Which is faster?

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View

I'm building an old  computer from spare parts. I'm donating it to a friend,
and he will use it mostly for web browsing.

Which is the faster CPU, a P3 900 Mhz, or a Celeron 1.3Ghz?  Which is the
better candidate for a mild overclock?

I used to know all this, but haven't massaged any P3's in quite a while!  :)

Thanks, and Happy New Year!

Re: Which is faster?

Bob Adkins wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

The 1.3 Gig Celeron would have to be a Tualatin, as the Coppermine Celerons
topped out at 1.1 Gig, and is essentially a 100Mhz FSB P-III so it'll be
faster than the 100Mhz FSB 900Mhz P-III by just about what the speed ratio

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Re: Which is faster?

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 20:22:14 -0600, Bob Adkins

Quoted text here. Click to load it

The Celeron is definitely faster.
Either would likely take a "mild" overclock, providing you
had a nice flat sink (no need for exotic 'sink) base, and
raised the vCore a little.  

Each specimen of CPU is liable to different ceiling speeds
while o'c, but at least it gets easier to decide as a 900MHz
P3 cannot be one that has 133MHz FSB- the 900 only came in
100MHz FSB due to multiplier (resultant speeds).

Therefore, your target board probably has PCI bus divider
based on FSB, and you can't really expect to get either of
them up to 133MHz FSB as it'd put the P3 @ 1.2GHz.  "Some"
Coppermine P3 could indeed hit 1.2GHz but they were rather
rare, the typical max one could expect without elaborate
measures (like a peltier) was closer to 1.1-1.15.  If your
board allowed 124MHz FSB, that "might" result on PCI of
30MHz due to it using the higher (~133MHz) FSB divider range
but it would be trial and error to see if it worked, and if
it did not, you could easily have hard drive corruption from
PCI bus that high, if not NIC or USB problems.

The Celeron on the other hand, no change of hitting 133MHz
FSB with it.  Actually they're both sub-optimal for
overclocking, a better overclocking CPU would be a LOWER
speed P3 or Celeron towards the end of getting it up to
133-150 FSB (depending on board chipset and memory
capabilities) since either had their multiplier locked,
internally, no board that offers multiplier changing
settings would overcome that.  There were rare Tualatin
Celerons that would hit a little over 1.6GHz, to get to that
124MHz FSB, but most wouldn't.

Therefore your best bet is to take the Celeron and try for
about 110MHz FSB max.  Frankly even that is more trouble
than it's worth these days, might as well just keep it
closer to 100MHz.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Depending on your use of the system it may not matter much
which you use... Office, Internet, email are all fine on
900MHz P3.

Re: Which is faster?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Brings back memories. I used to have a "hot" P3 (700?) on an Asus CUSL2, and
it was a fabulous overclocker. If I remember correctly, I got ~1.2ghz out of
it on a negligible Vcore and VRAM boost. I used a screaming YS Tech fan to
keep it cool. Man, that was world class in those days. :)

Thanks Dave and Kony. I'll give my buddy the Celly Tualatin, show him the
tweaks, and go home before it starts smoking. :)


Re: Which is faster?

Quoted text here. Click to load it
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 20:22:14 -0600, Bob Adkins wrote:

The Celeron is probably faster.  I am using a 1.2G Celeron and it has a
256k L2 Cache and is the Tulatin Core.  It was pretty fast for it's day. I
have been running it a long time.  It runs really cool with almost no
cooling.  Might want to upgrade the cooler if you are going to overclock.
The Tulatin Core was the best PIII Celeron Built.

This is my opinion.

I dont think I would even overclock it.  Works great for Linux.

Site Timeline