Suggestion needed for old system pii - piii celeron

[anaybre]

Is there much of a performance boost in "updating"
a PII 400 to a PIII 500 Celeron? Is it worth the bother?
I remember something about certain older celerons
were not good at all.

The board is an Abit BH6. Overclocking is an option, but
I'm asking about a head to head comparison. Basically
asking if the celeron would outperform the pii in every way,
or if it is only minor.

 

[graysky]

I don't think so dude... I couldn't put a dime into it if I were you.

 

[myocardia]

That's probably going to be a dead heat, although the PII might be a slight bit faster. Neither is really fast enough for much besides internet/e-mail usage, though.

 

[anaybre]

Originally posted by: graysky
I don't think so dude... I couldn't put a dime into it if I were you.

None spent! I got the PIII Celeron out of a thrown away with a
dead motherboard.

 

[anaybre]

Originally posted by: myocardia
That's probably going to be a dead heat, although the PII might be a slight bit faster. Neither is really fast enough for much besides internet/e-mail usage, though.

Great! That helps. You guys are the best.
Thanks for your help!

 

[taltamir]

I would recommend you benchmark the current system, swap the CPU, and benchmark again.

Also check power consumption using kill-a-watt or something like that.

If it improves on the p3, then keep it, if it goes down, then go back to the p2. Asking people which is better from memory isn't gonna go very far.

 

[anaybre]

Originally posted by: taltamir
I would recommend you benchmark the current system, swap the CPU, and benchmark again.

Also check power consumption using kill-a-watt or something like that.

If it improves on the p3, then keep it, if it goes down, then go back to the p2. Asking people which is better from memory isn't gonna go very far.

Yeah, I know aksing this type of question is a shot in the dark,
but if there was a dramitic difference between the two then
maybe someone would remember. Like myocardia stated,
if the difference is a "dead heat" or even CLOSE to that,
it's not worth the effort.

 

[JWade]

the P2 400 will be better, it has the 512k cache, the 500 celeron is 66mhz bus, and 128k cache. I dont have the numbers but i "upgraded" a celeron 466 machine to a P2 400 before (yeah i know its not the celeron 500 though, 34mhz difference) and the P2 was alot faster performing

 

[VirtualLarry]

I'd say the PII would be faster (more cache), but if the celeron can be overclocked by changing the bus speed from 66 to 100, then it could be faster in the end. I'd try it, if it doesn't overclock, put the PII back in.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Celerons of that vintage were supposed to be good overclockers. I did run an Intel PIII-600 at 750 MHz like a freakin' tank for almost five years. Asus board, the sucker never crashed. Tose were great CPUs.

 

[dmark]

I am still running a BH6 with Tulatin Cel 1.3gz, 768mb ram, win2k and a ATA controller for the HD. 9 years and runs great for web and general use. When I built it I used a Cel 300a @ 450mz that was the hot OC at the time; I hoped it would be useful for 5 years but here it is at 9. If you want to play with it further I have some spares that may be useful- what hardware is in it now?

BTW- PII 400 to Cel 500 is a downgrade due to reduced cache and if cel is from PIII generation reduced cache latency also.

 

[mondobyte]

You haven't said if the FSB is 100 or 133 ...

If the motherboard will handle fsb133 but your processor isn't I know how you may alter the processor to be FSB133 ... but it will only work with PIII processors ... now that would make a difference ... moving from 100 to 133 ...

 

[dmark]

BH6 was a FSB 100mz board (final revision could hit 133 but AGP was locked so it ran AGP OC'd).