There's not a problem with it, but multiprocessor support for the Celeron stops at 466MHz and the Pentium III is geared toward it. In my opinion, a Celeron based server really isn't worth the savings you used to get with it. AMD's Duron is a closer competitor to the Pentium III than the Celeron.
There's no problems running the Celeron, but all Celeron's run at a 66MHz bus speed except for the 800 which has a 100MHz bus, whereas the the Pentium III, Duron, and Athlon all run at least a 100MHz bus speed.
If you want a cheap system, go with a Duron based system--seriously. The Celeron is being replaced with the Tulitan Pentium III, and the fasterest Celeron runs at 800MHz. The Duron's are cheaper and stomp the Celeron all over the place. A 600MHz Duron performs very close to a Celeron 800.
There are no issues with the Celeron itself, but I would say it's not a good way to spend the cash if you're a cheapskate.
AMD is just as good as Intel, but if you have to go Intel get the Pentium III instead.

Since he specifically mentioned compatibilty, I'd be careful with an AMD-based system. Not that there's anything wrong with AMD CPUs, just that the motherboard chipsets seem to have more problems under Win2000 than Intel ones.
 
Just what I see posted. No flames from the AMD crowd please.

Quote:Do anyone know if there is any problem trying to run NT server in a Celeron machine? What about 2000 Advanced Server?
Nope. Both work with Celeron

True about the AMD cpu/chipset combo's. If in doubt, get Intel. Even though AMD has the speed claims, Intel still has a greater sense of reliability.
If someone was looking at the Via Cyrix, even for a cheap system, I'd say they were nuts.

What I am wondering is,
If you have purchased W2K Advanced Server, why would you wanna use a multi processor OS in a Celeron which has in the best 128KB of L1 cache! Get a P3, even better get XEON, or even better get Itanium.
 
I am all for the AMD for home PC's of 14-20 Yrs old group to play quake but with my experience AMD chipsets does not cut it as server in the reliability.
And it is always good to watch what IBM, HP, Compaq are doing with their servers.
 
Has anybody seen an AMD Netfinity server lately with AMD patch installed if i might add!!!

The advantages of W2K Advanced Server are (as far as I can tell):
 
+ Large memory (> 2GB) support
+ > 4 CPU support
+ Clustering support
+ Licencing hooks for certain products such as SQL 2000 Enterprise
+ It sounds kewler if you war?z AS
 
I've also heard that AS runs with decreased performance if you have less than a gig of RAM. Can't verify that.
 
Anyway, there's very little good reason to run Advanced Server over Server on standard types of hardware.

AMD chipsets aren't ready for server use--yet. Not with the patching as mentioned above. Intel is more expensive, but I still have more faith in an Intel server than an AMD server. To date right now, the only dual board for AMD is the Tyan Thunder K7. Even though Tyan has a track record of reliable server boards, this doesn't get around the fact that it is the very first dual AMD board, whereas there are quite a few dual Intel boards around. Intel has been doing this longer, and therefore should have a better track record than AMD will for awhile.
I like both AMD and Intel, but I have to say, I've had far more Intel-based machines than AMD, and I always have this inkling of a greater reliability with Intel.
Again, very good points here.
The best choice for anything mission critcal is whatever is the most reliable.