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: Pentium vs Celeron
    ... >half the cache. ... Celeron processor than the usual shoe-scrapings plus "Pentium Tax". ... 128k full-speed L2 cache, 400MHz base, SIMD ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)