Pentium vs Celeron processor

Handrick

Want to get a PC possibly to do some home recording on, just interested to know what is the difference between the two, does it make a difference?

Thanks

CyberGhost

DON'T! buy Celeron! it's an aweful processor!

The Difference is Cache, Celeron has smaller!


I've red somewhere even Duron 1.4 beat Celeron 2.4Ghz!


Better go with Athlon XP2500+(imho the best balance between price and performance) or Pentium4

Mac daddy

All the info you need

ChipZilla

Originally posted by CyberGhost
+ I've red somewhere even Duron 1.4 beat Celeron 2.4Ghz!

That sounds like a bit of an exaggeration if I ever heard one. Got a link for that?

Woden

not really, fair enough its a 1.6 duron but still just say a 1.6 duron will trash a 2.6 celeron

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=14

the cat gets put amongest the pigeons with the new celerons though

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=2093

red_ice

only fools/people who think they know loads about computers but intel.

Get AMD, it is cheeper and better

Stephen

nice sweeping generalisation there, mongo.

Col_Loki

only fools/people who think they know loads about computers but intel.
Get AMD, it is cheeper and better

lol where are you getting that from? Jeez mate im an AMD fan but up until the AMD64 AMD werent in the ball park at all. The Xp3000+ and Xp3200+ are joke chips than dont deserve that rating at all........... thats AMD taking the stupid people and getting then to buy on ratings and not actual performance.

The Intels are good chips, better that AMD for encoding etc.

AMD are better than Intel in the budget category but mid to high end your pretty foolish comming out with comments like that....... especially when you take overclocking into account.

BloodBath

The 2.4a is a great budget chip. I've seen them clocked as high as 3.8 on air. One was even clocked to 4.8 on phase change. That's 100% overclock.

They retail for about 100 euro. I know it's not ultra budget but it competes with a 2500 mobile xp.



BloodBath

Col_Loki

They retail for about 100 euro

U sure? Cheapest i can find is €122 (jes) .

The 2.4a is a great budget chip. I've seen them clocked as high as 3.8 on air

Yea but the average is 3.4-3.5ghz, one off's dont mean much TBH. There a great chip theres no doubt but you need really good cooling to get anything from them.

Another couple of things
FSB will be much lower than with a "C" chip as it is 133mhz @ stock. Which means @200mhz FSB the chip will have to run @3.6ghz. So tight timings is really the only option.
This chip doesent have Hyper Threading.

It compares pretty well against the Mobiles, nice chip ..... have thought about one myself.

CyberGhost

Originally posted by red_ice
only fools/people who think they know loads about computers but intel.

Both Intel and AMD are good! but you have to get the one that will work for you better!

Games, Archiving = A64
Audio-Video Encoding = Intel





ChipZilla I think Dataisgod answered your question

jesus_thats_gre

Originally posted by red_ice
only fools/people who think they know loads about computers but intel.

Get AMD, it is cheeper and better

That statement just gives off a whole CS vide doesn't it!!

Stock AMD are now once again the number one cpu for games. Intel's processors can overclock really well compared to the current AMD64 processors (I think?!?!) so this helps Intel keep up amoung enthusiast circles who are willing to and want to push there computers as much as they can.

jesus_thats_gre

Ah yeah, are the top of the line AMD64 processors cheaper that Intels now?

Col_Loki

AMD must have reduced the price of the 64's in the last couple of days, am sure intel will follow suit. Think it has to do with the launch of the Socket939.

Normally there on level terms yea.......

jesus_thats_gre

Originally posted by Col_Loki
AMD must have reduced the price of the 64's in the last couple of days, am sure intel will follow suit. Think it has to do with the launch of the Socket939.

Normally there on level terms yea.......

Must have. I always considered AMD's as worse performers than Intel but they more than made up for it with considerably cheaper prices. Now they are outperforming Intel and to a certain extent are becoming market leaders, they have upped their prices to match Intel's.

pclancy

Originally posted by Handrick
Want to get a PC possibly to do some home recording on, just interested to know what is the difference between the two, does it make a difference?

Thanks

defo go for the pentium. As they said before AMD are great for games etc and im a big fan but i've noticed the PCs i use for cubase or any recording/audiovisual type stuff run way better with the P4s.

Col_Loki

Must have. I always considered AMD's as worse performers than Intel but they more than made up for it with considerably cheaper prices. Now they are outperforming Intel and to a certain extent are becoming market leaders, they have upped their prices to match Intel's.

Almost 2 years ago, i think AMD were out peforming intel in most cases especially since they were matching GHZ with GHZ, the AMD's were really a great option as they were a little cheaper and had great bang per buck. (Tbird)

Then things seemed to level up and AMD prices got closer and closer to intels and they started to use the stupid rating thing..... Intel and AMD very close.

AMD still seemed to have a slight edge against intel up until the release of the "C" chips when AMD were pretty much blown out of the water. They had nothing that could really compete, the XP range just wasent up to the task ....... thats when they increased the Xp2800+ speed by 80mhz and called it an Xp3000+ :rolleyes: , and whats even worse they 40mhz to that and called it an Xp3200+ :rolleyes: .

There comming back round with the AMD64, they dont overclock aswell as intel at the min but the CG revision and NF250 boards is helping alot on that end of things.

The AMD v Intel is most lightly going to take a turn again when intel brings out its new chipset..... Dont think either will be too far behind. Theres alot of talk about dual Core desktop chips comming out in late '05 ........ that could be a majour turning point.

Champ

If i remember right pentiums generally have about twice the L2 cache of a Celeron. If your not planning to do very heavy work... games with moderate specs; minimum multimedia encoding like mpeg-4 / mp3....; then a Celeron should suffice in most areas.

Generally fine as a budget CPU; though i read somewhere that with the Athlon 64s out; that the old XP line offers better bang for the buck in the budget area.

ozt9vdujny3srf

Originally posted by red_ice
only fools/people who think they know loads about computers but intel.

Get AMD, it is cheeper and better

Bloody troll.

Dempsey

I think the Pecking order is like this..

AMD A64
Intel P4
AMD XP
Intel Celeron

The Celeron D has improved a good bit over the old Celeron's. Its still lagging behind the XP's and is too expensive for its performance

Gerry

Originally posted by Truckle
Bloody troll.

Not really, just a deluded fanboy. I think the most sensible attitude is to buy whatever is best at the time of purchase. Sometimes its AMD, sometimes Intel.

ozt9vdujny3srf

Originally posted by Gerry
Not really, just a deluded fanboy. I think the most sensible attitude is to buy whatever is best at the time of purchase. Sometimes its AMD, sometimes Intel.

Like yourself I look at what i have to spend then pick what i think is best based on the reviews i read, be it intel or amd.

I still think red_ice's post was designed to get a rise out of people who see things the same as yerself and myself and still jump blindly to argue with such statements.

neXus9

Originally posted by Col_Loki
lol where are you getting that from? Jeez mate im an AMD fan but up until the AMD64 AMD werent in the ball park at all. The Xp3000+ and Xp3200+ are joke chips than dont deserve that rating at all........... thats AMD taking the stupid people and getting then to buy on ratings and not actual performance.

The Intels are good chips, better that AMD for encoding etc.

AMD are better than Intel in the budget category but mid to high end your pretty foolish comming out with comments like that....... especially when you take overclocking into account.

Amd were coming out better from the 1-9 gig stage and being about the same power when it came to xp2000+-xp2800+, but being cheaper and being more overclockable (and easier to overclock). Don't know what it's like now with their latest chips, but is their any point going for 64bit processing other than encoding/decoding? There's not much software to utilise this kind of power, especially if you're just interested in playing games.

Stephen

Some new games have 64-bit support, such as Unreal Tournament 2004. I think there's plans to release a 64bit version of Far Cry too (makes sense since they were bundling the game with A64 CPU's).

Windows XP 64bit is available in beta form too, no idea when they're releasing it for real. And of course there's various flavours of Linux/unix already available in 64bit form if that's what floats your boat.

CyberGhost

Originally posted by Dempsey
I think the Pecking order is like this..

AMD A64
Intel P4
AMD XP
Intel Celeron

The Celeron D has improved a good bit over the old Celeron's. Its still lagging behind the XP's and is too expensive for its performance

where did Duron go?

AMD A64 / Intel P4 - both get #1 spot, because both are good in different tasks
AMD XP
Duron
Celeron

neXus9

Originally posted by Stephen
Some new games have 64-bit support, such as Unreal Tournament 2004. I think there's plans to release a 64bit version of Far Cry too (makes sense since they were bundling the game with A64 CPU's).

Windows XP 64bit is available in beta form too, no idea when they're releasing it for real. And of course there's various flavours of Linux/unix already available in 64bit form if that's what floats your boat.

How much of an performance improvement is there on 64 bit games? I heard about 30 percent? I heard about windows xp 64 bit, bit dodgy using it as just beta though.
I havn't really ventured much into the linux/unix thing much, other than briefly with redhat and one or two others. If I get a network going in the house I'll be sure to give it a proper look.

Handrick

Thanks for all the info, much appreciated..

So I was thinking of getting this laptop

Inspiron 5150 (N0614)


Mobile Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor (2.80GHz) + 15" XGA
Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition
512MB 333MHz DDR RAM (2x256MB)
32MB nVidia GeForce FX Go5200 Video Memory Card
30GB ULTRA ATA-100 Hard Drive
Fixed Internal 24x CDRW/24x DVD Combo Drive with Software
Euro1219

Would this be good enough to do homerecording on and would I be able to play games on it should I get bored..?:D

Mac daddy

The GFX card 32MB nVidia GeForce FX Go5200 Video Memory Card
I would go up another one 5600- or even up to 64-128MB card but that is just me

Champ

Definetly a good idea to bump up the graphics cards if you want to do any moderate amount of gaming.. the one you listed may be hard pressed to play anything that isn't a year + old.

Hmmm it may be better to save up a bit and go after an 8600; apart from packing a Mobility Radeon 9600; its also got a Pentium M and those processors excel in their laptop role:)

Handrick

So apart from the graphic card, which I could get up to a 64mb,(I wouldn't be a big gamer you understand) it would be good enough for homerecordings? Enough hard drive/memory etc

Champ

Yes the specs look sufficent for what you have in mind. I don't have much experience with recording; but doesn't raw video feed take up a lot of space until you can compress it with say something like Divx / Xvid? I think your hard drive should be okay for the task though....:cool:

Dempsey

Originally posted by CyberGhost
where did Duron go?

AMD A64 / Intel P4 - both get #1 spot, because both are good in different tasks
AMD XP
Duron
Celeron

True but the A64 will beat the P4 in everyway when proper 64-bit support is available.

In the benchmarks ive seen. The Prescott Celeron outperforms the Duron 1.6 and the Northwoods dont. Celerons have finally passed out the Duron's