K
Ken K
What are the main differences between the Celeron processors and the
P4? Which apps benefit from each?
Thanks
Ken K
P4? Which apps benefit from each?
Thanks
Ken K
W
Walt
Cache size.
K
Ken K
Are there types of apps that benefit or suffer from one or the other?
If you have two processors, one Celeron and the other a P4, which types
of apps would show a significant difference in performance?
Thanks
KK
If you have two processors, one Celeron and the other a P4, which types
of apps would show a significant difference in performance?
Thanks
KK
D
dg
Marketing. Intel has to be able to compete with the lower priced
alternatives. Price/performance is better with a celeron than a P4.
--Dan
alternatives. Price/performance is better with a celeron than a P4.
--Dan
H
Hamman
All, in theory. You wont notice so much of a difference in desktop appsKen K said:
(Word, Excel etc)
You do realise you can get a full AthlonXP for the same price as a celeron
dont you?
hamman
W
Wes Newell
I'm not an Intel user, but the latest Celeron comparison I saw show it to
be crippled so much that it is dog slow. As an example, a 1.6 GHz AMD
duron beats a 2.6GHz Celeron. Now the just released Celeron D has some
respectable numbers.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=2093&p=6
D
DaveW
The Celeron has a smaller memory cache built into it and runs fewer
instructions per clock cycle than a P4. There is no application where a
Celeron is an advantage over a P4.
instructions per clock cycle than a P4. There is no application where a
Celeron is an advantage over a P4.
A
ancra
Since I thought previous responses came up short on emphasis:
There is only one thing you need to know about Celerons, - Stay away!
In every way you consider it, it's the worst x86 CPU there is. It's
not cheap. It may seem to be, but in relation to it's poor
performance, it's very expensive and way overpriced.
In fairness, "Celeron" has not always been used as a name for absolute
crap. Old Celerons, 1.4GHz and below (based on PII, PIII, Tualatin
cores), were half decent for their time. (Actually, it wouldn't
surprise me if the 1.4GHz still beats the entire current crop.)
The new CeleronD (larger cache, 2.8GHz and above) is also adequate,
though still a poor choice.
Finally, the new CeleronM (based on the PentiumM), might actually be a
very good CPU, for laptops. We'll have to see, but it looks very
promising.
But Celerons, 1.7GHz to 2.6GHz (based on the P4 core), there really
isn't anything more miserable. Don't touch it!
ancra
K
Ken K
Well, you raise an interesting point. Frankly, I have not investigatedHamman said:
using Athlon chips since I looked at them a couple of years ago and I
saw that they ran so hot that one needed to purchase a mini-air
conditioner in order to keep them to a reasonable temperature. I would
not mind investigating the issue further (I have no objection to getting
more for my money); I assume that I must learn a bit more about memory
combinations, etc. with them. I have no desire to overclock and I
thought that Athlon chips were popular most amongst people who wanted to
push their systems to the limits of failure.
So plese begin my education: what is the main difference between the
Athlon and Intel cpu's; it is mainly the price/value ratio? Which
Athlon cpu's represent the best bang for the buck presently? Do I have
to look at memory requirements any differently? Which chipsets are the
present darlings? which motherboards?
Thanks,
Ken K
K
Ken K
Thanks! Message received. It has been suggested that I consider Athlonancra said:
cpu's so I will begin my education process about them.
Cheers,
Ken K
W
Wes Newell
The heat issue, while overstated, was more with the Tbird line of cpu's.
There's been several new cores since then and it's not an issue. An $8
cooler will cool any of the AND cpu's, even overclocked. the reason they
were popular two fold. First, they were a lot cheaper than comparable
Intel cpu's and they would also overclock very well for even more value.
Price vs. performance.
Not overclocking, that's hard to say, but in general, any of the ones
under $80.
PC3200 will work with any of them. Some will work with PC2100.
Any of the newer chipsets should be fine, Nvidia being the favorite among
overclockers because of the PCI/AGP lock. It all depends on what you want.
Personally, I like SIS, and that's all I have now. Thye're cheap and close
to the top on perfomance. The K7S8XE+ would be a good choice with SIS.
First you need to determine how much money you want to spend. Then see
what you can get for it. If moneys not an issue, then I could suggest the
best around and you'd be happy, while maybe spending twice as much as you
needed to.
H
Hamman
Well, you raise an interesting point. Frankly, I have not investigated
using Athlon chips since I looked at >them a couple of years ago and I saw
that they ran so hot that one needed to purchase a mini-air >conditioner in
order to keep them to a reasonable temperature.
that was the tbirds and early 'palomino' core cpu's.
memory combinations, etc. with them.
Match the FSB with the memory speed. All the ones avalible now above 2500+
use a 333FSB which means PC2700 ram. You hit 400FSB at 3200+ which means
PC3200.
failure.
Look for mobile 2500+ cpu's if youre interested in this, but they lock
standardo nes like intel now.
cpu's represent the best bang for the buck presently? Do I have to >look at
memory requirements any differently? Which chipsets are the present
darlings? which >motherboards?
Get a board with the nForce2 Ultra chipset. You wont be disappointed with
the features and sounce quality. I have a FFI Infinity nF2 Ultra, but any
one from a major brand is ok.
hamman
using Athlon chips since I looked at >them a couple of years ago and I saw
that they ran so hot that one needed to purchase a mini-air >conditioner in
order to keep them to a reasonable temperature.
that was the tbirds and early 'palomino' core cpu's.
getting more for my money); I >assume that I must learn a bit more about
memory combinations, etc. with them.
Match the FSB with the memory speed. All the ones avalible now above 2500+
use a 333FSB which means PC2700 ram. You hit 400FSB at 3200+ which means
PC3200.
most amongst people who >wanted to push their systems to the limits of
failure.
Look for mobile 2500+ cpu's if youre interested in this, but they lock
standardo nes like intel now.
Athlon and Intel cpu's; it is mainly >the price/value ratio? Which Athlon
cpu's represent the best bang for the buck presently? Do I have to >look at
memory requirements any differently? Which chipsets are the present
darlings? which >motherboards?
Get a board with the nForce2 Ultra chipset. You wont be disappointed with
the features and sounce quality. I have a FFI Infinity nF2 Ultra, but any
one from a major brand is ok.
hamman
G
gothika
Geez... I have several T-birds running various systems and haven't had
one overheat yet. And I do video editing and rendering.
If price is no object and you need the bleeding edge speed go Intel.
If are on a budget and can tolerate a little less speed then Athalon
is a good alternative.
D
Dave C.
If price is no object and you need the bleeding edge speed go Intel.
Where have you been for the last ten years? That's about the last time that
Intel beat AMD in anything other than higher prices. -Dave
Where have you been for the last ten years? That's about the last time that
Intel beat AMD in anything other than higher prices. -Dave