VOGONS


First post, by overdrive333

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

1733mhz/256k vs 1400mhz/512kb

I have both of these cpus, but I have only one FCPGA2->FCPGA adapter and I need to choose which processor to modify. 133 FSB is my limit (440bx mb).
P.S. My 1300 is B1 stepping and I'm sure it will work on 1733 at voltage 1.75-1.8 .

Attachments

  • IMG_1550.JPG
    Filename
    IMG_1550.JPG
    File size
    1.23 MiB
    Views
    393 views
    File license
    Public domain

Reply 1 of 14, by fosterwj03

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I suspect that the Celeron would win most benchmarks at the higher clock speed (with the same FSB). The Celeron will lose out in certain tasks that saturate it's 256K of cache. Rare, though.

I had a 1300MHz Celeron (100MHz FSB) back in the day, and it was a beast!

Reply 4 of 14, by overdrive333

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
darry wrote on 2021-01-13, 21:08:

See this Re: Tualatin Celeron vs Williamette Celeron

EDIT: That extra cache really makes a difference .

cel _9.5 x 133 = 1266 MHz: 7506 3DMarks
p3 _9.5 x 133 = 1266 MHz: 7845 3DMarks

~4,5%

1733/1400 = ~24% frequency difference

Reply 5 of 14, by The Serpent Rider

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

My 1300 is B1 stepping and I'm sure it will work

You don't. Test it thoroughly for stability, then proceed. If you can't do that, then your best bet would be PIII-S. Also keep in mind that stable overclock may degrade over time, especially it it's borderline stable.

1733/1400 = ~24% frequency difference

CPU frequency won't make much dent, because high-end PIII's are really starved on slow FSB.

Get up, come on get down with the sickness
Open up your hate, and let it flow into me

Reply 6 of 14, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
overdrive333 wrote on 2021-01-13, 21:45:
cel _9.5 x 133 = 1266 MHz: 7506 3DMarks p3 _9.5 x 133 = 1266 MHz: 7845 3DMarks […]
Show full quote
darry wrote on 2021-01-13, 21:08:

See this Re: Tualatin Celeron vs Williamette Celeron

EDIT: That extra cache really makes a difference .

cel _9.5 x 133 = 1266 MHz: 7506 3DMarks
p3 _9.5 x 133 = 1266 MHz: 7845 3DMarks

~4,5%

1733/1400 = ~24% frequency difference

What video card is that with ?

Reply 7 of 14, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
The Serpent Rider wrote on 2021-01-13, 21:55:
You don't. Test it thoroughly for stability, then proceed. If you can't do that, then your best bet would be PIII-S. Also keep i […]
Show full quote

My 1300 is B1 stepping and I'm sure it will work

You don't. Test it thoroughly for stability, then proceed. If you can't do that, then your best bet would be PIII-S. Also keep in mind that stable overclock may degrade over time, especially it it's borderline stable.

1733/1400 = ~24% frequency difference

CPU frequency won't make much dent, because high-end PIII's are really starved on slow FSB.

Agreed.

Reply 8 of 14, by mothergoose729

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Would you be willing to benchmark both? I would be curious to see how they fair. I am not sure the question is totally settled just yet.

EDIT: Both CPUs benched at 100mhz FSB in addition to 133mhz FSB would also be interesting to see.

Reply 9 of 14, by Standard Def Steve

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I actually tried this with a Celeron-1400 back in the day. Had it running at 1866/133, and at that speed it could match the stock-clocked PIII-S 1400 in some benchmarks. In others, the PIII was ahead. The Celeron also required some enormous voltage to get to 1866, and actually quit working after a few hours of benchmarking.

So yeah, definitely go with PIII-S 1400. It'll outperform the Celeron-1733 and run much cooler. Plus, most of them will happily do 1575/150 at stock voltage, should your motherboard accommodate.

Worth noting: I ran those tests on an old Asus TUV4X (Apollo 133) motherboard, which has lower memory performance than 440BX at equivalent bus clocks. That may have allowed the PIII-S and its ginormous cache to shine more brightly than it otherwise would have. 😀

Ten Gigahertz
5 Groovy GHz: Ryzen 9 5900X | GTX 1080 Ti | 32GB DDR4-3600 | 2TB NVMe, 8TB HDD | Win 10
5 Troll GHz: AMD FX-8350 | Radeon R9 Fury | 16GB DDR3-1866 | 500GB SSD, 2TB HDD | Win 8.1

Reply 10 of 14, by mothergoose729

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Standard Def Steve wrote on 2021-01-13, 23:06:

I actually tried this with a Celeron-1400 back in the day. Had it running at 1866/133, and at that speed it could match the stock-clocked PIII-S 1400 in some benchmarks. In others, the PIII was ahead. The Celeron also required some enormous voltage to get to 1866, and actually quit working after a few hours of benchmarking.

So yeah, definitely go with PIII-S 1400. It'll outperform the Celeron-1733 and run much cooler. Plus, most of them will happily do 1575/150 at stock voltage, should your motherboard accommodate.

Worth noting: I ran those tests on an old Asus TUV4X (Apollo 133) motherboard, which has lower memory performance than 440BX at equivalent bus clocks. That may have allowed the PIII-S and its ginormous cache to shine more brightly than it otherwise would have. 😀

Oh, well there you have it 😁

Reply 12 of 14, by H3nrik V!

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Standard Def Steve wrote on 2021-01-13, 23:06:

I actually tried this with a Celeron-1400 back in the day. Had it running at 1866/133, and at that speed it could match the stock-clocked PIII-S 1400 in some benchmarks. In others, the PIII was ahead. The Celeron also required some enormous voltage to get to 1866, and actually quit working after a few hours of benchmarking.

But it sounds like you had a lot of fun doing it 🤣

Please use the "quote" option if asking questions to what I write - it will really up the chances of me noticing 😀

Reply 14 of 14, by Standard Def Steve

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
H3nrik V! wrote on 2021-01-15, 07:46:
Standard Def Steve wrote on 2021-01-13, 23:06:

I actually tried this with a Celeron-1400 back in the day. Had it running at 1866/133, and at that speed it could match the stock-clocked PIII-S 1400 in some benchmarks. In others, the PIII was ahead. The Celeron also required some enormous voltage to get to 1866, and actually quit working after a few hours of benchmarking.

But it sounds like you had a lot of fun doing it 🤣

Well, I was definitely excited when the thing posted and booted into Windows! I mean, a near 1.9GHz Tualatin! I was hoping for some Athlon XP, possibly even ULV Pentium M levels of performance! But then I ran the benchmarks and I was like: 🥱. And then it burned out and I was like: 😠

Ten Gigahertz
5 Groovy GHz: Ryzen 9 5900X | GTX 1080 Ti | 32GB DDR4-3600 | 2TB NVMe, 8TB HDD | Win 10
5 Troll GHz: AMD FX-8350 | Radeon R9 Fury | 16GB DDR3-1866 | 500GB SSD, 2TB HDD | Win 8.1