Printable View
Would I be laughed at if I bought a Celeron processor for my
new notebook? They seem reasonably priced, but
I never got (or bothered to find out) exactly what a Celeron was.
Is it a Pentium with one hand tied behind it's back, or one with a
labotomy?
Seems like for very little money I can get a mP-III or mP-IV?
or Athalon 4.
Whut gives?
celerons are bad...go for the athlon 4...;) celerons are cheep worthless processors
Celeron is AFAIK identical to a standard Pentium except for two differences with the cache
It has half the amount of cache, but curiously it runs at the full core clock speed rather than half clock speed like the Pentium.
I have a celery, don't get it. Not worth your time.
If you're doing simple word processing and note taking, and you can get it for a cheap price, go for it.
If you're doing practically anything else, then get at least a P3 or an Athlon.
Exactly what turtleboy said...Celerons are wortheless
Looks like I was only partially right as that was the case for the first Celerons.
http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/p3vc2/page2.asp
Just remember 1 rule:
1.Never Buy A Pentium!
2. Never pay attention to things that says remember 1 rule.
Anyone know what Intels new high end processor is? Is it still the Xeon? I remember seeing a SGI Onyx2 running two Xeon processors and the dam thing was fast as hell. Im not sure what the cache was but i know they can be purchased with up tp 2Mb.
I thought the Itanium is supposed to by the next top-of-the-line (first 64-bit processor).
ya but it runs 32 bit program like ****. Clawhammer and sledgehammer will blow everything away :)
If I remember correctly, the main difference is that the Celeron lacks some of the floating point processing facilities of the equivalent Pentium line. For integer based arithmetic the difference is very small. The original Celerons (the 266 and 300 MHz ones) had no level 2 cache, and ran like sh** on a rug. Intel realised this pretty soon and added 128k of full clock speed cache (released as the 266A and 300A) which made them much better. Then techy-types discovered that the Celerons were fantastically overclockable, and soon there were people with 300As running them @ 450 MHz using a FSB frequency of 100MHz instead of the standard 66MHz.
So, a while ago, celerons were, even for high-end performance, the way to go, just because they were so overclockable. Not the same any more as far as I know, but they're still good for budget PCs. If you are actually concerned with performance don't get a Celeron/Duron but if you just need something to run office apps on, they're pretty decent in terms of price/performance. So long as you're more concerned with price than performance.
First 64-bit Processor? The MIPS R4000 was 64-bit and that was used to make Jurassic Park(#1) and used in the N64. Now they have MIPS R14000's...Quote:
Originally posted by Megatron
I thought the Itanium is supposed to by the next top-of-the-line (first 64-bit processor).
Yeah... Celerons ARE garbage. As what everyone here says, they are not good for gaming as they are crippled with smaller amounts of cache, and I'm pretty sure that they also have either a very minimal or NO MMX Instructions implemented. This basically means that they just can't keep up with MMX enabled processors like the Pentium 3 and Pentium 4
Pentium 4 is garbage as well. They were designed with a longer pipeline, and more instructions, but those were the only improvements. Intel decided to slow the performance abilities of the Pentium 4. This is partially because the average Joe would think that a 1.4GHz Pentium 4 is better than a 1GHz Pentium 3, while in practice and tests, they process data at the same speed. NOTE: A 1GHz PIII has roughly the same benchmarks as a 1.4GHz PIV. It's sad, but true. After 1.4GHz then you will start to see improvements over the Pentium 3.
Pentium4 at 1.6GHz or Pentium4 @ 2GHz is good. The rule is that every 16 months, the processor speed doubles... So Intel should have a 4GHz Pentium4 in about a year or so from now.
I doubt you will find an x86 CPU on the market that doesn't have MMX instructions, and the same goes for SSE. Celerons are fine for plain vanilla business apps, just so long as you're not planning on computing Pi or finding huge primes or anything.
Athlon is better :pQuote:
Originally posted by Warmaster199
First 64-bit Processor? The MIPS R4000 was 64-bit and that was used to make Jurassic Park(#1) and used in the N64. Now they have MIPS R14000's...
Yeah... Celerons ARE garbage. As what everyone here says, they are not good for gaming as they are crippled with smaller amounts of cache, and I'm pretty sure that they also have either a very minimal or NO MMX Instructions implemented. This basically means that they just can't keep up with MMX enabled processors like the Pentium 3 and Pentium 4
Pentium 4 is garbage as well. They were designed with a longer pipeline, and more instructions, but those were the only improvements. Intel decided to slow the performance abilities of the Pentium 4. This is partially because the average Joe would think that a 1.4GHz Pentium 4 is better than a 1GHz Pentium 3, while in practice and tests, they process data at the same speed. NOTE: A 1GHz PIII has roughly the same benchmarks as a 1.4GHz PIV. It's sad, but true. After 1.4GHz then you will start to see improvements over the Pentium 3.
Pentium4 at 1.6GHz or Pentium4 @ 2GHz is good. The rule is that every 16 months, the processor speed doubles... So Intel should have a 4GHz Pentium4 in about a year or so from now.
Yes it is... Nicely put! :D
Aw darn, there goes my math project :DQuote:
Celerons are fine for plain vanilla business apps, just so long as you're not planning on computing Pi or finding huge primes or anything.
Quote:
Celerons are fine, just so long as you're not planning on computing anything.
Quoting out of context is fun...:D
How do you guys feel about buying a high level system as opposed to putting one togther? I mean would you go out and by a SGI or could you put a computer togther that would be of similar speed and quality for a cheaper price?
I went to the rose center this weekend(better know as the hayden planetarium) to check out the new star show. I was completly blown away at how realistic everything was. Gone is the old dome ceiling room with the lazer projector in the middle casting images up(not that is was any bad) but now that have a giant sphere that everyone sits in.The show is powered by a SGI Onyx2 with 30 processors and 7 graphics pipes(so i was told by the guide). I was quite impressed.
I've never built a system with 30 processors, I'd imagine the parts are rather hard to come by. Probably any company that's selling you a system like that isn't going to use crappy parts (example...Dell's Precision workstations are much higher quality than the Dimensions) and on a system like that you'd need support too.
Any regular old server though, dual processor, yeah I'd build...