Main difference between Celeron and P4 cpu's?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

What are the main differences between the Celeron processors and the
P4? Which apps benefit from each?

Thanks
Ken K

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Cache size.

Ken K wrote:
>
> What are the main differences between the Celeron processors and the
> P4? Which apps benefit from each?
>
> Thanks
> Ken K

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

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

Walt wrote:

>Cache size.
>
>Ken K wrote:
>
>
>>What are the main differences between the Celeron processors and the
>>P4? Which apps benefit from each?
>>
>>Thanks
>>Ken K
>>
>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Marketing. Intel has to be able to compete with the lower priced
alternatives. Price/performance is better with a celeron than a P4.

--Dan

"Ken K" <psnwREMOVE@theREMOVEkrones.com> wrote in message
news:10e7fvtg4430bff@corp.supernews.com...
> What are the main differences between the Celeron processors and the
> P4? Which apps benefit from each?
>
> Thanks
> Ken K
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Ken K" <psnwREMOVE@theREMOVEkrones.com> wrote in message
news:10e82uolhm70hb7@corp.supernews.com...
> 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?
>
All, in theory. You wont notice so much of a difference in desktop apps
(Word, Excel etc)

You do realise you can get a full AthlonXP for the same price as a celeron
dont you?

hamman

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 16:51:01 +0000, dg wrote:

> "Ken K" <psnwREMOVE@theREMOVEkrones.com> wrote in message
> news:10e7fvtg4430bff@corp.supernews.com...
>> What are the main differences between the Celeron processors and the
>> P4? Which apps benefit from each?
>>

> Marketing. Intel has to be able to compete with the lower priced
> alternatives. Price/performance is better with a celeron than a P4.
>
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

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

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.

--
DaveW



"Ken K" <psnwREMOVE@theREMOVEkrones.com> wrote in message
news:10e7fvtg4430bff@corp.supernews.com...
> What are the main differences between the Celeron processors and the
> P4? Which apps benefit from each?
>
> Thanks
> Ken K
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 06:23:06 -0700, Ken K wrote:

> 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. 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.
>
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.

> So plese begin my education: what is the main difference between the
> Athlon and Intel cpu's; it is mainly the price/value ratio?

Price vs. performance.

> Which Athlon cpu's represent the best bang for the buck presently?

Not overclocking, that's hard to say, but in general, any of the ones
under $80.

> Do I have to look at memory requirements any differently?

PC3200 will work with any of them. Some will work with PC2100.

> Which chipsets are the present darlings? which motherboards?
>
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.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

>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.

>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.

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.

>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.

Look for mobile 2500+ cpu's if youre interested in this, but they lock
standardo nes like intel now.

>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?

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

> 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.

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