Athlon XP 1.4Ghz vs Intel Celeron 2.26Ghz

May 30, 2010 at 22:47:08
Specs: Windows XP
Which is supposed to be faster for gaming e.i. Counter Strike?
Specs: 128MB Graphics card, 1GB Ram
40GB Hard disk.

Athlon XP 1.4Ghz or a Celeron 2.26Ghz?

See More: Athlon XP 1.4Ghz vs Intel Celeron 2.26Ghz

Report •

May 30, 2010 at 23:12:53
Only Athlon XP I know of that runs at 1400Mhz is the 1600+.

If that's the processor you're talking about, I'd give the nod to the Celeron. If it's one of the old Athlon, Athlon B, or Athlon C processors, then the Celeron would certainly whup them.


Report •

May 31, 2010 at 02:10:19
Hi Skip,

Yes, I am refering to Athlon XP 1600+.

The reason I was asking this was that my brother used to own an AMD Athlon XP 1600+ system with 512MB Ram, 32MB Video card and 8GB harddisk. He asked me to upgrade it.

I changed the system to a Celeron 2.26Ghz, 1GB Ram, 128MB Video card, 40GB Hard disk.

He complained it to be slower when playing Counter Strike.

Is his observation justifiable? I have yet to check out the actual performance later, personally.

Report •

May 31, 2010 at 10:55:10
I'd tend to blame game settings, internet connection quality, driver issues, etc. first.


Report •

Related Solutions

May 31, 2010 at 17:36:20
Hello Skip,

I saw how slow the game was. I changed game settings to the lowest and still got an unsatisfying speed.

Later today, I will be installing a decent driver for the video card. It's a Geforce FX5200. I also had the same thought about the driver issue when I woke up this morning.

The current driver installed is probably WindowsXP built-in driver, thus, slow performance.

On the internet issue, my brother contended that he had no problem with the internet access / speed.

Thanks for the tips Skip. I hope to resolve this issue soonest. My last resort is to use the AMD instead of the Celeron.

Thanks again.

Report •

May 31, 2010 at 20:36:00
"My last resort is to use the AMD instead of the Celeron."

Download CPU-Z.
What core is the Celeron based on?

-If it's a Northwood core, then switching back to the Athlon XP 1600 would be a good idea. The Northwood Celeron only has 128KB of cache, which absolutely kills performance.

-If it's a Prescott core (Celeron D), it should be at least slightly faster than the Athlon XP.

-If it's based on an Allendale or Conroe-L core, it should run circles around the Athlon XP.

Super PIII | Unlocked ES Tualatin @ 1.8GHz (150x12, 1.65v), 512K L2
2GB PC2700 | 500GB | Radeon x1950Pro | Apollo Pro 266T | Win7 Pro

Report •

June 1, 2010 at 01:51:21
Hello Jack,

Thanks for the tip. I will use CPU-Z to determine the core of the Celeron. I will post results later.


Report •

June 1, 2010 at 20:23:20
Hello Jack,

The processor is Intel Celeron 315 / Prescott
So It's better to keep the Celeron Processor.

Last night, I installed the NVidia driver. I ran Counter Strike, changed some settings and the speed was like WOW! I test played it for around 2 minutes, then I stopped the game took my dinner.

Unfortunately, When I re-ran CS, the game became too slow to play. I checked the settings and everything and found nothing different as before.

I switched between OpenGL and D3D. The game ran horribly on both. I played around the settings and found no cure.

I don't know and I cannot explain why the sudden rush in speed the first time I installed the driver.

I'm now contemplating on re-installing everything from scratch and I will install an unmodified Windows XP.

Any ideas guys?

Report •

June 3, 2010 at 17:38:56
Hi guys,

I just got an update.

I installed Windows XP (fresh).
Installed the driver and ran CS 1.6.

Strangely, the same thing happened. The game started out real fast. I was able to play one session getting some fast frame rates.

After disconnecting then re-running the game, It slows down again. This time the game is not longer playable.

After several re-runs, the game speeds up occasionally but most of the time, it slows down.

I suspect the video card has something to do with this.
I will replace the video card and will post updated results.

Any other idea from you guys may help. Thanks.

Report •

June 3, 2010 at 18:34:10
Can you try the FX5200 on the Athlon machine? What is the 32Mb card currently installed on the AMD machine?

Are you using the latest drivers for the FX5200 or the drivers on the original install cd?

Have you tried other online games on the Intel machine? Tried stand alone games like Far Cry, Call of Duty, etc?

Is this the original CS, CS: Condition Zero or CS: Source?

As you can guess, I have more questions than answers.


Report •

June 3, 2010 at 19:53:42
Hello Skip,

I'm happy to answer your queries. I can try the FX5200 on the Athlon this weekend and see how will it perform. I will update you on that. The 32MB Video card is a Geforce MX200.

Yes, I'm using the latest. I used both the NVIDIA Forceware 175.19 WHQL XP and the NVIDIA Forceware 91.xx WHQL XP. I got the first from and got the latter from NVidia website. Both performed as I stated above. (terrible). Higher versions of the driver doesn't support FX5200.

I haven't tried other online games because, my brother only wants CS 1.6. Actually, he plays CS 1.6 as a stand alone at the same time, the computer is connected on the internet. You think his connection to the internet causes the slow down? I haven't thought of that. I will inspect that later.

All I know is that the CS is version 1.6 Final.

According to my brother, before the upgrade, CS1.6 played just fine, maybe not very fast but just fine.

His old system is Athlon XP 1600+, 1GBRam (not 512MB as stated above), 8GB Hard disk, 32MB Geforce MX200.

As of now, I'm suspecting the Video card & its driver is the culprit. I have a 128MB ATI9200SE to test later. I can also do test with the old 32MB Geforce MX200.

Report •

June 3, 2010 at 21:03:34
You might try an older driver for the FX5200. Grasping at straws here. :-)


Report •

June 3, 2010 at 23:17:45
Hi Skip,

I get your point Skip.

I can try that too, though I feel inconvenient about it. Well, there's no harm in trying.

Thanks for the suggestion Skip.

I have a strong feeling about the video card/driver thingy though.


Report •

June 4, 2010 at 00:45:41
A few older drivers for the FX5200...

I could give better help if you asked questions I knew the answers to.


Report •

June 5, 2010 at 17:46:08
Hello Skip,

Thank you for the Nidia link.

"I could give better help if you asked questions I knew the answers to"... No problem Skip, after all that's we are all here for... to help and learn.

I just wrote today because I didall my testing configuration on the Celeron System which I assembled for my brother as an upgrade from his Athlon system.

And here are my discoveries.

First, I tested the 128MB Ati 9200SE on the problematic Celeron system. I used an updated driver from for the ATI 9200SE. To my surprise, I experienced exactly the same problem I had with the FX5200. The game started out pretty well with great frame rates and then after a re-run, the game crawls down and become unplayable. Even after several re-runs and tweaking, the problem persists.

I concluded that the problem may not be in the video card and its driver. It must be on the mainboard or processor.

I then assembled the Athlon XP 1600+ with 512MB Ram, 8G HD, 128MB FX5200. I did a fresh install of Windows XP. Installed all drivers including the updated driver from Nvidia (NVIDIA Forceware 175.19 WHQL XP). Installed CS 1.6 too.

The first time I ran CS1.6, it was no surprise to me that it delivered great frame rates. What came next, surpised me. After several re-runs of the game, I was stunned that I never (not a single one) experienced a slow down which I experienced on the Celeron system.

This supported my initial hunch above that there's no problem with the Video card and its drivers. There must be something wrong with the celeron system BIOS settings maybe? or is it really no match for AMD Athlon for this game?

I immediately finalized my brother's system to be AMD Athlon XP 1600+ with 1GB ram, 128MB FX5200, 40GB Hard disk. Installed everything from scratch including all drivers and updated driver from NVidia (NVIDIA Forceware 175.19 WHQL XP). The result was a dream machine.

Meanwhile, I will be experimenting with the Celeron system (with the 128MB ATI Radeon9200SE, 8GB Harddisk, 512MB Ram). I will find all possible tweaks tofind out what's holdingit to produce great frame rates flawlessly.

I will post reults later.


Report •

June 5, 2010 at 19:53:53
Chances of a bad motherboard or bad celeron are pretty slim.

A few ideas...

Time to check as much of the machine as possible. I'd download and run memtest86 to begin with.

Next, download the hdd manufacturers utility and check the drive.

If you're using onboard lan, you might install an add-in NIC to eliminate a bad network adapter.

Open Task Manager and when the machine slows down, check memory and cpu usage. I imagine with a fresh install, you're running <30 processes so too many running programs shouldn't be a problem.

I've seen browsers hang and eat up most of 1Gb memory while running the cpu at 100%


Report •

June 5, 2010 at 21:30:23
You're asking for decent gaming performance out of a 5200FX? 0_o

Nvidia 5200FX was okay when it came out... 8 years ago. The ATi 9200 is even slower. You can't expect a Yugo to drive like a Ferrari!

Stop dancing around the issue and buy a decent video card.


PowerMac 9600(1 ghz G4)
512mb RAM
50gb SCSI
ATi 9200 PCI

Report •

June 5, 2010 at 22:27:44

You're not even close here.


Report •

June 6, 2010 at 00:17:57
Hello Skip,

You're not even close here.'...

Thanks for havin my back, Skip.
And thank you too for your suggestions and the links.

You are right about having thoughts on testing the mainboard memory, and the hard drive and the on board lan.

However the Athlon system and the Celeron system that I'm comparing, share the same 1GB memory and 40GB hard disk. Both have been recently used for internet and exerience no problem with their connections.

Since the 1GB memory and 40GB hard disk worked very well with the AMD Athlon 1600+ and FX5200, I believe that there's no reason for them (memory & hard drive) to be the culprit when hooked up to my Celeron 2.26Ghz system.

With these, I suspect that the problem is caused by either mainboard or processor.

Here are my findings:

I saw these on the BIOS settings of the mainboard used for my Celeron system:

(1) Grahics Window WR Combin - disabled
(2) AGP Fast Write Support - disabled
(3) AGP Data Rate - auto

Guess what?
I enabled (1) and (2)... played and re-run CS around 8 times before it crawled. Good Result.

I changed (3) from auto to 8x ...played & re-run CS... slow down problem seemed to have vanished... (for good , I hope)

My thoughts are:
Enabling (1) & (2) did affect performance.
(3) however makes me wonder what is that setting for.
I noticed that the ATI driver has a maximum setting of 6x on AGP data rate... not 8x.

Wow! ... You really can't take these overlooked BIOS settings for granted. They are great tweakers !

I will however, do more re-runs of CS1.6 on my setup (Celeron 2.26Ghz with 512MB memory, 8G Hard drive and ATI Radeon9200SE) before I call this solved.

I have a question though...Can the Celeron 2.26Ghz be overclocked? There's an option on the BIOS for setting CPU speed.


Report •

June 6, 2010 at 00:25:01
In a word, yeah; it can probably be overclocked.

Can you give us the exact model of the motherboard? I assume this is not a manufactured system like a Dell or hp.


Report •

June 6, 2010 at 00:36:28
Hi Skip,

It's a Foxconn 661FX MR-ES.


Report •

June 6, 2010 at 12:31:31
You won't get far with that little budget motherboard. I couldn't find a real motherboard manual for that thing, so this is wingin' it.

Far as I can determine the BIOS offers...
1, No way to lock the pci/agp bus at 33/66Mhz
2. No way to raise vCore voltage
3. = slim chance of a meaningful overclock.

Here's some BIOS screens from a similar motherboard, the 661FXSA...

Foxconn calls its front side bus (fsb) settings SuperSpeed. You should see Cpu Clock at 133Mhz. That Celeron runs at 133X17=2.26Ghz. Raising the fsb is what increases performance but *if* you could reach 150Mhz, that would only put you at 2.55Ghz. That amount of overclock will only be visible to a benchmark utility; you wouldn't see an improvement. As you overclock the fsb on that board, you also overclock the pci and agp bus. PCI goes to hell at about 37Mhz and AGP at about 75Mhz and the system crashes or becomes unstable.

4. To increase gaming performance, you need a better video card. Overclocking will increase system performance but will do very little for gaming performance.

Final opinion? Don't bother trying the overclock. That board just doesn't have the chipset or BIOS options to get an overclock that will help you.


Report •

June 6, 2010 at 14:45:59

You're not even close here.

If I'm not even close, than you're far off in the distance pal! :)

The guy's complaining about performance out of a 5200FX, and a 9200 combined with either a socket A Athlon, or early celery.

The simple answer is stop being cheap, go out and buy a decent video card. Even a later Pentium III cpu can handle the original HL, and HL2... IF it is tied together with a decent video card.

4. To increase gaming performance, you need a better video card. Overclocking will increase system performance but will do very little for gaming performance.

And don't steal my answers right after you criticize them, skip. :)

PowerMac 9600(1 ghz G4)
512mb RAM
50gb SCSI
ATi 9200 PCI

Report •

June 6, 2010 at 15:19:06
A better video card has nothing to do with his original problem. Read the posts; the game in question ran well on the AMD platform with a crappier card and he had no complaints. Only the Foxconn/Celeron combination gave them problems.

After changing a couple BIOS settings, the problem seems to have gone away.

So; just how would a better card fix that?

I didn't steal your answer; only criticized it.

My "4." comment refers to overclocking. If elmarphil believes overclocking will increase gaming performance, then it was pertinent to point out that it won't. Only a better graphics card would increase framerates, run under higher resolutions, etc. Right? Point I was making is that 200x17, if possible, would run that thing at 3.4Ghz but gaming performance would change very little.

Again, his posting was only about one machine running one game.

Can you get your head wrapped around that?


Report •

June 7, 2010 at 01:50:08
Hello Skip,

The Foxconn manual I got also doesn't explain anything about the BIOS settings.

Thanks for shedding light on overclocking my Celeron. I feel sad about the motherboard now.

I asked my brother to continue testing the Celeron system and see if the game (CS 1.6) would slow down again. I will post our observations soon.

Skip, if I get a better video card than FX5200, you think that the slow down I experienced before would never had happened even without my alterations on the BIOS setting? About the BIOS setting alterations I did, were they necessary regardless of my video card?

If I get a Pentium 4 1.8Ghz to replace the Celeron 2.26Ghz, How much increase in performance should I expect?

Thanks for all your help.

Report •

June 7, 2010 at 04:42:50
I believe the BIOS settings would need to be as you set them regardless of nvidia card model. In other words, the same settings for a better nvidia card would be prudent.

If any of the settings like fast write caused a problem, only then would I disable it. For example, my ATI 9600XT doesn't work well with fast write enabled.

If you want to experience real disappointment, install a P4 1.8. Almost anything will outperform early P4's. The Celeron you have is a much better chip.


Report •

June 7, 2010 at 17:35:48
Hello Skip,

"If you want to experience real disappointment, install a P4 1.8. Almost anything will outperform early P4's. The Celeron you have is a much better chip." - I suppose a Pentium 4 2.4Ghz or greater would be a better replacement for the Celeron 2.26Ghz?


Report •

June 8, 2010 at 18:09:41
Hello everyone,

Unfortunately, the Celeron 2.26Ghz has slowed down suddenly even with the BIOS settings above.

I think the Celeron/motherboard is the culprit.
I doubt if the graphics card (Nvidia FX5200 and the ATI Radeon 9200SE) had issues because both of these cards performed excellent on my AMD Ahtlon 1600+ system.

I think to solve the problem, I should replace the Celeron 2.26Ghz processor with a faster one and/or possibly, get a better graphics card.

Since its cheaper to replace the processor with a Pentium 4 2.6 or 2.8Ghz, I'm planning on purchasing one.

Any suggestions/ideas/comments?

Report •

Ask Question