View Full Version : PIII 933mhz faster than 1.3ghz celeron?
I have a 1.3ghz celeron that I use for downloading/web browsing would thier be any increase in performance if i swapped the cpu for a sub 1ghz pentium3? I dont want to spend a fortune as i have a xp3000+ for all the hard work.
thanks
Scott
Euphoria
26-11-2004, 12:31
The P3 could process faster than the celeron could, but speed wise there will be very little in it. You could probably pick up a P3 cpu for next to nothing now on ebay.
Someone correct me if I am wrong!
Big Adam
26-11-2004, 12:36
You could use a 3.6Ghz CPU and it would not make your web browsing / downloading any quicker.
Although don't try telling the folks at PC World that.
Stick with the 1.3 Celly. It's cool, it's (probably) quiet, and it does the job.
heee, PC world flashbacks "NEW! Intel Pentium 4 (instert intel logo animation here) 3billion ghz! For blistering internet performance!"
when loading xp starting my web browser, starting the burning software to burn what ive just loaded. and my bit torrent client I am also on aohell (what was i thinking, 9 months left) which is a resource hungry git. I think the processor would make a difference
Big Adam
26-11-2004, 13:44
when loading xp starting my web browser, starting the burning software to burn what ive just loaded. and my bit torrent client I am also on aohell (what was i thinking, 9 months left) which is a resource hungry git. I think the processor would make a difference
I still think you'll be hard pushed to notice any real world difference despite a benchmark telling you that a particular process completed a nanosecond earlier.
The processes you have described are mainly (other) hardware limited. i.e. internet speed, hard drive speed, optical drive burning speed, finger/eye co-ordination speed!!
Unless you start talking processes which require significant CPU work forget the P3
Think you could be on to somthing there. I just checked out the spec of the hard drive that my OS is on and its an ata/66 would this be a bit slow for xp pro?
Euphoria
26-11-2004, 16:19
That could be why! ATA133 would be a lot better.
ive got an 20 gb ata/100 sitting and ive got a 40gb ata/133 as my slave but id rather leave it as that. Would thier be a big difference between the ata/100 and 133
big improvement and alot quieter than the IBM 18 gig :)
ive got an 20 gb ata/100 sitting and ive got a 40gb ata/133 as my slave but id rather leave it as that. Would thier be a big difference between the ata/100 and 133
None at all. Maxtor were the only hard disk manufacturer to support ATA-133, (a standard developed by Quantum before they were bought) yet there drives aren't noticeably quicker than other brands ;). In reality most drives aren't capable of exceeding the bandwidth of ATA-66.
stdPikachu
27-11-2004, 03:56
when loading xp starting my web browser, starting the burning software to burn what ive just loaded. and my bit torrent client I am also on aohell (what was i thinking, 9 months left) which is a resource hungry git. I think the processor would make a difference
I doubt if the processor would make a difference at all; those are all I/O bound operations, as others have pointed out.
Recently, I've started using Raptors instead of normal hard drives for the average PC's I build for people (people who want fast computers get two in RAID1 :D), whilst (normally) using cheap CPU's (mainly Semprons) and an average 512MB of RAM. And yet, because of the snappy hard drive, they swear that the entire computer is faster.
As has been said time and time again, people who don't play games or render videos typically can't tell the difference between a P2 400MHz and an 8000 node Beowulf cluster, as they barely even scrape the surface of the processors they have. Give 'em a fast hard drive and a decent amount of RAM, and they wonder why their computer seems twice as fast as the Dell next door with the 90THz Pentium in it.
As fas as your CPU goes, if the current one is doing fine, don't bother changing it. The 933MHz P3 will probably be faster, especially with multimedia and floating point stuff (and especially in games), but if you can tell the difference between them I'll be surprised. The P3 was a stellar chip in the later core revisions (Coppermine and Tualatin) and actually beat the P4 in benches when it came out. Just wish I had a nice 370 mobo for my orphaned 1GHz Coppermine...
OLD ONE
• Series Deskstar 22GXP
• Model IBM DJNA-371800
• Manufacturer IBM
• Capacity 18GB
• Interface IDE ATA/66
• Buffer Size 2000KB
• RPM 7200
• Average Seek Time 9Ms
• Average Latency 4Ms
• Reading Transfer Rate 17MB/s
• Bytes Per Sector 512
• Max Sectors 12
• Cylinders 15012
• Heads 8
• Disks 4
• Max Operating Temperature 55C
• Height 25mm
• Width 102mm
• Length 146mm
NEW ONE
• Series Deskstar 40GV
• Model IBM DTLA-305020
• Manufacturer IBM
• Capacity 20.5GB
• Interface IDE ATA/100
• Buffer Size 512KB
• RPM 5400
• Average Seek Time 9Ms
• Average Latency 5Ms
• Reading Transfer Rate 32MB/s
• Writing Transfer Rate 0MB/s
• Buffer Transfer Rate 0
• Bytes Per Sector 512
• Max Sectors 15
• Cylinders 34326
• Heads 2
• Disks 1
• Max Operating Temperature 55C
• Height 25mm
• Width 102mm
• Length 146mm
What do you wreakon, the second drive an improvement?
stdPikachu I could give your pIII a home he he!
The Pimp
27-11-2004, 09:59
That could be why! ATA133 would be a lot better.
Not if his board didn't support the ATA100/133 speeds. For general usage you wouldn't see much difference (if any at all) and a bigger gain would be got from getting a 7200rpm drive over a 5400rpm. The slightly bigger cache on the P3 would make more of a difference.
TheFallenAngel
28-11-2004, 23:09
Probably the most beneficial thing that you can do is add more RAM to your machine.
I currently have 392MB of ram surely that should be enough?
daniel_owen_uk
29-11-2004, 11:32
• Buffer Size 512KB
On the new one is wrong.
Will either be 2mb or 8mb cache (which is what the buffer is).
If its 2mb then no difference what so ever, if its 8mb new one is better.
This also seems a bit strange:
• Buffer Size 2000KB
Surely it would be 2Mb (ie 2048Kb)?
stdPikachu
30-11-2004, 02:19
B != b
B = 8*b
Samsonite
02-12-2004, 21:33
These guys are talking sense - Hard drive & RAM have been big improvements for me. 256MB to 512MB was a massive difference. 512MB - 1GB was a big difference too (on 512 there was only about 250MB free, so when I added another 512, it trippled the amount of free memory).
It's worth considering that if you run an ATA100 with an ATA133 on the same IDE channel, both drives will run at ATA100.
Hard drives are so cheap now too so get a nice big one!
Big Adam
03-12-2004, 22:23
[QUOTE=Samsonite] 512MB - 1GB was a big difference too (on 512 there was only about 250MB free, so when I added another 512, it trippled the amount of free memory).QUOTE]
Surely the equivalent of doing a steady 50mph in a car capable of 100mph and then driving a steady 50mph in a car capable of 200mph? :confused:
Ok, so you feel better, but the basic result is the same. In my opinion, 512Mb is plenty for the majority of users and is waaaaaay more than enough for the application in question.
stdPikachu
04-12-2004, 02:33
And I'll say it again; if you're regularly seeing large amounts of free memory after your system has been running for a few hours, you have more than you need. Having memory with nothing in it is pointless.
Why pointless? It doesn't hurt anything if it's there someday when you need it. You may need it tomorrow.
TheFallenAngel
17-12-2004, 00:24
I still end up running into my page file
stdPikachu
17-12-2004, 11:08
That's cos windows' memory management sucks ;)
There's nothing wrong with running into your page file though. I configure my Linux boxes to chuck stuff into swap whenever they're not doing anything else (by turning up the swappiness in /proc), so that if a process suddently requires a shedload of RAM, everything is already in swap. Makes for a much snappier system if you're limited on RAM.
Windows OTOH just seems to want to swap anything that's minimised :rolleyes:
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.