Announcement

**Pentium4** · 09-16-2013, 07:48 PM

Re: I was bored. Silly Celeron D overclock

Sounds like fun

I bet it was so slow though (mostly because of the RAM) I have the 3.46GHz Cedar Mill version with a 26x multiplier if you want it

I bet you could get it over 5GHz with a decent cooler! That thing must have been getting pretty hot.

**Heihachi_73** · 09-17-2013, 12:49 PM

Re: I was bored. Silly Celeron D overclock

Don't laugh, I have a 6GB Quantum HDD from 1998 in a 3GHz P4! It takes ages to load Windows, but once you're at the desktop it's fine. Being a Prescott CPU though, it enjoys sitting idle at around 53°C.

As for the amount of memory, I don't think 512MB would be an issue whatsoever with XP - just don't run any demanding games or have too many Firefox tabs open. After all, people installed XP on ancient Pentium 2/3 systems (or the Socket A equivalents) with only 128MB of RAM, and that was much slower SDRAM as well.

With Vista on the other hand, you're pushing it a bit, although it's still stable without excess paging or disk thrashing (just sitting at the desktop with minimal services loaded and no startup programs takes up over 300MB). My E7400 machine seems quite happy with Vista SP2 and only 512MB DDR2.

**RJARRRPCGP** · 09-17-2013, 02:24 PM

Re: I was bored. Silly Celeron D overclock

Originally posted by Heihachi_73 View Post

With Vista on the other hand, you're pushing it a bit, although it's still stable without excess paging or disk thrashing (just sitting at the desktop with minimal services loaded and no startup programs takes up over 300MB)

That's the problem! (Including 7) Even 64-bit XP uses less, including the themes service. XP Pro x64 usually uses about 240 MB, if not less!

Just about 30 seconds ago, XP Pro x64 was using only 280 MB, after closing apps.

**Th3_uN1Qu3** · 09-17-2013, 05:38 PM

Re: I was bored. Silly Celeron D overclock

Follow-up: No need for pics, as the Vcore mod for this board does nothing for stability (it actually makes it worse!). It also heats the VRM like crazy, so i took it off. However, the vdroop pencil mod i found on the internet did help.

Eventually i settled for something that draws less power and makes less heat, 4GHz at 1.42v. Above 4GHz this chip starts demanding a ton of voltage. Also interesting to note is while VTT (also known as "FSB Voltage") is essential for overclocking Core based chips, it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference with this one.

Anyway... Is a Netburst-based, single core Celeron worth anything at 4GHz?

Well, kinda. It can run a HTML5 fullscreen 720p video fluently, while not going over 70% load. That makes it at least remotely useful for multimedia. I also know the GT210 card is helping here however, i just don't know how much. I have found Adobe Flash no longer installs on XP, that's the reason for HTML5 - don't have anything else. Flash installer throws a IE script error and it quits. Both the activex version for IE and the version for firefox/opera. Good bye XP... I couldn't be bothered to try and find Flash 10.6 again, that worked fine IIRC.

But realistically speaking, 512MB RAM and a slow and noisy (bearing noise, not churning!) HDD isn't my idea of a decent computer in this day and age. It just happens that i really don't have any more DDR2 around. And you don't wanna know how many tabs i normally keep open.

With 4GB RAM, a better HDD and a beefier, quieter cooler, this could actually make a decent el-cheapo backup computer to have around the house.

**RJARRRPCGP** · 09-17-2013, 06:24 PM

Re: I was bored. Silly Celeron D overclock

Originally posted by Th3_uN1Qu3 View Post

I have found Adobe Flash no longer installs on XP, that's the reason for HTML5 - don't have anything else. Flash installer throws a IE script error and it quits. Both the activex version for IE and the version for firefox/opera. Good bye XP...

That never happened to me.

Sounds more like a corrupted Windows XP installation.

And if the Flash installer for Firefox and Opera fails to install Flash, likely VC++ runtime DLL hell!

**RJARRRPCGP** · 09-17-2013, 06:39 PM

Re: I was bored. Silly Celeron D overclock

I just installed Flash for Firefox and Opera on XP Pro x64. No errors.

**Th3_uN1Qu3** · 09-18-2013, 12:26 AM

Re: I was bored. Silly Celeron D overclock

I'm getting this. Same with the offline installer.

**momaka** · 09-21-2013, 12:01 PM

Re: I was bored. Silly Celeron D overclock

Originally posted by Th3_uN1Qu3 View Post

But realistically speaking, 512MB RAM and a slow and noisy (bearing noise, not churning!) HDD isn't my idea of a decent computer in this day and age.

Hehe, how many hours on that Maxtor?

I have two 20 GB 5T020H2's. One with around ~5k hours, and the other with around 20k hours. The 20k hour one is LOUD. As soon as you turn it on..... WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

I think that computer would be decent with more RAM (1 GB should be okay) and newer, faster HDD.

Originally posted by Th3_uN1Qu3 View Post

Anyway... Is a Netburst-based, single core Celeron worth anything at 4GHz?

Well, kinda. It can run a HTML5 fullscreen 720p video fluently, while not going over 70% load. That makes it at least remotely useful for multimedia. I also know the GT210 card is helping here however, i just don't know how much.

If that CPU has HT, then you should be able to run 720p flash/HTML5 in fullscreen even with the hardware acceleration turned off (i.e. the GT210 not helping). However, if it's a single-threaded CPU, it would struggle. I have no problem with 720p on YouTube with my 2.8 GHz P4 Prescott. (or didn't as of 6 months ago... the YouTube Flash player has become quite bloated too).

By the way, I have no problems with installing Flash on any of my XP machines.

**Heihachi_73** · 09-22-2013, 06:34 PM

Re: I was bored. Silly Celeron D overclock

20k hours? That thing is a baby compared to mine! My original, daily use 40GB Seagate from 2005 is still going strong, as is my trash-find 60GB found in ~2007. The 40GB is still in its original PC as the C: drive too.

The only sound I get from my PC when it powers on is a loud whoosh from the CPU fan getting 12V until the XP boot logo shows up, everything else is muted by the noise. As for my 1998 6GB Quantum, that's another story - it's like a mini vacuum cleaner starting up.

ST340015A, firmware ver. 3.01: 62149 power-on hours
ST360015A, firmware ver. 3.53: 51856 power-on hours

No trouble with Flash here either, and that's with XP SP1 (something which can't even install Firefox 13 or Skype 5.x). The only problem I have is that YouTube videos sometimes lag for up to 5 seconds on the odd occasion then work fine for the rest of the video - that's using a 2.8GHz Celeron (Northwood - no HT or "dual core" type options on this CPU). Note that I only use the default 360p however, I find YouTube almost unwatchable full screen (yet Media Player Classic has no trouble whatsoever with HD videos). By contrast, HTML5 is practically impossible to even stream without lagging every few frames.

**eccerr0r** · 09-23-2013, 10:19 AM

Re: I was bored. Silly Celeron D overclock

I have two (maybe 3) 120G IDE disks have have rolled over 65536 power on hours (apparently some SMART fields are only 16-bit), and their bearings are still fairly quiet. I *just* decommissioned them, but last I checked they were around 72000 hours. Two of them were Maxtors that have that have 64-second minutes (lazy math error in firmware so they didn't have to divide by 60) - I found this out because I had weekly SMART selftests that were logged wrong. Thus the 72000 is actually closer to 76000+ hours. They were part of a RAID5 for my server, and one of them have been powered since the day I got it minus power outages and cleaning days...

I don't know what I'll do with them at this point, probably make a JBOD so they can rack up some more hours...

**momaka** · 09-27-2013, 05:55 PM

Re: I was bored. Silly Celeron D overclock

Originally posted by Heihachi_73 View Post

20k hours? That thing is a baby compared to mine!

Yeah I wasn't really bragging that 20k hours is a lot. Rather, I was trying to point out that hard drives with ball bearings tend to get quite loud when they rack up some hours on them.

The Seagate HDDs you have use fluid dynamic bearings, so they don't suffer from that problem. And in general, fluid dynamic bearing is much more quiet to begin with.

**Pentium4** · 09-28-2013, 04:29 PM

Re: I was bored. Silly Celeron D overclock

Yeah, I have an old 30GB IDE Maxtor. With 46K hours on it now, it definitely isn't as "quiet" as it used to be! Likes to run hot too but it just won't die

**tmiha71** · 10-27-2013, 09:44 AM

Re: I was bored. Silly Celeron D overclock

Anyway... Is a Netburst-based, single core Celeron worth anything at 4GHz? Well, kinda. It can run a HTML5 fullscreen 720p video fluently, while not going over 70% load.

If that's achievement, than it's disappointment... Seen Barton's at 2.1 GHz do 720p video (in GOM player, not browser, at 70% CPU usage)...

If re-size is done (to smaller window) CPU usage hops to 90% or video chokes...

Your board probably has few problems of it's own, with SSE2, CPU usage should not go over 50%

**kaboom** · 10-27-2013, 01:45 PM

Re: I was bored. Silly Celeron D overclock

Originally posted by tmiha71 View Post

If that's achievement, than it's disappointment... Seen Barton's at 2.1 GHz do 720p video (in GOM player, not browser, at 70% CPU usage)...

If re-size is done (to smaller window) CPU usage hops to 90% or video chokes...

Your board probably has few problems of it's own, with SSE2, CPU usage should not go over 50%

Apples and oranges.

Comparing any web/flash/html "player," which is far more than a player, to an actual stand alone player (MPC-HC, VLC, etc) is laughable.

Like people who wonder why ScrewYou-Tube runs poorly with so-called "720" "videos" (which just happen to be lousy flash apps "disguised" as "video") stutter and have other "personality problems," yet their same computer plays 1080i/p at high bitrate w/o any trouble whatsoever.

Again, apples and oranges.

**tmiha71** · 10-28-2013, 02:42 AM

Re: I was bored. Silly Celeron D overclock

Comparing any web/flash/html "player," which is far more than a player, to an actual stand alone player (MPC-HC, VLC, etc) is laughable.

Hold your horses K., 2.1 GHz, and 4 GHz is also apples and oranges, did that just for info, 4Ghz should run smooth and easy 720p video (on any place, browser, standalone player)...

In my example, real question is "re-sized video", it should be done in graphics card ( S3-trio-V was advertised as video friendly - resizing without CPU usage, and it was 15 years ago ), so no CPU overhead (CPU usage should be the same) but video chokes - looks like graphics card was on vacation, and CPU was doing all the job...

Flash,HTML5, and so on, they probably use the same codec as stand-alone player - as so many times heard - flash brings overhead, browser brings overhead, and so on...

Like people who wonder why ScrewYou-Tube runs poorly with so-called "720" "videos"

that could be lousy internet connection or Tube in red - to high traffic...

Back to OP's computer...
Just to repeat, for playing 720p video alone, probably 2 Ghz CPU is enough (maybe even lower clocked CPU would be enough, and without SSE2), OP's computer should be more than enough. Actually his computer should be enough for even more demanding tasks..

**lti** · 10-28-2013, 08:20 AM

Re: I was bored. Silly Celeron D overclock

Flash has a list of supported graphics cards. If the card isn't on the supported list, it uses the CPU for everything, including resizing the video.

HTML5 video was slightly better than Flash, but it eventually became even worse than Flash (10% CPU usage for Flash and 40% for HTML5 when playing the same video on a Core i3). HTML5 has issues with resizing and playing full screen as well.

**Th3_uN1Qu3** · 10-28-2013, 02:56 PM

Re: I was bored. Silly Celeron D overclock

Originally posted by tmiha71 View Post

Hold your horses K., 2.1 GHz, and 4 GHz is also apples and oranges, did that just for info, 4Ghz should run smooth and easy 720p video (on any place, browser, standalone player)...

It should, that doesn't mean it does. There's also CPU cache to care about, it may be 4GHz but it's still a lousy Netburst Celeron. 480p youtube barely runs in a window on a 2.4GHz Barton btw...

Originally posted by tmiha71 View Post

In my example, real question is "re-sized video", it should be done in graphics card ( S3-trio-V was advertised as video friendly - resizing without CPU usage, and it was 15 years ago ), so no CPU overhead (CPU usage should be the same) but video chokes - looks like graphics card was on vacation, and CPU was doing all the job...

Yes, but do you think they use the same methods for resizing video on the internet as they did 15 years ago? No, they don't... They also remove optimizations for old CPUs with every new Flash version. Latest version runs like crap on Socket As and non-HT P4s, all but 240p is unwatchable. Revert back to Flash 10.2 and you're magically able to play 480p again...

There's nothing magical after all, it's just Adobe intentionally obsoleting old computers. It's just like that - 1 month ago you used to play 480p youtube just fine, now you can't. With every version they add more bloat and remove compiler optimizations, so that older (and slower) CPUs are forced to emulate the instructions they cannot execute. Which in turn makes them even slower.

Originally posted by tmiha71 View Post

Just to repeat, for playing 720p video alone, probably 2 Ghz CPU is enough (maybe even lower clocked CPU would be enough, and without SSE2)

Yes, when using a good player and codecs tuned for the CPU you are using. Heck, a pair of Pentium IIIs are enough for 720p MKV files in VLC or MPC-HC. But try watching something online in Flash... no.

Originally posted by lti View Post

Flash has a list of supported graphics cards. If the card isn't on the supported list, it uses the CPU for everything, including resizing the video.

HTML5 video was slightly better than Flash, but it eventually became even worse than Flash (10% CPU usage for Flash and 40% for HTML5 when playing the same video on a Core i3). HTML5 has issues with resizing and playing full screen as well.

HTML5 video sucked from the start. On my main computer (3.6GHz C2D, 8GB, HD3870) it stuttered in 720p fullscreen, went back to Flash.

**momaka** · 11-04-2013, 11:59 PM

Re: I was bored. Silly Celeron D overclock

Originally posted by kaboom View Post

Apples and oranges.

Comparing any web/flash/html "player," which is far more than a player, to an actual stand alone player (MPC-HC, VLC, etc) is laughable.

Like people who wonder why ScrewYou-Tube runs poorly with so-called "720" "videos" (which just happen to be lousy flash apps "disguised" as "video") stutter and have other "personality problems," yet their same computer plays 1080i/p at high bitrate w/o any trouble whatsoever.

Again, apples and oranges.

+1

720p on VLC is not the same as 720p on YouTube. I often download videos from YouTube that I want to watch in "HD", because my 2.8 GHz Pentium 4 is just not "powerful" enough for YouTube's crappy Flash "player".

FYI, I've ran a 720p movie even on an old 750 MHz slot A AMD Athlon. (Of course, it was AVI MPEG-2 compressed XviD and not .264. Quality wasn't as good as what you'd get with .264, but it was comparable. In stand-still scenes, it was virtually the same).

Originally posted by tmiha71

Seen Barton's at 2.1 GHz do 720p video (in GOM player, not browser, at 70% CPU usage)...

Actually, that^ is sort of disappointing (though, not entirely unexpected). The equivalently rated P4 in that range probably won't even top 60% CPU usage. And HT-capable P4's probably won't even peak above 50%. I know my 2.8 GHz HT P4 stays quite low.
In general, S462 AMDs have a shallow and wide architecture, whereas the Netbust architecture is long and narrow. Most games like the former, and this is why many did well on the S462 CPUs. Multimedia encoding/decoding, on the other hand, favors the latter, so this is why Pentium 4s tend to do better in that area. Flash tends to favor long architectures too (along with multi-core CPUs and/or multi-CPU systems).

I've tested many old computers (both AMD and Intel) and still use quite many of them too. Intel Netburst CPUs are hands-down better than any other CPUs of that age when it comes to mutlimedia and web browsing (as almost all websites nowadays incorporate some form of Flash in them).

Originally posted by Th3_uN1Qu3

There's nothing magical after all, it's just Adobe intentionally obsoleting old computers. It's just like that - 1 month ago you used to play 480p youtube just fine, now you can't. With every version they add more bloat and remove compiler optimizations, so that older (and slower) CPUs are forced to emulate the instructions they cannot execute. Which in turn makes them even slower.

Exactly!
2 to 3 years ago, I could watch 360p YouTube just fine even on my 850 MHz Pentium 3 PC. Over the years and with each new Flash update, it began to slow down more and more. Now on that same computer? - 240p and if I am lucky.

**tmiha71** · 11-17-2013, 03:40 PM

Re: I was bored. Silly Celeron D overclock

Video specs (from GOM player):
*** DIRECTSHOW FILTER LIST ***
1. Default DirectSound Device
2. Video Renderer
3. Gretech Audio
4. Overlay Mixer
5. CoreAAC Audio Decoder
6. Gretech Video
7. Gretech MP4 Source

*** VIDEO INFO ***
Input Type : AVC1(GVC)
Input Size : 1280 x 720
Output Type : YUY2
Output Size : 1280 x 720
FrameRate(Frame/sec) : 0.00 (29.97)

*** AUDIO INFO ***
SampleRate(Sample/sec) : 44100
BitRate(Bit/sample) : 16
Channels : 2
KBitRate(KBit/sec) : 705

Actually, I agree with all comments, specially that p4 Northwood and later, are far better than Barton...
And to my knowledge SSE2 does bring major improvement...

Scaling video is the same topic as before 15 years, maybe some advanced filtering, and so on, but it should be the same...

Interesting GOM does not give video bitrate as output ???

Announcement

I was bored. Silly Celeron D overclock

I was bored. Silly Celeron D overclock

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment