+ Post New Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11
Hardware Thread, Windows Server 2003 - Pentium 4 vs Celeron D in Technical; Hi The school i am working in at the moment has an old desktop computer running as server with an ...
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    18
    Thank Post
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    Windows Server 2003 - Pentium 4 vs Celeron D

    Hi

    The school i am working in at the moment has an old desktop computer running as server with an old Pentium 4 1.6ghz chip inside. A year or so ago i upgraded the ram from 256mb to 1.25gb and added a secondary IDE hard disk for more storage (160gb on top of original 20gb).

    When accessing this server for administrative work it is rather slow and from examining the task manager, the processor often maxes out every few seconds. The server is host to 20 XP machines and it runs WSUS and Sophos enterprise along with roaming profiles, Group policy and shared folders with software placed as shortcuts on student desktops.

    I have just obtained a newer machine which comes with 1GB of ram, 2x 160GB hd's (SATA) and a 3.0 ghz processor. Unfortunately this processor is a Celeron D and i dont have a lot of time to be able to do benchmarks, which is why i ask; Will this 3ghz Celeron D straight up beat the crap out of this older 1.6ghz Pentium 4? Or is there more to this than i have made out?

    Thanks


    Will

  2. #2

    SYNACK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    11,172
    Thank Post
    868
    Thanked 2,699 Times in 2,288 Posts
    Blog Entries
    11
    Rep Power
    772
    Like an elephant stepping on an ant.

    That celleron D is several processor revisions ahead of the P4 and so will be much faster even barring the clock speed. It will be much more than double the speed.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    18
    Thank Post
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Thanks for your quick response. Good to know it'll be worth my time whilst i figure out the next step of transferring all the data and domain settings over.

    Cheers.

  4. #4

    3s-gtech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wales
    Posts
    2,777
    Thank Post
    146
    Thanked 564 Times in 508 Posts
    Rep Power
    153
    Yeah, the 1.6GHz P4 was the Willamette core - it was basically a Celeron - 256kB L2 cache, 400MHz FSB etc etc. The Celeron D has 256kB of L2, 533MHz FSB, and a much faster clock speed. It'll trounce it.

  5. #5
    cookie_monster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Derbyshire
    Posts
    4,201
    Thank Post
    392
    Thanked 278 Times in 239 Posts
    Rep Power
    74
    Gah I hate to say it but yes in this case the smelleron should out perform the pentium. If the clock speed were a bit closer I would say otherwise. We have some 2.2 GHz smellerons running XP and they're dog slow compared to similar speed pentium chips they're usually short on cache which kills their performance.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    18
    Thank Post
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Thats good info. Just needed some reassurance before i switch to a processor named after celery

    =]

  7. #7

    Theblacksheep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In a house.
    Posts
    1,934
    Thank Post
    138
    Thanked 290 Times in 210 Posts
    Rep Power
    193
    The celeron Ds are so slow a 7" asus standard minibook (running XP) with the CPU clock set back to its native 900mhz beats P4s on superpi by some distance.
    Last edited by Theblacksheep; 1st July 2010 at 03:53 PM.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,156
    Thank Post
    116
    Thanked 529 Times in 452 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    124
    I suspect you'd see a bigger difference if you could afford to go to 2Gb of RAM. Very little of what you describe the server being used for is CPU bound but it will use lots of disc access so extra RAM helps with caching. Faster discs would also probably help but they cost big money (and I'm guessing you've not got lots of money to spend given the hardware you've described)

    Performance monitor is always your friend here - you need to see what's being used and where the bottlenecks are. Check in particular the disc queues; if processes are waiting for the disc then everything slows down.

    There's some good stuff here Performance Monitoring about perf monitoring. It's written for Windows 2000 but I think it's all still relevant for 2003.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Suffolk, UK
    Posts
    121
    Thank Post
    22
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Rep Power
    0
    Just a thought, but are you going to use both?
    Use one for AD, GPOs, roaming etc and the other for Sophos, WSUS etc
    Perhaps spread the software between the two?

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    18
    Thank Post
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by srochford View Post
    I suspect you'd see a bigger difference if you could afford to go to 2Gb of RAM. Very little of what you describe the server being used for is CPU bound but it will use lots of disc access so extra RAM helps with caching. Faster discs would also probably help but they cost big money (and I'm guessing you've not got lots of money to spend given the hardware you've described)

    Performance monitor is always your friend here - you need to see what's being used and where the bottlenecks are. Check in particular the disc queues; if processes are waiting for the disc then everything slows down.

    There's some good stuff here Performance Monitoring about perf monitoring. It's written for Windows 2000 but I think it's all still relevant for 2003.
    Is your ram upgrade suggestion aimed at the pentium 4 or the celeron D?

    I think regardless of which machine either could do with more ram, and with ram not being very expensive i could recommend it to the school. However you've guessed it right, they dont have a lot of money and i think other component upgrades are out of the question. (Hence the current hardware).

    I will give performance monitoring a go for a better insight

    Thanks

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    18
    Thank Post
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by klop View Post
    Just a thought, but are you going to use both?
    Use one for AD, GPOs, roaming etc and the other for Sophos, WSUS etc
    Perhaps spread the software between the two?
    I too thought of a similar solution. Only problem is, they only have one retail license of Windows Server 2003

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 25th January 2010, 05:09 AM
  2. Windows Vista Business on Windows 2003 Server
    By DaveMurphy in forum Windows
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 25th October 2009, 04:26 PM
  3. Windows server 2003 r2 and windows vista business
    By everton4europe in forum Windows Server 2000/2003
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 21st July 2009, 03:36 PM
  4. Install Windows Server 2003 admin pack on Windows Vista
    By FN-GM in forum Wiki Announcements
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 27th March 2008, 04:19 PM
  5. Windows Server 2003 File Server Resource Manager
    By mrforgetful in forum Windows
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 17th June 2007, 01:51 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •