P3/4 vs. Celeron

[tinkertech]

Can some one explain in simple terms the difference between a Pentium Processor and a Celeron Processor? Why would I choose, aside from cost, one over the other?

 

[LordGarfield]

Well ever heared of Cashe memory. It is verry fast memory but verry expensive. Level 1 cache memory is added to a processor. So it is memory the processor can use imediatly.

now the amount of cashe is the big difrenced between Celeron and Pentium. also is the price difrence.

I thought celeron had in the beginning even 0 megs of level 1 cashe but that they now have 128 megs and a PIII had 512 megs of level one.

so this momory speeds up the processes that a CPU does. The more it can write to cashe the faster data will transfer between memory and processor. Normal RAM and DDR RAM are still used but there is a BUS between the processor and the RAM and this bus only can handle a amount of data that it can transfer from processor to RAM.

anyway. I would by a Pentium our an Athlon XP. Celeron is good for workstations in company's.

 

[tinkertech]

Thanks for the info LordGardfield. Any other input out there?

 

[cdogg]

Celerons are typically less expensive for Intel to produce due to less cache (L1 and L2) and sometimes slower FSB clock frequencies/multipliers.

However, rating the 'Celeron' is a bit more complicated. In the old days of the P-II and P-III, the Celeron was severly outmatched and didn't even hold a candle to AMD's K6-2 w/ 3DNow technology or the Duron's superior architecture and cache techniques.

However, the Celeron during the P4 era has come a long way. It was given a new architecture (pretty much identical to the P4) but kept the same name. The Celeron of today is nothing like the Celeron of yesterday. Although it is no match for the AMD Athlon XP chips (which can actually be cheaper), it can still put out.



~cdogg
[tab]"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources"
[tab][tab]- A. Einstein

 

[tinkertech]

Thanks for the educational session gang.

 

[rich110]

About this cache idea :
I still remember I read an article (way back in the 486 era) saying that after a certain amount of cache, the hit rate increase only by 1 or 2% . If my memory does not fail me, I think it is 64k = 90% hit rate, 128k = 92% hit rate. But I think it also had something to do with the amount of on board memory. That's why in those days we have cache memory of 64k expandable to 128k MB. But of course the price will be very expensive compare to today (something like $150, good enough for a new MB nowadays). Can some elaborate on this further?

 

[Fishguy]

First of all, I would not reccomend the Celeron at all, it is not even equivalent to a Pentium 4A, with a 400MHz bus and a measly 128k L1 Cache(and L2 Cache, i think)and for even less money can get a better performing Athlon XP.

Many people ask me what type of processor to get and I will always go with the Athlon XP when it comes to price/performance or price/megahert.
Below is a brief comparison of a couple of Celeron and Athlon XP processors, of supposedly equivalent speed(GHz). [I live in Canada and am too lazy to convert the prices to US, but I assume this still applies]

Celeron 2.00GHz, $0.052/Mh
Celeron 2.40GHz, $0.054/Mh
Celeron 2.50GHz, $0.056/Mh

Athlon XP 2000+, $0.051/Mh
Athlon XP 2400+, $0.054/Mh
Athlon XP 2500+, $0.053/Mh

As you can see, the Athlon XP is cheaper across the board. Now, for reference, I have included the price per megahert listing for the P4. [Again, in Canadian dollars]

Pentium 4B(533fsb) 2.40GHz, $0.104/Mh
Pentium 4C(800fsb) 2.40GHz, $0.112/Mh
Pentium 4C(800fsb) 2.60GHz, $0.127/Mh

All this data was collected from

http://www.memoryexpress.com,

a Calgary based Computer products dealer.
So, as you can see, in terms of price(and performance), the Athlon XP is still the best bet.

-----------------------
Fishguy

 

[dakota81]

Sorry FishGuy, determing a processor's "wealth" based on megahertz is an outdated concept, even if you're comparing it along with $$ figures.

The clock rate is a good way to compare processors of the same class, such as P4's w/ 800fsb, but not say athlon vs. p4 (and neither P4's w/ 800fsb to P4's w/ 533fsb!).


For the Celeron vs. P4 comparison, we can discuss to no end how cache effects performance, and how different architectures (amd vs. intel) effect performance, and how different fsb's effect performance, but the bottom line is performance.

If you find a review site that lays out benchmarks (there are many out there), look at a given Celeron model and what P4 cpu & what Athlon cpu for which that Celeron offers equivilent performance. Then of the three cpu models you have picked (one Celeron, one P4, and one Athlon), check out the current prices of each and, obviously, go with the cheapest.

That is how I would decide which cpu to purchase.

You can work that all out on your own. I think the celeron wins out over the P4, but I haven't checked into it.

 

[Fishguy]

Well Dakota, No matter how you work it, price is undeniably a big part of choosing the processor that is right for you.

-----------------------
Fishguy

 

[channing0123]

Hi there,

I had another opinion. To be an end-user, I like my computer more stable but fast. I use my desktop to surf on the internet and some word document. I think Celeron meets my essential needs. However, AMD had well-known overheated problem.

 

[crazy888s]

Overheating problems are not problems if you're smart. As long as you do not overclock your PC, install the processor and fan right, and have a case fan....99% of the time you dont need to worry about overheating. That's not even a factor here....

Yes, a celeron meets the needs of an internet/word processor user. I personally would also recommend an Athlon though, even if a user is soley using a computer for those specific purposes.

 

[tinkertech]

THANK YOU ALL for this informative topic; once I process all this input, I will be a better tech. But really, thanks a bunch for all the information; I know I would get an answer but this flood of info was a pleasent surprise.

For every problem there is a solution, for every solution there is a tech behind it.

 

[yankees]

Hi Guys,

Just to share some of my experience, I did play around with AMD platform for quite sometimes, performance were great (let not mention price/performance) but I encountered quite numbers of stability problems, no overclocking for me...heard that compability and stability lies on most MOBO chipset, configuration and even to power supply.

But now after through all the experiences, I switch to Intel, currently using Celeron 1.7ghz, stable system and moderate peformance (actually it really depends on what the user really needs), me quite satisfy with 3D gaming performance but it really stable.

I am tight on budget during set up so skimp on CPU to get celeron but I got a solid MOBO (MSI 845PE MAX) that able to support to 3+ghz with HT so I will upgrade to better CPU when price goes down. That's my planning. Stability and problems free.

Just to Share

Jerry