I'm looking into getting another computer and I need some information. I can't find anything that will clearly state the difference between a Pentium and a Celeron processor. Given that they are made by Intel and are rated at the same speed (let's assume 3.0 ghz) for both of them, why is the Pentium better? I will be doing internet (of course), CAD drawing, and playing some games. I know a Celeron will handle CAD drawing (there is one at work) but what about the games? Is it really worth going for the Pentium or will I survive with the Celeron?
Thanks for any information.
You want the Pentium!!! Especially if you are doing CAD. The Celeron is basically a neutered version of the Pentium. It has lot less cache memory on it and is designed as a low price processor for people who are just doing simple things like typing letters, email, and surfing.
If you are going to be doing anything that make use of serious graphics, I would go with the Pentium 4 and make sure you have a decent video card and not some integrated crap that shares main memory.
Both my computers at work and the one I have at home are all AMD Athlon XP's. I hold Intel in about the same regard as Microsoft .
Most CAD programs are designed to work best with the FPU (does the high order math) in the Pentium, so the AMD chips may not work as well for this, but they kick ass for games and other applications (plus they are a lot cheaper).
trek_geezer wrote:
>
> Most CAD programs are designed to work best with the FPU (does
> the high order math) in the Pentium, so the AMD chips may not
> work as well for this, but they kick ass for games and other
> applications (plus they are a lot cheaper).
>
There's a lot of data that shows AMD's FPU's are better (more efficient in terms of instructions per cycle), depending upon how the code is written. Performance-wise, AMD give benchmarks very near Intel (or much better in many, many tests) for MUCH less money. Generally, Intel's clocks have to be about 1.5x of AMD's to give the same benchmark data in everything except moving data into and out of memory.
So, if Performance/Cost ratio is of interest to you, go AMD. I have numerous AMD computers, and use them for serious quantum chemistry computation. They can chew up anything your CAD or game software will throw at it, and quite often better than Intel - for about half price at that level of performance.
I've got one Athlon Thunderbird 1200 MHz (okay, so it's a bit dated) that's been running virtually nonstop, doing hardcore numbercrunching almost all the time, for over 4-1/2 years.
All the nodes in my cluster are AMD processors. Period.
(PS _ A good friend of mine ran a computer store building custom computers for people ...very very rarely, did he build anything with an Intel chip, and he build a lot of boxes for serious gamers.)
Bought an AMD 1800+ CPU (1'5 GHZ) last time I upgraded my computer and I don't regret. It is as fast as a Pentium CPU but much cheaper, and they are becoming so common that nearly no compatibility issues longer exist. If I were in your shoes, I would check cost and characteristics of similar AMD & Intel CPUs and decide on that basis.
I'm running a 2.66 Intel Celeron on my home gaming PC and I have no problems. The Celeron moniker doesn't mean the same thing that it did half a decade ago. It's a decent proccessor and I have no problem running Doom 3, UT2004 or any other graphic intensive game.
Neville wrote:
> ... nearly no
> compatibility issues longer exist. >
Interesting that you mention compatibility .. Intel is now licensing technology from AMD, not just AMD licensing from Intel. This is a major development, in that it shows that Intel is not technologically "The Leader" and AMD is just a cheap copy.
On the tech side, AMD's Athlon chip (and those that grew from it) shared more on the inside with the CPU in Mac's G4. However, legacy compatibily with OLD Intel code actually held the Athlon back. In other words, it really is a superior chip (to the Pentium III or 4); it was essentially 'detuned' to be Intel compatible (with older code, like for 386's etc).
The gist of all this, Odinn, is forget the Celeron. The ONLY reason to get a Celeron is to save money, and you can save money and have performance BETTER than a full fledged Pentium by getting an AMD.
Also, there are very, very high quality mainboards for AMD Athlon chips. Those by Tyan, Micron, Abit, Asus, etc, are all hardcore gaming/workstation (not desktop) mainboards. I'm partial to the high-end boards by Abit, but they are not for the squeamish - very, very high performance, but also rather finicky at times. If you want something high-end but less hands-on, try Tyan or Asus (or Micron, for that matter).
A word of caution: no matter what cpu you get, don't scimp on the mainboard. Many people put dollars into the cpu, then get a junk mainboard. The cpu is the brain, but the mainboard is the nervous system, so a junky board will kill performance. If you want performance (and reliability in high demand situations), you need quality throughout the system: cpu, board, hd, video adaptor and memory; don't forget a good case (yes, it's very important, both for cooling and because it contains the power supply). But the easiest place to kill the system is a low quality mainboard.
Also, keep in mind that a computer just browsing the internet is not really working, but a computer doing serious CAD/modeling or hard core gaming is working very hard. There's a big difference in the wear and tear this different level of stress puts on a system.
I believe I have some basis to make these comments; like I said, I have systems that have been running, nonstop, and working hard, for YEARS. If you'd like send me an email and I will arrange to send you a copy of "Appendix B: Buying a High Performance Computer" from my book.
I agree that AMD is the way to go. I built a new computer earlier this year, and did a fair bit of research before selecting my parts. One of the biggest mistakes people make is to look at clock speed as the sole measure of computing power. In evaluating a CPU, it is also important to look at how much work it can do per clock cycle. A Pentium 4 will perform more operations than a Celeron, and an AMD Athlon will do more than a Pentium.
AMD's numbering scheme was developed as a guideline for making an apples-to-apples comparison with Pentium. I have an Athlon XP 2500 CPU, which has a clock speed of 1.83 GHz, but in most comparisons I've seen, it is put up against a Pentium 4 in the neighbourhood of 2.5 GHz.
AMD also seems a bit more friendly toward overclocking, although there really is no need unless you're into that sort of thing.
Frontside bus speed is also an important consideration, which is where Intel has some advantage. A fast processor works better if the data can move in and out more quickly. Overall though, an Athlon XP running on a 333MHz bus will handle most things you can throw at it. I've been using mine for video editing and rendering without any trouble.
Also agree that the motherboard is an important part of the whole package. I used an Asus motherboard with an Nvidia chipset, very good for multimedia and gaming, and it offers dual channel DDR RAM capabilities and 8x AGP.
In response to the question, I tend to agree with the other posters. The Intel processors are a waste of money. Pentiums are too expensive, and Celerons are nothing but stripped down Pentiums, so their lower price tag comes at a cost. For real value - performance at an affordable price - go with AMD.
Post Edited (11-30-04 12:21)
Thanks for all the help. I'm actually looking into buying an HP or a Dell and both of them have options for the processor. Now at least I can narrow it down somewhat. I use an old HP Pentium 2, 600mhz (it's a dinosaur but still works well) at home and it's been real reliable and I'm using a Dell Pentium 4, 2.4ghz at work and it seems bulletproof.
Thanks for the offer ulthar but there's no need to get that far into it. I'm looking to replace my system at home and won't really require too much of it except the occaisional game and after hours work with Autocad.
Sorry to dig up an old topic but I thought I'd give you guys that tried to help me out here an update.
I understand what was said about the AMD as I originally had an IBM with an AMD II in it years ago and that thing was great. My HP that I've been using at home (the 600mhz) is causing me too many problems to continue with. When I originally asked this question back in November I was considering an HP that I saw that had a Celeron processor but everyone except Skaboi warned me to stay away from the Celeron (no offense Skaboi) so I decided to skip the deal and wait it out. Well, my current HP seems not able to handle everyday life now so I was left to look in desparation for something else. The company I work for has a small business account with Dell and I saw a phenomenal sale that Dell had going on a Pentium 4 with a huge HD, a free 17" flat panel monitor, free printer, free shipping. All I needed to do was upgrade the RAM and the CD drive. Dell only offers chips by Intel so to buy one of them I had to go with the Pentium and had no choice for an AMD chip. This sale was so outrageous that I couldn't pass it up and my company even let me do a weekly pay roll deduction for it. I got the Pentium for less than they normally offer their Celerons for and I couldn't believe it, It will be here in about a week and a half and I can't wait.
Thanks to everyone that offered me help and advice...whether I took it or not. This is one of the things that I really like about this board. For the most part everyone gets along so well and it's always a simple task to get help or advice.
Congrats on your new toy! The #1 biggest criterion any computer should meet is that it is useful for you. Nothing wrong with a P4 in this regard, especially if the price is right.
Thanks for the update Odinn.
Since you first posted this thread, I too have switched to a P4. I found a great deal on a new motherboard/2.8Ghz P4 with HyperThreading and jumped at it. It does considerably better than the Celeron that I was running before.