100+ (Paris core) with the SSE2 optimized app is faster than the fastest XP (my 2800 DTR). Not as fast using stock application but faster once optimized and I don't think that's an OC'd clock speed. Lemme get my hands on my new Palermo core soon. ;-)

---

- da shu @ HeliOS,
"A child's exposure to technology should never be predicated on an ability to afford it."

http://www.marisan.nl/seti/reference.htm

Notice the Sempron 3100+ (Paris core) with the SSE2 optimized app is faster than the fastest XP (my 2800 DTR).

I haven't run the SETI reference unit, with optimized app, on my XP 3000+ (Barton) but expect it to be quicker (yes, it is overclocked to approx. 2.4GHz) But since the Sempron is readily available while the XP isn't, I guess that's academic.

---

*** Join BOINC@Australia today ***

http://www.marisan.nl/seti/reference.htm

Notice the Sempron 3100+ (Paris core) with the SSE2 optimized app is faster than the fastest XP (my 2800 DTR).

I haven't run the SETI reference unit, with optimized app, on my XP 3000+ (Barton) but expect it to be quicker (yes, it is overclocked to approx. 2.4GHz) But since the Sempron is readily available while the XP isn't, I guess that's academic.

ZipZoomFly has the XP 3K and 3.2K but I was looking for the Desk Top Replacement(DTR) version (OPN AXDL instead of AXDA with the ability to lower the multiplier).

Are you running a 185MHz FSB with the 3000+ that has the 13x multiplier or a 218FSB on the 11x version? Is this on air cooling?

Probably would be faster if it's on an nForce mobo, probably not if it's on a VIA. At least for SETI. You can see on his list my 2500+ Barton @2.18GHz, nForce IGP is faster than my 2500+ Barton @2.19 on a KT600 (which I've since got running a bit faster with a bit lower memory timings).

U can download this to run the SETI benchmarks... http://home.austin.rr.com/skipsjunk/files/amd_ref_unit_bnchmrk.zip

Should take you about 6.5 hours to run the stock, r7 and r8 benchmarks or under 2 hours for the R8 only.

---

- da shu @ HeliOS,
"A child's exposure to technology should never be predicated on an ability to afford it."

Sorry, Just realized we've hijacked the Celeron thread with building cheap AMD crunchers... lol

I'll cease and desist. -- Skip