Pentium 4 and Celeron systems

[Jeff Malka]

I've seen systems sold with pre-installed Windows XP using Pentium 4 and
much cheaper systems using Celeron CPUs.

I am confused. I used to know, but no longer remember: what is the
difference between a Celeron system and a similar GHz-speed system that used
Pentium 4? They both seem to be capable of running XP. What does the Celeron
CPU lack?

What would be the equivalent AMD CPU?

Thanks.

 

[Ron Martell]

I've seen systems sold with pre-installed Windows XP using Pentium 4 and
much cheaper systems using Celeron CPUs.

I am confused. I used to know, but no longer remember: what is the
difference between a Celeron system and a similar GHz-speed system that used
Pentium 4? They both seem to be capable of running XP. What does the Celeron
CPU lack?

What would be the equivalent AMD CPU?

Celerons are based on the same design as the Pentium 4 but have
certain limitations. These limitations vary from model to model but
in general the differences in the currently available models are:

1. The celeron has only 128 kb of L2 cache built in whereas the P4
has 512 kb.

2. The celerons general operate with a 400 mhz "front side bus" speed
whereas comparable speed Pentium 4s will have a 533 mhz "front side
bus".


If you browse through the articles at www.tomshardware.com you should
find a number of articles comparing the various CPU models and giving
the full technical details as to the differences between them.

Generally speaking for business use (word processing, spreadsheets,
accounting programs etc.) I tend to favor the lower priced Celerons
over the same-speed Pentium 4s and to put the price difference into
additional RAM. However for graphics or other high-intensity
computing you probably want the additional CPU performance of the P4.

Good luck


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."

 

[Jim Macklin]

The Celeron is less expensive to build because it has only
128 k of cache, while the P4 has as much a 1 MB on the
newest CPU, most have 512 k. They have more features and
the P4 runs on 400/533 and now 800 MHz bus.

A home office/ student (school work) doesn't need to spend
2-5 times more for a P4. If you need it, just want it, and
can afford it, the P4 is great. I've been using a Celeron
1.7 GHz since last year when I built this computer. Someday
I'll put a P4 in and an ATI 9800 AIW just to see how much
faster it is.

Intel www.intel.com has lots of information on differences
between CPUs.


| Might as well mention the XP AMD processors which are
about in the middle.
|
|
|
| | > I've seen systems sold with pre-installed Windows XP
using Pentium 4 and
| > much cheaper systems using Celeron CPUs.
| >
| > I am confused. I used to know, but no longer remember:
what is the
| > difference between a Celeron system and a similar
GHz-speed system that
| used
| > Pentium 4? They both seem to be capable of running XP.
What does the
| Celeron
| > CPU lack?
| >
| > What would be the equivalent AMD CPU?
| >
| > Thanks.
| >
| > --
| > Jeff Malka
| > (e-mail address removed)
| >
| >
|
|

 

[Jeff Malka]

Thank you all. you guys are wonderful.

 

[GSV Three Minds in a Can]

I've seen systems sold with pre-installed Windows XP using Pentium 4 and
much cheaper systems using Celeron CPUs.

I am confused. I used to know, but no longer remember: what is the
difference between a Celeron system and a similar GHz-speed system that used
Pentium 4? They both seem to be capable of running XP. What does the Celeron
CPU lack?

The Celeron has a 128KB cache instead of 512KB (on the P4). This is only
true of the recent Celerons - older ones used to have a larger cache.
The Celeron also uses a slower memory bus. Basically the Celeron is a
joke product .. used to be justifiable on price, but given recent price
moves on P4's and Athlons, the Celeron looks really sick (The Athlon
price is now so low that AMD's 'Celeron equivalent' Duron has just about
vanished).

What would be the equivalent AMD CPU?

'A lot cheaper'. 8>. Seriously, an XPxx00+ performs as well (for most
things) as an equivalent xx00 Mhz P4.. unless your application uses SSE2
instructions, where the P4 will win handsomely. If it uses a lot of x87
floating point instructions, the Athlon will win by miles instead.