amd vs. pentium vs. celeron

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

hello,
need to compare amd, pentium and celeron chips of equivalent
'performance'
is there a Web site that someone could post?
thanks
13 answers Last reply
More about pentium celeron
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 21:40:44 -0400, Tanya
    <tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net> wrote:

    >hello,
    >need to compare amd, pentium and celeron chips of equivalent
    >'performance'
    >is there a Web site that someone could post?
    >thanks

    heres a couple for the budget chips
    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/value-cpus.html
    http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    You are not consistent with your comparison items. You want to compare
    Intel vs. AMD. Then you can move down a level and compare AMD Athalon
    vs. AMD Opteron vs. Intel Pentium vs. Intel Celeron.

    Easy to find for yourself. Go to Google and type in the items you gave
    us: AMD Pentium Celeron Performance and it will return a nice list of
    where to go look.
    Tom's Hardware
    CPU score
    Anandtech

    Comperable performance is your toughest part to determine. Celeron is
    lesser performance than Pentium, but it maches up closest to the
    Athalon (which is lesser than the Opteron). So you can compare the
    latest Pentium to the latest Opteron, or the latest Celeron to the
    latest Athalon. And don't forget cost in your equations unless that is
    of no object.

    It would also help to know the application that you are looking for. A
    gaming machine has completely different requirements than a network
    server.

    -Jim

    Tanya <tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<40D63C9C.FD8AE2FA@attglobal.net>...
    > hello,
    > need to compare amd, pentium and celeron chips of equivalent
    > 'performance'
    > is there a Web site that someone could post?
    > thanks
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "Tanya" <tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net> wrote in message
    news:40D63C9C.FD8AE2FA@attglobal.net...
    > hello,
    > need to compare amd, pentium and celeron chips of equivalent
    > 'performance'
    > is there a Web site that someone could post?

    Perhaps, but you should strike the Celeron from the list. It's a dog among
    modern CPU's.
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "Jim Wall" <jimwall2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:c2c855a9.0406210946.638a46fa@posting.google.com...
    > You are not consistent with your comparison items. You want to compare
    > Intel vs. AMD. Then you can move down a level and compare AMD Athalon
    > vs. AMD Opteron vs. Intel Pentium vs. Intel Celeron.
    >
    > Easy to find for yourself. Go to Google and type in the items you gave
    > us: AMD Pentium Celeron Performance and it will return a nice list of
    > where to go look.
    > Tom's Hardware
    > CPU score
    > Anandtech
    >
    > Comperable performance is your toughest part to determine. Celeron is
    > lesser performance than Pentium, but it maches up closest to the
    > Athalon ...


    No, it doesn't. The Celeron is a dog even compared to the Duron, needing 30
    to 60 percent higher clock rates just to keep up.
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "Tanya" <tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net> wrote in message
    news:40D63C9C.FD8AE2FA@attglobal.net...
    > hello,
    > need to compare amd, pentium and celeron chips of equivalent
    > 'performance'
    > is there a Web site that someone could post?
    > thanks
    >

    This is an erroneous assumption. What you want to do is compare AMD Athlon
    XP vs AMD Athlon 64 vs Intel P4 vs Intel Celeron vs AMD Duron, of equivelant
    price.

    You should find that for the same price, you can get an Athlon XP that will
    thoroughly trounce the Intel opposition.

    For example, spend $100 on CPU (Retail package from newegg.com), and you'll
    find you can get either a Athlon XP 2600+ Barton for $90 or a Celeron 2.6GHz
    for $91. Now, visit any of the benchmark sites such as www.tomshardware.com
    www.anandtech.com (hope thats right...if it is wrong, then it is porn, I've
    accidentally done that before), just to name two of my favorites, and you'll
    find that the Athlon will completly kill it.

    The Celeron uses a 400MHz bus (100x4) whereas the Athlon uses a 333MHz
    (166x2) bus. The Celeron should have more memory bandwidth, but I'm unsure
    if it does or not, I'd think not just because it's a Celeron. Regardless,
    that doesn't say anything, so I can't be wrong :)

    Now, let's move up to $180 and you're willing to go OEM if needed. Now you
    are bombarded with options.

    1) Athlon XP is up to a 3200+ (2.2GHz) Barton using 400MHz bus for $179
    (OEM)
    2) Opteron 140 (1.4GHz Socket 940) 1MB L2 for $178 (Retail) (you won't
    choose this)
    3) Opteron 142 (1.6GHz Socket 940) 1MB L2 for $173 (OEM)
    4) Athlon MP 2800+ Barton (2.13GHz) using 266MHz bus for $177 (Retail)
    5) Athlon 64 2800+ (1.8GHz Socket 754) 512k L2 for $173 (OEM)
    6) Intel P4 Prescott 2.8E (1MB L2) using 800MHz bus for $179 (Retail)
    7) Intel P4 Northwood 2.8C (512k L2) 800MHz bus for $177 (Retail)

    Now, remember that Socket 939 is leaving, and luckily nothing here uses
    that, so you're okay. If you go with Intel, you're going to get a 2.8GHz,
    but, do you want a Northwood with 512k or a Prescott with 1MB? Generally
    speaking, a Northwood is faster at the same speed, but Northwood's go faster
    due to the increased pipeline. So, assuming no overclocking is going to
    occur, you'd be better off with the 2.8C. But, is the 2.8C better than the
    XP 3200+? If you go with the Athlon MP over the XP, then you would want to
    have two of them, which puts you in a different league, but for now, assume
    you will only have one and add on later. It won't be better than the 3200+
    XP, but it will lead you down a better upgrade path due to it's SMP
    capability. But, wait, is the XP 3200+ or MP 2800+ better than an Opteron
    142 (which would be better than the Opteron 140) or 64 2800+? Likely the 64
    2800+ will be atleast as fast as the 3200+ XP if not slightly faster. Plus
    it is 64-bit so is well-equipped for all your 64-bit needs if you arrive at
    such a place. The Opteron 142 is out of the question , the XP is much
    faster. From the benchmarks I've seen at
    http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q2/opteron-x50/index.x?pg=6 and it's
    subsequent pages it would appear that the 2.8C is indeed faster than the
    2.8E, and that the 3200+ XP is slower than the 2.8C in most things. There
    are no numbers for the 64 2800+, but one can imagine it is on par with the
    Barton 3200+. This is using dual channel memory when available.

    Notice also that at the $180 level, the Duron & Celeron drop completly out
    of the picture. The Duron is out of the question at the $100 level as well,
    since, IIRC, the fastest (1.6GHz) is <$60. If that's all you want to spend
    on the CPU, then it would be better than, say, even a 2.2 or 2.4GHz
    Celeron.

    Sorry to apparently rant on for so long, but it is very simple premise to
    pick your CPU. Find your budget. If you aren't going to spend much,
    definetly go with the AMD offerings. Once you get up into the high-end
    range (where a CPU costs $700+), then you should be concerned with your
    choice. Maybe, for example, you can get the P4 3.4EE, or you can get dual
    AMD CPUs. Which is faster? What are you doing with it? Read the relevant
    benchmarks.

    Once you find out what the heck you're going to do with this machine, then
    look into the numbers instead of the general conclusion at the end of a
    review. I come to my own conclusions, and if they differ from the author,
    then the author is wrong, not me :) For example, MPEG-2/MPEG-4 encoding
    matters to me. MP3 doesn't because its numerous times faster, so why pick
    something that will take 20 minutes longer to do the video so I can shave 4
    second off the time to do the audio?! Gaming benchmarks are an all-out
    video card war. Nothing to do with the CPU/memory at this level. Certainly
    you may be able to run Quake 3 at 640fps with a P4 3.4EE, which can be a
    whole 100fps more than dual Opteron 250s, for all I care. The point is at
    this level, when you're already at 540fps, do you need any more frames?!
    The thing is that the dual Opteron 250s will encode my video about 66%
    faster than the P4. That's a measureable difference. I don't know how
    much a single Opteron 250 costs, but if I wanted one, I think I could get
    two at that point...

    Yes, so, find a budget, stick to it, and you should get more performance out
    of the Athlon simply because they're cheaper. Heck, put the money toward
    RAM or a HDD, you'll find out that if you had the choice between a P4 2.8C
    w/ 256MB RAM or a XP 3200+ w/ 512MB Dual Channel RAM, that the XP would be
    faster in everyday things simply because of the extra RAM, and you may end
    up spending the same depending on boards, PSUs, heatsinks (ie, the P4 HSF is
    likely to cost more for the same quality because of its mammoth size).

    Certainly if read thoroughly, someone will disagree with something. Please
    correct me if wrong. FWIW, I prefer AMD. I have a Barton 3000+/400 here w/
    512MB, upgraded from an Athlon 1.2 for $475 w/ shipping. Built a similar
    setup for a friend for $1250 with shipping (loaded; same CPU, different RAM
    [512MB though], same motherboard, SATA HDD 160GB, $200 video card (forgot
    which one, nVidia though), DVD±RW 8x drive, 52x CD-RW, $70 case, 17" CRT
    monitor, kb/mouse; motherboard = $106), and have priced out an upgrade for
    someone else with a restriction that it be <$400 and include a
    case/psu/cpu/mobo/ram/possibly a hdd (wasn't specific on that). I had to
    use AMD, and chose a Barton 2600+, although a 2400+ T-Bred is also an
    option, 512MB RAM (single dimm; 2-4-4 timing). If a HDD is desired, then a
    80GB 7200RPM or 120GB 7200RPM 8MB Cache is given as options ($70 or $90
    respectivley). If no HDD is needed, the raw components, without
    case/psu/exhaust fan is as low as $219. I dare you to come up with a
    comparitive system for Intel based CPUs that can compete for $219 (mobo +
    CPU + 512MB RAM [$77])... so, basically, mobo + CPU for $142. Seeing how a
    2.53GHz P4 costs $142 by itself, and the cheapest P4 is $113 (leaving a mere
    $29 for a mobo) and its a 2.26GHz Northwood (533MHz bus), I would say you
    can't, since the cheapest mobo is $39 and it's absolute garbage. Even if
    the run off in money was okay, there's no way that a 2.26GHz Northwood can
    compete with a 1.9GHz Barton or a 2.0GHz T-Bred (which makes the total mobo
    + CPU $124; thereby making the P4 mobo $11).

    It's only once you move up into the thousand dollar range does a P4 even
    become feasible. Certainly, you won't couple a $300 CPU with a $50 mobo,
    you'll want to get the $100-$150 mobo. Then you need a large, fast,
    high-quality hard drive, another $150, and a kick-ass video card $200-$300.
    That's $750 on the low end ($900 on the high end), and you don't have a
    case, PSU, RAM, HSF, cooling fans, optical drives, input devices, monitor,
    and speakers. On top of it, the $300 CPU isn't even top of the line,
    although well capable in it's own right. The $300 CPU will either be a
    LGA775 based P4 3.2GHz Prescott 1MB (in number terms, it is a '540'), or a
    Northwood 3.2GHz (nothing special).

    Okay, I have to stop *now*! Want my advice, spend a little get an AMD, and
    load up on extra stuff (ultra video card, massive RAID array, extra RAM,
    super fast RAM, etc), or spend a ton and get a standard P4, either way
    you're end up paying the same. Or, spend a little and forget Intel. Else,
    draw your own conclusion :)
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Ed wrote:

    > On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 21:40:44 -0400, Tanya
    > <tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net> wrote:
    >
    > >hello,
    > >need to compare amd, pentium and celeron chips of equivalent
    > >'performance'
    > >is there a Web site that someone could post?
    > >thanks
    >
    > heres a couple for the budget chips
    > http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/value-cpus.html
    > http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927

    VERY helpful Web sites!
    thanks
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Oxford Systems wrote:

    > "Tanya" <tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net> wrote in message
    > news:40D63C9C.FD8AE2FA@attglobal.net...
    > > hello,
    > > need to compare amd, pentium and celeron chips of equivalent
    > > 'performance'
    > > is there a Web site that someone could post?
    >
    > Perhaps, but you should strike the Celeron from the list. It's a dog among
    > modern CPU's.

    not sure why they *appear* to be popular so your comment is good to know
    thank you!
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    hello Jim,
    [...below...]

    Jim Wall wrote:

    > You are not consistent with your comparison items. You want to compare
    > Intel vs. AMD. Then you can move down a level and compare AMD Athalon
    > vs. AMD Opteron vs. Intel Pentium vs. Intel Celeron.

    that's what i was trying to find out -- i.e. between *apparently* similarly rated chips

    > Easy to find for yourself. Go to Google and type in the items you gave
    > us: AMD Pentium Celeron Performance and it will return a nice list of
    > where to go look.
    > Tom's Hardware
    > CPU score
    > Anandtech

    thanks

    > Comperable performance is your toughest part to determine. Celeron is
    > lesser performance than Pentium, but it maches up closest to the
    > Athalon (which is lesser than the Opteron). So you can compare the
    > latest Pentium to the latest Opteron, or the latest Celeron to the
    > latest Athalon. And don't forget cost in your equations unless that is
    > of no object.

    again what i was looking for -- names ex: opteron; athalon............

    > It would also help to know the application that you are looking for. A
    > gaming machine has completely different requirements than a network
    > server.

    it's for a first time pc buyer -- not sure what they want to run but unlikely CAD or major games.
    they are used to p<100 mHz / 486's -- i figured that a celeron @ 2.x gHz would be better :)

    > -Jim
    >
    > Tanya <tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<40D63C9C.FD8AE2FA@attglobal.net>...

    <snip>
    thanks for the above
    sincerely.
    tanya
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Anonymous Joe wrote:
    <snip>
    [...bottom...]

    > This is an erroneous assumption. What you want to do is compare AMD Athlon
    > XP vs AMD Athlon 64 vs Intel P4 vs Intel Celeron vs AMD Duron, of equivelant
    > price.
    >
    > You should find that for the same price, you can get an Athlon XP that will
    > thoroughly trounce the Intel opposition.
    >
    > For example, spend $100 on CPU (Retail package from newegg.com), and you'll
    > find you can get either a Athlon XP 2600+ Barton for $90 or a Celeron 2.6GHz
    > for $91. Now, visit any of the benchmark sites such as www.tomshardware.com
    > www.anandtech.com (hope thats right...if it is wrong, then it is porn, I've
    > accidentally done that before), just to name two of my favorites, and you'll
    > find that the Athlon will completly kill it.
    >
    > The Celeron uses a 400MHz bus (100x4) whereas the Athlon uses a 333MHz
    > (166x2) bus. The Celeron should have more memory bandwidth, but I'm unsure
    > if it does or not, I'd think not just because it's a Celeron. Regardless,
    > that doesn't say anything, so I can't be wrong :)
    >
    > Now, let's move up to $180 and you're willing to go OEM if needed. Now you
    > are bombarded with options.
    >
    > 1) Athlon XP is up to a 3200+ (2.2GHz) Barton using 400MHz bus for $179
    > (OEM)
    > 2) Opteron 140 (1.4GHz Socket 940) 1MB L2 for $178 (Retail) (you won't
    > choose this)
    > 3) Opteron 142 (1.6GHz Socket 940) 1MB L2 for $173 (OEM)
    > 4) Athlon MP 2800+ Barton (2.13GHz) using 266MHz bus for $177 (Retail)
    > 5) Athlon 64 2800+ (1.8GHz Socket 754) 512k L2 for $173 (OEM)
    > 6) Intel P4 Prescott 2.8E (1MB L2) using 800MHz bus for $179 (Retail)
    > 7) Intel P4 Northwood 2.8C (512k L2) 800MHz bus for $177 (Retail)
    >
    > Now, remember that Socket 939 is leaving, and luckily nothing here uses
    > that, so you're okay. If you go with Intel, you're going to get a 2.8GHz,
    > but, do you want a Northwood with 512k or a Prescott with 1MB? Generally
    > speaking, a Northwood is faster at the same speed, but Northwood's go faster
    > due to the increased pipeline. So, assuming no overclocking is going to
    > occur, you'd be better off with the 2.8C. But, is the 2.8C better than the
    > XP 3200+? If you go with the Athlon MP over the XP, then you would want to
    > have two of them, which puts you in a different league, but for now, assume
    > you will only have one and add on later. It won't be better than the 3200+
    > XP, but it will lead you down a better upgrade path due to it's SMP
    > capability. But, wait, is the XP 3200+ or MP 2800+ better than an Opteron
    > 142 (which would be better than the Opteron 140) or 64 2800+? Likely the 64
    > 2800+ will be atleast as fast as the 3200+ XP if not slightly faster. Plus
    > it is 64-bit so is well-equipped for all your 64-bit needs if you arrive at
    > such a place. The Opteron 142 is out of the question , the XP is much
    > faster. From the benchmarks I've seen at
    > http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q2/opteron-x50/index.x?pg=6 and it's
    > subsequent pages it would appear that the 2.8C is indeed faster than the
    > 2.8E, and that the 3200+ XP is slower than the 2.8C in most things. There
    > are no numbers for the 64 2800+, but one can imagine it is on par with the
    > Barton 3200+. This is using dual channel memory when available.
    >
    > Notice also that at the $180 level, the Duron & Celeron drop completly out
    > of the picture. The Duron is out of the question at the $100 level as well,
    > since, IIRC, the fastest (1.6GHz) is <$60. If that's all you want to spend
    > on the CPU, then it would be better than, say, even a 2.2 or 2.4GHz
    > Celeron.
    >
    > Sorry to apparently rant on for so long, but it is very simple premise to
    > pick your CPU. Find your budget. If you aren't going to spend much,
    > definetly go with the AMD offerings. Once you get up into the high-end
    > range (where a CPU costs $700+), then you should be concerned with your
    > choice. Maybe, for example, you can get the P4 3.4EE, or you can get dual
    > AMD CPUs. Which is faster? What are you doing with it? Read the relevant
    > benchmarks.
    >
    > Once you find out what the heck you're going to do with this machine, then
    > look into the numbers instead of the general conclusion at the end of a
    > review. I come to my own conclusions, and if they differ from the author,
    > then the author is wrong, not me :) For example, MPEG-2/MPEG-4 encoding
    > matters to me. MP3 doesn't because its numerous times faster, so why pick
    > something that will take 20 minutes longer to do the video so I can shave 4
    > second off the time to do the audio?! Gaming benchmarks are an all-out
    > video card war. Nothing to do with the CPU/memory at this level. Certainly
    > you may be able to run Quake 3 at 640fps with a P4 3.4EE, which can be a
    > whole 100fps more than dual Opteron 250s, for all I care. The point is at
    > this level, when you're already at 540fps, do you need any more frames?!
    > The thing is that the dual Opteron 250s will encode my video about 66%
    > faster than the P4. That's a measureable difference. I don't know how
    > much a single Opteron 250 costs, but if I wanted one, I think I could get
    > two at that point...
    >
    > Yes, so, find a budget, stick to it, and you should get more performance out
    > of the Athlon simply because they're cheaper. Heck, put the money toward
    > RAM or a HDD, you'll find out that if you had the choice between a P4 2.8C
    > w/ 256MB RAM or a XP 3200+ w/ 512MB Dual Channel RAM, that the XP would be
    > faster in everyday things simply because of the extra RAM, and you may end
    > up spending the same depending on boards, PSUs, heatsinks (ie, the P4 HSF is
    > likely to cost more for the same quality because of its mammoth size).
    >
    > Certainly if read thoroughly, someone will disagree with something. Please
    > correct me if wrong. FWIW, I prefer AMD. I have a Barton 3000+/400 here w/
    > 512MB, upgraded from an Athlon 1.2 for $475 w/ shipping. Built a similar
    > setup for a friend for $1250 with shipping (loaded; same CPU, different RAM
    > [512MB though], same motherboard, SATA HDD 160GB, $200 video card (forgot
    > which one, nVidia though), DVD±RW 8x drive, 52x CD-RW, $70 case, 17" CRT
    > monitor, kb/mouse; motherboard = $106), and have priced out an upgrade for
    > someone else with a restriction that it be <$400 and include a
    > case/psu/cpu/mobo/ram/possibly a hdd (wasn't specific on that). I had to
    > use AMD, and chose a Barton 2600+, although a 2400+ T-Bred is also an
    > option, 512MB RAM (single dimm; 2-4-4 timing). If a HDD is desired, then a
    > 80GB 7200RPM or 120GB 7200RPM 8MB Cache is given as options ($70 or $90
    > respectivley). If no HDD is needed, the raw components, without
    > case/psu/exhaust fan is as low as $219. I dare you to come up with a
    > comparitive system for Intel based CPUs that can compete for $219 (mobo +
    > CPU + 512MB RAM [$77])... so, basically, mobo + CPU for $142. Seeing how a
    > 2.53GHz P4 costs $142 by itself, and the cheapest P4 is $113 (leaving a mere
    > $29 for a mobo) and its a 2.26GHz Northwood (533MHz bus), I would say you
    > can't, since the cheapest mobo is $39 and it's absolute garbage. Even if
    > the run off in money was okay, there's no way that a 2.26GHz Northwood can
    > compete with a 1.9GHz Barton or a 2.0GHz T-Bred (which makes the total mobo
    > + CPU $124; thereby making the P4 mobo $11).
    >
    > It's only once you move up into the thousand dollar range does a P4 even
    > become feasible. Certainly, you won't couple a $300 CPU with a $50 mobo,
    > you'll want to get the $100-$150 mobo. Then you need a large, fast,
    > high-quality hard drive, another $150, and a kick-ass video card $200-$300.
    > That's $750 on the low end ($900 on the high end), and you don't have a
    > case, PSU, RAM, HSF, cooling fans, optical drives, input devices, monitor,
    > and speakers. On top of it, the $300 CPU isn't even top of the line,
    > although well capable in it's own right. The $300 CPU will either be a
    > LGA775 based P4 3.2GHz Prescott 1MB (in number terms, it is a '540'), or a
    > Northwood 3.2GHz (nothing special).
    >
    > Okay, I have to stop *now*! Want my advice, spend a little get an AMD, and
    > load up on extra stuff (ultra video card, massive RAID array, extra RAM,
    > super fast RAM, etc), or spend a ton and get a standard P4, either way
    > you're end up paying the same. Or, spend a little and forget Intel. Else,
    > draw your own conclusion :)

    hi Anonymous Joe,
    thank you... you have provided very comprehensive info awa logical steps in
    choosing a cpu.
    greatly appreciated!
    i wanted the info to help a firstTimePCBuyer choose a system -- they are used to
    p's @100mhz / 486's and won't require too much...
    i'll use the info for myself for my next pc
    sincerely,
    tanya
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Tanya wrote:

    > hello,
    > need to compare amd, pentium and celeron chips of equivalent
    > 'performance'
    > is there a Web site that someone could post?
    > thanks

    hello,
    just wanted to thank everyone who posted to this thread -- very useful
    info and very greatly appreciated!
    sincerely,
    Tanya
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Tanya <tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net> wrote:
    > thanks, Tony,
    > the reason i posted was to help someone who could care less re: the
    > cpu name and doesn't intend to run CAD or major programs... just
    > animation onLine, some ms wp etc.
    > and is on a tight budget and knows little re: pcs.
    > for their purposes i think celeron / or some of the amd mentioned
    > will do thanks again,

    Somebody once said a Celeron is sort of like getting a full-sized pickup
    truck with a 4 cylinder engine in it. Sure it'll move, but you'll be cursing
    it everyday of your life.

    Although to be fair, I guess the latest Celerons have probably been upgraded
    to 6 cylinder engines.

    Yousuf Khan
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Yousuf Khan wrote:

    > Tanya <tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net> wrote:
    > > thanks, Tony,
    > > the reason i posted was to help someone who could care less re: the
    > > cpu name and doesn't intend to run CAD or major programs... just
    > > animation onLine, some ms wp etc.
    > > and is on a tight budget and knows little re: pcs.
    > > for their purposes i think celeron / or some of the amd mentioned
    > > will do thanks again,
    >
    > Somebody once said a Celeron is sort of like getting a full-sized pickup
    > truck with a 4 cylinder engine in it. Sure it'll move, but you'll be cursing
    > it everyday of your life.
    >
    > Although to be fair, I guess the latest Celerons have probably been upgraded
    > to 6 cylinder engines.
    >
    > Yousuf Khan

    hi Yousuf,
    thank you for the analogy....
    i think at this point these people (for whom i am getting the info) would settle
    for a lawn mower or a moped :)
    thanks,
    sincerely,
    Tanya
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Tanya <tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net> wrote:
    > Yousuf Khan wrote:
    >> Somebody once said a Celeron is sort of like getting a full-sized
    >> pickup truck with a 4 cylinder engine in it. Sure it'll move, but
    >> you'll be cursing it everyday of your life.
    >
    > hi Yousuf,
    > thank you for the analogy....
    > i think at this point these people (for whom i am getting the info)
    > would settle for a lawn mower or a moped :)

    If it's cheapness they are looking for then you might as well get as capable
    a cheap processor as possible. The AMD cheap offerings are usually the
    better choice of the Intel cheap offerings.

    Yousuf Khan
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Pentium AMD Celeron