Re: Pentium vs Celeron

From: Jim Macklin (p51mustang[threeX12)
Date: 05/11/04 

Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 18:36:03 -0500

The question is how much do you want to spend and what do
you want to do. If all that is wanted is OFFICE
applications from the keyboard, a Celeron would work just
fine with on-board graphics. If you want to use voice to
text, you would need a better, faster processor with more
cache and RAM, but graphics could still be on-board.
If you want to play the latest games, you need to spend the
bucks for fast CPU and graphics.

Thanks for the compliment. 

-- 
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
"cquirke (MVP Win9x)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in
message news:4mm2a0h1efm3l41ss0mhhi5me40r7f8qh8@4ax.com...
| On Tue, 11 May 2004 11:06:06 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
|
| >There are several different CPU that can be called
Celeron
| >as well as several variations of P4 CPUs.
|
| Ah, at last someone has a clue   ;-)
|
| >In old original Celerons, many features the would present
in
| >a P3 (later P4) were left out and they had about half the
| >cache as the "better" CPUs.  Also, Intel locked them at
66
| >MHz so they would always be slower.
|
| >New Celerons and P4 are socket 470 and the only
difference
| >is that P4s run at 400,533 or 800 FSB depending on what
| >model P4 and Celerons are locked 400 FSB and they still
have
| >half the cache.
| >See www.Intel.com to get details.
|
| You would do better to buy a PC that doesn't suck (e.g.
full ATX not
| Micro ATX, 120G HD not 40G, 17" not 15" monitor, a
motherboard with a
| chipset that doesn't suck and that has an AGP slot on it)
with a
| Celeron processor than the usual shoe-scrapings plus
"Pentium Tax".
|
| Might cost you less, too; Pentium Tax is heavy - basically
a margin
| bonanza for Intel, given the chips cost about the same to
make.
|
| As Jim says (or rather implies); "Pentium" and "Celeron"
are marketing
| terms (brand names), not processor specifications - and
often this
| month's Celeron is same or better spec than last quarter's
"Pentium",
| even at the same MHz or GHz.  Here's how it's gone over
the years...
|
| 1)  512k half-speed L2 cache, 66MHz base
| 2)  512k half-speed L2 cache, 100MHz base
| 3)  zero L2 cache, 66MHz base
| 4)  512k half-speed L2 cache, 100MHz base, SIMD
| 5)  128k full-speed L2 cache, 66MHz base
| 6)  256k full-speed L2 cache, 100MHz base, SIMD
| 7)  128k full-speed L2 cache, 100MHz base, SIMD
| 8)  256k full-speed L2 cache, 133MHz base, SIMD
| 9)  256k full-speed L2 cache, 400MHz base, SIMD
| A)  128k full-speed L2 cache, 400MHz base, SIMD
| B)  512k full-speed L2 cache, 400MHz base, SIMD
| C)  512k full-speed L2 cache, 533MHz base, SIMD
| D)  512k full-speed L2 cache, 800MHz base, SIMD, HT
|
| ...can you guess what these were branded as?
|
| Pentium II: (1), (2)
| Pentium III: (4), (6), (8)
| Pentium IV: (9), (B), (C), (D)
| Celeron: (3), (5), (7), (A)
|
| Notice how when PII gets SIMD, it's heralded as a change
worthy of
| renaming to PIII, but there wasn't even an announcement
when Celeron
| got SIMD.  At one time, you could buy (4), (6) and (8) all
at the same
| time, all priced the same for a given MHz, all sold under
the same
| "Pentium III" brand name, while Celeron was considerably
cheaper.
|
| The same thing's happening now with "Pentium 4"; even just
a few
| months ago, you could pay "Pentium Tax" and get stuck with
(9) instead
| of (D) at a similar price, while (A) is way cheaper
because it's
| "Celeron".  Is the performance gap between (A) and (9)
greater than
| that between (9) and (D)?  I doubt it, somehow.
|
| The original Celeron was (3) and that truly sucked - the
Covington
| "cacheless wonder" Celeron-266 and -300 ran like the
previous
| generation Pentium-200 and -233.  Covington was an
emergency stop-gap
| to appease Compaq, and was intended to run for 18 months
or so before
| Menocino (5) was due to be released - but Intel debuted
Mendocino
| after 9 months, driven as they were by market forces.
|
| Mendocino's faster L2 cache proceeded to whip the older
Pentium II,
| prompting the move from (1) to (6).
|
|
|
| >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - -  -    -
|    Certainty may be your biggest weakness
| >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - -  -    -

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Pentium vs Celeron
    ... >comparably equipped Celeron based system. ... Celeron and Pentium 4 are based on the same core, ... Zero Level 2 cache, 66MHz base ... games is your thing, a large and fast HD, and lots of RAM (or at least ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware)
  • Re: WoW on an IBM R50e
    ... You have a Celeron CPU. ... That's like a slimmed down regular Pentium. ... It's a celeron M, not a celeron. ... My main laptop runs wow at the max framerate of the ...
    (alt.games.warcraft)
  • Re: celeron/Pentium/AMD
    ... > I used to know the difference between a Celeron and a regular Pentium. ... Do AMD chips ... Dear CPU Scorekeeper ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc)
  • Re: celeron/Pentium/AMD
    ... >> I used to know the difference between a Celeron and a regular Pentium. ... Do AMD ... > Dear CPU Scorekeeper ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc)
  • Re: Good CPU benchmark program?
    ... Dunno, but there is a Kingston utility of that version too, and newer ... Pentium, Pentium 2, etc. ... Some require an Intel CPU, ... or omits the L2 cache, usually at the lowest Front Side Bus of a CPU ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.ps2.hardware)