Can you provide more detailed model numbers /descriptions? Cache, FSB, core names.

I would go for the Pentium 4 1.6GHz! The lower amount of L2 cache in the Celeron slows it down in 3D games.
Maybe you can overclock it to 1.8GHz.
I had the same system in 2001 with a Geforce 3 Ti 200.

if both running at stock clock, i would say it depends on the chipset:
using 845 mainboard and pc133 sdram, p4-1.6g would be faster
using 850e mainboard and pc800 rdram, celeron-2.0g would have the edge
by the way, celeron-2.0g is based on northwood core so it would be fairly easy to overclock to 2.66g, pentium4-1.6g is much harder to overclock.

xan1242 wrote:

I would use it for some emulation purposes too, but I really don't know if the other is better at the moment as I can't really start testing (lack of thermal paste).

To buy a thermal paste is not hard, so you'll better test these CPUs in apps you are interested in. Unreal, for example. As for emulation, you may compare the speed in DOSBox Quake benchmark and in Speed Test run in DOSBox.

The Celeron 2.0 'Northwood' will be faster in general if you run it on the same platform as the Pentium 4 1.6 'Willamette'. As noshutdown mentioned you'll be able to overclock the Northwood better. With a bit of luck you can even run it at 2.66GHz using a 133MHz (QDR533) bus.

I did some tests of similar CPUs, maybe it will help you decide.

havli
Looks strange that P4 1.6 is 30% faster than P4 1.5 if there are same other conditions.
Would be interesting to see your full benchmark chart for CPUs.

P4 1.6 is Northwood - hence the 1.6A marking. The extra L2 cache really makes a difference. P4 1.5 is willamette core.
Full charts, yes that is my plan... but it will take a while. At the moment I'm working on part two of this article Re: CPU benchmark - part I. (1995 - 1999) It will go up to Athlon XP 1600+ / P4 1.5 Willamette.

Stay as far away from the Celeron as possible. They are basically Pentium 4 CPUs with less cache and a slower bus. It's not really the bus that kills it though, but rather the L2 cache. P4 Willamette started at 256K and for good reason. Netburst performs like a dog with 128k L2 Cache and that's why the Celeron performed so awfully compared to its peers. It wasn't until the Celeron D hit the market that it started closing the gap significantly.

Had Intel put a little more cache on the Celeron, say 192KB istead of 128KB, I think it would have helped performance immensely.

Whoa, I just went to sleep after I posted the thread and I never got such a blast of a response out of one forum 😁

philscomputerlab wrote:

Can you provide more detailed model numbers /descriptions? Cache, FSB, core names.

Sorry about that,

the CPUs in question exactly are:

Celeron Northwood
Pentium Willamette

I don't know why I thought the Celeron was a Willamette, really.

noshutdown wrote:

if both running at stock clock, i would say it depends on the chipset: using 845 mainboard and pc133 sdram, p4-1.6g would be fas […]
Show full quote

if both running at stock clock, i would say it depends on the chipset:
using 845 mainboard and pc133 sdram, p4-1.6g would be faster
using 850e mainboard and pc800 rdram, celeron-2.0g would have the edge
by the way, celeron-2.0g is based on northwood core so it would be fairly easy to overclock to 2.66g, pentium4-1.6g is much harder to overclock.

The ASUS board uses the 845 and yes, from what I've heard as well the P4 is harder to OC. I'm not very experienced with OC-ing on older boards, I'm worried about the RAM more than anything since I have a mishmash of 1GB stick and 2x 128 MB sticks of which one of is a DDR333 and other is DDR266.

Tertz wrote:

xan1242 wrote:

I would use it for some emulation purposes too, but I really don't know if the other is better at the moment as I can't really start testing (lack of thermal paste).

To buy a thermal paste is not hard, so you'll better test these CPUs in apps you are interested in. Unreal, for example. As for emulation, you may compare the speed in DOSBox Quake benchmark and in Speed Test run in DOSBox.

I know but the closest store to my place has shut down and I'm really sad because of that, it was just a 5 minute walk away from me. 🙁
I do have some left luckily, I'm just an idiot for not searching.

F2bnp wrote:

Stay as far away from the Celeron as possible. They are basically Pentium 4 CPUs with less cache and a slower bus. It's not really the bus that kills it though, but rather the L2 cache. P4 Willamette started at 256K and for good reason. Netburst performs like a dog with 128k L2 Cache and that's why the Celeron performed so awfully compared to its peers. It wasn't until the Celeron D hit the market that it started closing the gap significantly.

Had Intel put a little more cache on the Celeron, say 192KB istead of 128KB, I think it would have helped performance immensely.

I'm thinking so as well right now since I do remember horrible load times and everything on an ABIT BL-7 (SDR).

havli wrote:

P4 1.6 is Northwood - hence the 1.6A marking.

I've noticed other core. If the result is corrent, hence Intel's engineers knew about the problem with small cache and released CPU with it, harming its reputation on the start. Previous P3 had not optimal quantity of cache on the start too.

F2bnp wrote:

Stay as far away from the Celeron as possible. They are basically Pentium 4 CPUs with less cache and a slower bus. It's not really the bus that kills it though, but rather the L2 cache. P4 Willamette started at 256K and for good reason. Netburst performs like a dog with 128k L2 Cache and that's why the Celeron performed so awfully compared to its peers. It wasn't until the Celeron D hit the market that it started closing the gap significantly.

Had Intel put a little more cache on the Celeron, say 192KB istead of 128KB, I think it would have helped performance immensely.

Indeed, the Mobile Northwood Celerons showed exactly that. They had 256KB of cache, and my experience with a Packard Bell Versa E400, which uses a fairly basic SIS chipset and a 1.5 GHz Celeron Northwood, has been pretty favourable.

So I have conducted some benchmarks and all of them went into P4's favour. I'll post results once I get to it.

@Phil
I ordered a SCENIC-T with P4 1,6. Should be a good choice for a retro-gaming machine.
I am not sure what to use as GFX-Card for AGP4x. What is your advice? (Win9x/Win2k/XP no Dos)
I will put a 3dfx-Voodoo2 in it too.

F2bnp wrote:

Had Intel put a little more cache on the Celeron, say 192KB istead of 128KB, I think it would have helped performance immensely.

It did with Celeron D series 😀
Intel even increased FSB to 133MHz (or 533MHz QPB), while increasing cache to 256kB on Celeron D's.
Results were great compared to old one, BUT still kinda suck compared to Semprons based on Athnlon64 architecture...

agent_x007 wrote:

It did with Celeron D series :) Intel even increased FSB to 133MHz (or 533MHz QPB), while increasing cache to 256kB on Celeron D […]
Show full quote

F2bnp wrote:

Had Intel put a little more cache on the Celeron, say 192KB istead of 128KB, I think it would have helped performance immensely.

It did with Celeron D series 😀
Intel even increased FSB to 133MHz (or 533MHz QPB), while increasing cache to 256kB on Celeron D's.
Results were great compared to old one, BUT still kinda suck compared to Semprons based on Athnlon64 architecture...

F2bnp wrote:

It wasn't until the Celeron D hit the market that it started closing the gap significantly.

I know, I even said so. Just saying that Willamette and Northwood Celerons should have had more cache right from the get go. They knew 128KB wasn't going to cut it, but I'm guessing it was a little too competitive with their own Pentium 4 if they increased the cache to 192KB even.

So, they just waited until the Pentium 4 hit 800MHz FSB and much larger caches (512KB and 1MB with Prescott) and then introduced the Celeron D.

The Sempron 64s were kickass, no doubt about it.

dr.zeissler wrote:

@Phil I ordered a SCENIC-T with P4 1,6. Should be a good choice for a retro-gaming machine. I am not sure what to use as GFX-Car […]
Show full quote

@Phil
I ordered a SCENIC-T with P4 1,6. Should be a good choice for a retro-gaming machine.
I am not sure what to use as GFX-Card for AGP4x. What is your advice? (Win9x/Win2k/XP no Dos)
I will put a 3dfx-Voodoo2 in it too.

There are lots of options 😀

Seeing you got a V2, then I would go with a GeForce. Maybe a GeForce2 or 3?

Thx 😀 I thought about an Radeon 8500 AGP too.

Netburst architecture was really dependent on Cache and bandwidth. The Willametter and Northwood Celerons had practically the same IPC and the low 128 KB L2 kills it. It usually loses to lower clocked P4s and in the worst case, to some Pentium III (an 1.4 ghz Pentium III can esaily outclass a P4 Celeron).

I know, I even said so. Just saying that Willamette and Northwood Celerons should have had more cache right from the get go. They knew 128KB wasn't going to cut it, but I'm guessing it was a little too competitive with their own Pentium 4 if they increased the cache to 192KB even.

So, they just waited until the Pentium 4 hit 800MHz FSB and much larger caches (512KB and 1MB with Prescott) and then introduced the Celeron D.

The Sempron 64s were kickass, no doubt about it.

Oddly, mobile Northwood Celerons came with 256 KB L2 unlike the desktop version.

Also check your motherboard model and CPU support, if it supports FSB 400 only and Northwood, you can take something like the Pentium 4 2.0A which is faster than both CPUs, if the motherboard supports FSB 533, you can go with an even faster Pentium 4 2.4/2.53/2.66/2.8 ghz (3.06 ghz if the motherboard supports HT)