Pentium vs. Celeron

[jelerak]

I need some advice!

I am <finally> getting around to getting a new PC at the house, and have been checking out the local ads at Best Buy, Circuit City, etc.

My dilemna is that I need to know which chip is the better of the two, Pentium or Celeron.

I currently have a Pentium 2, 400 mhz.

Yeah, I know...that's why I am getting a new one!

Can someone please help?

[dlbpharmd]

I'm in the market for a new computer myself. My friends tell me that for the extra money (about $200 more) the Pentium is the way to go. But I don't understand what's wrong with your 2.4.

[Damelon]

As I understand it, Celeron is for laptops - it drains less from the battery. However it's slower. Pentium is for desktops.

[Fist and Faith]

I was told, by a very reliable source, that celeron is a pentium that has been intentionally disabled. It's cheaper because it cannot do as much. Whether the things it cannot do would be a problem depends, perhaps, on the individual.

[Avatar]

I'm in the market for a new computer myself. My friends tell me that for the extra money (about $200 more) the Pentium is the way to go. But I don't understand what's wrong with your 2.4.

I think he means that it's a P2, running at 400 mHz, rather than a chip running 2,400 mHz.

--A

[matrixman]

I currently have a Pentium 2, 400 mhz.

But I don't understand what's wrong with your 2.4.

Whoa, I think we need some clarification here. I'm guessing jelerak means an old Pentium II 400 MHz chip rather than a Pentium IV 2.4 GHz chip, because if he actually has a Pentium IV, then I'd also have to ask what in blazes is wrong with having an already bloody fast CPU?

Without getting too much into arcane techno speak, I think Fist is correct: the Celeron is essentially a "crippled" Pentium--most notably it only has half the amount of critical L2 cache as the Pentium, as far as I understand it. But whether or not that is a liability depends on the kind of usage.

But I'm not really a follower of Intel technology, anyway, so I may not be of much help. I'm a dedicated AMD user.

For those who are considering buying new PCs and are debating between AMD or Intel, it basically boils down to this: Intel's latest and greatest Pentiums are champs in audio & video editing tasks and general "productivity" apps (because of the P4's myriad of specialized multimedia instructions), while AMD's latest Athlons are champs in most, if not all, games (because of the Athlon's superior floating-point computational power). So if you do a lot of MP3 encoding or you manipulate a lot of images with Photoshop, then maybe Pentium is your bliss. On the other hand, if you play a lot of games and worship at the altar of the almighty frame rate, then maybe Athlon is your nirvana. Keep in mind, too, that AMD systems are generally less expensive than Pentium systems. Pentiums may have bragging rights in terms of pure clockspeed, but Athlons have the better price/performance ratio (i.e. you get more bang for your buck).

Er, and Avatar piped in while I was typing this...

[Nathan]

I have a celeron processor and it's not noticably slower (to me) than the equivalent pentium one.

[aTOMiC]

Matrix put it very well but I'll explain the difference between Celeron and Pentium (also Duron & Athlon) they way I tell my friends and family.
(By the way this is a fairly clumsy analogy but you get the idea) Imagine two cars. Each is capable of speeds of up to 100 mph. The first car (Pentium) has a big block V8 engine. The second (Celeron) has a fuel efficient 4 cylinder engine. Both cars are clocked at the same speed but the driving experience is very different for each car.

Matrix is correct. It is a matter of usage. If you use your pc for rather routine things the is nothing at all wrong with the Celeron processor. I generally avoid them due to the fact that I run processor intensive programs like Autocad and Microstation.

Evaluate what you'd like to do on your machine and choose the vehicle with the appropriate horse power so to speak.

I hope that helps a bit.

[dlbpharmd]

I'm in the market for a new computer myself. My friends tell me that for the extra money (about $200 more) the Pentium is the way to go. But I don't understand what's wrong with your 2.4.

I think he means that it's a P2, running at 400 mHz, rather than a chip running 2,400 mHz.

--A

OOOPS! My bad - it was late last night and I didn't read close enough. Thanks for clarifying for me.

MM, your post is interesting, and I didn't know that info about AMD chips. I don't do a lot of encoding or photo editing, I basically use my home computer for home office stuff - but I love my old Star Wars games, both the space games and RPGs. So you would recommend AMD for me?

[Nathan]

Yes, you'll want AMD then, they also tend to be cheaper than intel chips.

[jelerak]

Thanks so much for all of the information and help.

Yeah, it is a P2 @ 400 mhz that I am currently running. What I use my PC most for is for music. Running Fruity Loops and Cool Edit to kinda use it as a studio and mixing my guitar, bass, and vocal tracks over the drum beats to the songs that I have written.

You can imagine the limits and liabilities that my current system is giving me.

Based on everything above, I see that Pentium is probably the way to go. But I am always open to more advice on the matter.

[dlbpharmd]

I will also be upgrading my internet access, either by DSL or through a local provider of satellite access. How does AMD vs Pentium compare in that regard?

[matrixman]

Nice to hear you're upgrading to faster internet service, dlb. The CPU has no bearing on internet access speed: it's all dependent on the quality of your connection.

Mind you, a really ancient CPU and videocard might struggle to render some of today's most graphics-rich webpages once those pages arrive. But today's parts have so much processing power that the question of which CPU is "faster" for web-surfing is almost moot. Almost.

Here's the thing: what I've read is that some websites (I don't know which and how many) are more "Intel-friendly" than others, in that they are optimized to run on the Pentium IV's special multimedia instructions I mentioned--specific code which the Athlon CPUs apparently do not possess. So, assuming you believe Intel's claims, such websites will run better on Pentium IV than Athlon.

I don't know the truth of Intel's hype, so maybe TOM can verify or debunk this.

[jelerak]

Well, I went ahead and ordered my new PC through Circuit City. It has the Pentium 4 chip. I have definately learned a lot from reading the answers in this thread from everybody.

Thanks...

[dlbpharmd]

Can someone tell me the difference between the Athlon 64, XP and Sempron processors? It seems the Sempron is to the Athlon like the Celeron is to the Pentium, but what about the other two?

[matrixman]

Ack, I just went over this in a PM. Er, with some minor editing, let me post my answer:

There are actually 4 current AMD chips to choose from:

Athlon64 FX -- AMD's top-of-the-line premium CPU. It bests even Intel's P4 Extreme Edition in almost every game benchmark I've seen, though whether or not these two ridiculously fast CPUs from Intel and AMD are worth paying through the nose for is a matter I leave for those with fat wallets.

Athlon64 -- the "regular" non-steroids version of AMD's 64-bit series. There is currently no 64-bit software out there for the Athlon64 to chew on (everything today is 32-bit), but Microsoft is slated to release a 64-bit edition of Windows XP next year. However, you do get some benefit from AMD's 64-bit code today, because it allows for 32-bit instructions to be crunched through rapidly, which accounts at least partly for the speed of the Athlon64.

AthlonXP -- AMD's former premium CPU. It's been phased out of production to make room for Athlon64. Since AMD wanted the name "Athlon" to be associated only with its premium CPUs, the company felt that having the "AthlonXP" brand still out there might confuse users into thinking it was the same line as the Athlon64. Therefore AMD basically re-named and re-launched the AthlonXP as...the Sempron.

Sempron: AMD's budget processor positioned as direct competitor to Intel's Celeron D.

Come to think of it, maybe technically there are currently just 3 official AMD chips, since the AthlonXP name is now defunct--though only in terms of the slower models, as I understand it (2500+ and under). The faster models are still for sale as AthlonXP...which maybe just adds to the confusion over names.

[Nav]

I'm planning to upgrade to an Athlon 64 towards the end of the year. I probably won't even be able to afford the new 64 bit Windows though. I just want a computer that's more powerful than God.

[matrixman]

I just want a computer that's more powerful than God.

Well, AMD does stand for All Mighty Deity, right? (groan...)

[Sheriff Lytton]

Thanks so much for all of the information and help.

Yeah, it is a P2 @ 400 mhz that I am currently running. What I use my PC most for is for music. Running Fruity Loops and Cool Edit to kinda use it as a studio and mixing my guitar, bass, and vocal tracks over the drum beats to the songs that I have written.

You can imagine the limits and liabilities that my current system is giving me.

Based on everything above, I see that Pentium is probably the way to go. But I am always open to more advice on the matter.

Hi Jelerak.

A wee bit of advice as regards using a PC for music :

To record audio you really don't need much processor grunt, about 500 MHz will do that for you.

However, if you want a good mix, you need to be able to apply effects in real time.

I'd recommend running a Pentuim 3 level (or equivalent) chip of at least 1.5 GHz power and make sure you've got at least 256 MB of RAM (preferably 512 MB) and above all make sure that RAM is DDR ! I'd also advise using Windows XP as it's easily the best O/S for this sort of thing.

I'm running an AMD Athlon 1800XP for my setup, and while I'd like an all-singing, all dancing Pentium, the AMD chip I have is more than capable of doing just about anything I ask of it. I would honestly say that with audio, the only thing you're going to need a bit of processor power for is for wave manipulation (Cool Edit).

The really important thing is plenty of good, fast RAM.

I hope that's of some use anyway. If you want to pick my brains about anything audio related, PM me and I'll be happy to waffle on at great length about it all.

[Nav]

I've now had a change of heart and decided that I'll go for an little upgrade to an Athlon XP 2800+, then wait and see how the 64-bit revolution plays out.

One thing I've heard about the 2800+ is that it's easy to strangle its potential with an inadequate video card. I'm certain that my creaky Radeon 9000 isn't up to the job, so I'll replace that too. I'm thinking about the GeForce FX 5700 as it's about the right price, but ultimately I'm unsure if it will make a good partner for the 2800+ or not. Does anyone know if it would, or if there's a different card I should be looking at?