Re: Pentium vs Celeron

From: Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP Windows Shell/User\) (user_at_#notme.com)
Date: 03/27/04 

Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 18:10:25 -0800

Essentially, I agree with the following caveat, if builders can low ball the
Pentium they can low ball the Celeron. My response was simply to point
toward a comparison of the two processors, not two systems nor would I
advise anyone to purchase based solely on processor.

I'm currently in the midst of planning my next purchase and have written and
posted the first in a series to cover it. The first is a general overview,
the second will deal more specifically with the overall hardware I am
seeking and the reasons why. To simply buy on the basis of processor with
no eye toward the rest of the system serves no purpose as the system may
well be have several choke points. Right now, I'm amazed at the number of
pretty good Pentium 4 systems that come with shared memory. People get them
home and when they try to play games or a DVD movie, at best it plays
haltingly and at worst it crashes.

However, I think the fault lies more with the builders than with Intel.
There's a race to the bottom mentality among computer manufacturer's today
and I blame Dell for this and they are a prime example of exactly what
you've mentioned. Their ads say, "Think you can't afford a Dell, think
again." However, upon close examination of that under $500 system that Dell
has offered, you find a fine example of what you have stated, a good
processor that is choked at every turn, a processor not allowed to breath
and do its stuff. It may be fine for normal office work as long as the
number crunching and graphics requirements aren't too great and fine for the
beginner and student with the same proviso but the average user today is
taking digital photos, storing and editing them and videos, playing some
pretty powerful games, watching DVDs and even television on their systems
and that puny Dell well barely be able to handle such tasks.

It was not my intent to offer the information I offered in that context and
when I mentioned a Pentium over a Celeron I should have added that the user
needs to view the processor in the context of the entire system and not just
on the basis of the processor alone. Unfortunately, that was the impression
when I said you could get a Pentium system for $100 or so more than a top
Celeron. That's true, you can but people need to view systems in terms of
what they are going to do with them, their needs as well as how long they
intend to keep the system and that should be as much a consideration as what
they plan to spend in order to find a system that best suits their needs and
their budget. 

-- 
Michael Solomon MS-MVP
Windows Shell/User
Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/
"cquirke (MVP Win9x)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in message 
news:s5i860ta5kfqtj9qpr8p16l1c0uorm03op@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:42:18 -0800, "Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP Windows
>
>>can purchase a Pentium 4 system for between $100 and $200 more than a
>>comparably equipped Celeron based system.  At such a low differential, it
>>simply doesn't make sense to get Celeron based system:
>
> Nah, I'd rather exercise more control over the whole spec.  If
> $100-$200 is worth spending on "Pentium Tax", then how much more
> worthwhile is a third of that to treble the HD capacity?
>
> Celeron and Pentium 4 are based on the same core, and in fact there's
> often more difference between one pentium X sub-generation than the
> next than there is between Celeron and Pentium X.  In fact, in some
> cases, the newer Celeron outperform older Pentium X within the same
> broad category.  Here's what I mean...
>
> Pentium II/III generation:
>
> 512k half-speed Level 2 cache, 66MHz base
> Zero Level 2 cache, 66MHz base
> 128k Level 2 cache, 66MHz base
> 256k Level 2 cache, 66MHz base
> 256k Level 2 cache, 100MHz base
> 512k Level 2 cache, 100MHz base
> 512k Level 2 cache, 133MHz base
>
> The first, fourth and last two of the above were branded "Pentium";
> the rest, "Celeron".  In fact, both Pentium and Celeron names were
> attached to the 256k L2, 100MHz cores.
>
> P4 generation
>
> 256k L2, 400MHz base
> 128k L2, 400MHz base
> 512k L2, 400MHz base
> 512k L2, 533MHz base
> 512k L2, 800MHz base, HT
>
> Much beating of the drum between Celeron (the second in the above
> list) and the original P4 (first in the list).  Muted murmers when P4
> went 512k, 533MHz etc. while the "old" P4 were still for sale,
> enjoying the marketability of the "Pentium" name (and costing extra
> for "Pentium tax").  Same in the PIII era; beating of the drum when
> Celeron lacked SIMD and PIII had; not a murmer when SIMD was added to
> Celeron later.  Ppl still think Celeron suck from "zero L2 cache" days
>
> So steering posters to www.intel.com for straight answers is like
> lambs to the slaughter!  They cost about the same to make, so the
> "Pentium tax" is windfall for Intel.  What do you expect them to say?
>
> My policy; consider Pentium 4 only after you've maxed out everywhere
> else on the system - decent non-Micro-ATX motherboard, good SVGS if
> games is your thing, a large and fast HD, and lots of RAM (or at least
> the option to add later).  In practice, I use Pentium 4 only for video
> editing or audio recording systems that are based on i875P
> motherboards, have 2 x 512M DDR400 for that dual-channel 800MHz base
> speed, and typically 3 x 120G S-ATA HDs (1 for system, the other two
> as a 240G RAID 0 workspace).
>
> If you just "buy a Pentium 4" you will end up with Micro-ATX trash
> that will stunt the chip's ability to deliver.  Puny HD, built-in SVGA
> with no AGP slot, 533MHz base speed - that's the sort of
> bottom-scraper junk that some builders drop Pentium 4 into, knowing
> that the gormless will only ask about processor.
>
> On the advantages:
>  - HyperThreading (new P4 only) helps background tasks
>  - most RAM access caught in Level 1 cache
>  - most of the rest in Level 2 cache
>  - law of diminishing returns when boosting L2 cache size
>  - only the few remaining RAM accesses go to RAM
>
> So in effect, going 800MHz instead of 400MHz doubles the remaining 5%
> or so of your memory accesses that the L1 and L2 caches missed, 128k
> L2 cache does most of the work that 256k L2 does, and 512k a bit more
> after that.  Pentium 4's nice-to-have, yes, but the same money can
> bring in larger benefits when spent elsewhere in spec-boosting a
> price-hero system.  Start with the HD, make sure mobo doesn't suck.
>
>
>
>>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - -  -   -
>  Running Windows-based av to kill active malware is like striking
>  a match to see if what you are standing in is water or petrol.
>>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - -  -   -

Relevant Pages

  • 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)
  • Re: Pentium vs Celeron
    ... | "Pentium tax" is windfall for Intel. ... |>comparably equipped Celeron based system. ... | Zero Level 2 cache, ... | games is your thing, a large and fast HD, and lots of RAM ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware)
  • 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: Pentium vs Celeron
    ... a Celeron would work just ... cache and RAM, but graphics could still be on-board. ... bucks for fast CPU and graphics. ... "Pentium Tax". ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: KVM w / two Dell DIM 2400s. Again?
    ... Doens't have to change anything else, including your modem and your KVM. ... Before KVM, when I turned on my Surge protector or the UPS, the ... Pentium booted automatically, whereas the Celeron had to be booted ...
    (alt.sys.pc-clone.dell)