Printable View
From a lot of posts around the forum, I see that a lot of people hate celeron. Whats up with that? I am running a 533Mhz Celeron here, seems fine. I also plan to upgrade to 1.7Ghz Celeron.
Thanks for any help :)Code:Spec:
533 Mhz Celeron
128 SDRAM
ATI Radeon 7000
Opti931 ISA Sound Card <- stay away from that :(
If you changed to a 533 P3 you'd see a world of difference, is my point. Celerons are sometimes just reject P3s that failed the cache test, so they disable all the cache that it has and put it down to 128kb, the Celeron cache size. This makes some things slower, I forget how but it does make a difference. Also, the new celerons (coppermine) are really bad performers... I had a 733 Coppermine Celly and it was slower than a 533 Mendocino (what you have) Celly.
less cache = more ram accesses = clogged fsb
Celerons are also hated because AMD always had a comprehensively better solution.
The Duron was a Celeron killer until the Athlon took away the Duron market (oh well)
The Thunderbird just owned the Celerons
Celerons blew goats by the time Palominos came around
And now TBred vs. Celeron (P4 Type) is a joke.
EDIT: the above is time specific, of course.
A great thing about Celerons though is that they take VERY little power. I had a Celly 533, GF2mx, TV card, SB 512 PCI, all the bells and whistles, running ROCK SOLID on a generic 200w power supply. That's why they are great for laptops.
Is AMD 2000 XP better than Celly 1700?
Cause I have no idea what to upgrade to...
LOL It's like night and day. Athlon XP 2000+ is as fast as a P4 2ghz (though it's only 1.67ghz), and both are lots faster than a Celeron.
When an XP 1800 can be found for $100, you should avoid Celerons at all costs.
Hey guys what about Mac's. I mean what kind of processors do the G4's use? And why is a 1Ghz Mac processor faster then a higher Mhz Intel or AMD?
Mhz is no longer a good measurement because it depends what the chip does in each tick of the clock as it were. An example is that an Athlon XP 1800 is only running at about 1500 Mhz but is just as efficient as a Pentium running as 1800 Mhz.
And since Apple makes most of their components, some things that drivers normally make accessable through an abstract layer can be done directly, which obviously is much faster. This and a more efficient chip is what causes Macs to "be faster". However, similar priced PC and Mac machines will usually perform the same (if not the PC one working a bit faster).
i find macs are terribly overpriced for what you get, espeically considering the lack of software.
but macs are better for video editing, graphics and automation stuff, PC are better for like games and crap like that...