Pentium vs Celeron

[MacKenrick]

This may not be the right forum to post this but was hoping for some help.
I know this is a basic question but I'm getting a new computer and would
like to know the difference between a Pentium and Celeron processor. What
advantages and disadvantages do the two processor types have? Thank you for
your help. Mac

 

[Alvin Brown]

Hello

Celeron's have 128 cache on the chip
P3 and P4's have 256 to 512 cache, more cache more
performance on the chip.

Celeron's are your low-end chips and of course cost
is much lower, Really comes down to what your willing to spend
in the end.

Al

 

[HillBillyBuddhist]

This may not be the right forum to post this but was hoping for some help.
I know this is a basic question but I'm getting a new computer and would
like to know the difference between a Pentium and Celeron processor. What
advantages and disadvantages do the two processor types have? Thank you for
your help. Mac

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/question268.htm

--
D

I'm not an MVP a VIP nor do I have ESP.
I was just trying to help.
Please use your own best judgment before implementing any suggestions or
advice herein.
No warranty is expressed or implied.
Your mileage may vary.
See store for details.

Remove shoes to E-mail.

 

[Jim Macklin]

Best thing is to look at www.intel.com for comparisons. But
simply...
Celerons have smaller cache on the CPU so they can not
process data as fast as the P4 which may have a full GB of
cache. The Celeron also runs at a FSB limited to 400 MHz,
while the P4 runs at 533 or even 800 MHz.

If you spend the money on a computer with a P4 CPU and a low
budget motherboard you may not have the expansion and
hardware to use the full power of the P4. If you buy or
build a Celeron system on a high-end mobo you can change the
CPU when you need more power.

Bottom-line , the Celeron is fine for surfing and
word-processing, but for big databases, spreadsheets and
multimedia, the P4 will out perform by a strong margin.


| This may not be the right forum to post this but was
hoping for some help.
| I know this is a basic question but I'm getting a new
computer and would
| like to know the difference between a Pentium and Celeron
processor. What
| advantages and disadvantages do the two processor types
have? Thank you for
| your help. Mac
|
|

 

[Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP Windows Shell/User\)]

The article in the link below will give you some idea of the differences but
it will point out as I will here, today it's more or less a moot point. You
can purchase a Pentium 4 system for between $100 and $200 more than a
comparably equipped Celeron based system. At such a low differential, it
simply doesn't make sense to get Celeron based system:
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,97405,pg,4,00.asp

 

[nobody]

You've seen the posts spelling out the physical differences and it does
really depend on what you are going to use your pc for. If all you want to
do is surf the web, email, create some documents and spreadsheets, load some
pictures off your digital camera and print them then a Celeron will do all
that with no problems and you wouldn't see any speed advantages to getting a
P4 over a Celeron. If you dealing with large databases or want to edit
video then you should be looking at a P4.

 

[Jim]

I saw the posts so please excuse me for butting in but how about a
comparison of the Pentium and the AMD 2600+ with the Barton chip? Is the
Pentium still the better value?

 

[Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP Windows Shell/User\)]

There are probably several forums in which you can come by such information
this is about as close as I could come to a comparison based on the specs
you mention:
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-950216.html

 

[Jim]

Thanks Michael. That article seems to show improvement by AMD. It doesn't
give any price/performance info, though.

 

[Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP Windows Shell/User\)]

No, it doesn't but AMD chips are almost always less expensive than the
comparable Pentium.

 

[Jim Macklin]

Where did you get your specs (listed below) if not from "|
| So steering posters to www.intel.com for straight answers
is like
| lambs to the slaughter! They cost about the same to make,
so the
| "Pentium tax" is windfall for Intel. What do you expect
them to say?"???
|

message | On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:42:18 -0800, "Michael Solomon
\(MS-MVP Windows
|
| >can purchase a Pentium 4 system for between $100 and $200
more than a
| >comparably equipped Celeron based system. At such a low
differential, it
| >simply doesn't make sense to get Celeron based system:
|
| Nah, I'd rather exercise more control over the whole spec.
If
| $100-$200 is worth spending on "Pentium Tax", then how
much more
| worthwhile is a third of that to treble the HD capacity?
|
| Celeron and Pentium 4 are based on the same core, and in
fact there's
| often more difference between one pentium X sub-generation
than the
| next than there is between Celeron and Pentium X. In
fact, in some
| cases, the newer Celeron outperform older Pentium X within
the same
| broad category. Here's what I mean...
|
| Pentium II/III generation:
|
| 512k half-speed Level 2 cache, 66MHz base
| Zero Level 2 cache, 66MHz base
| 128k Level 2 cache, 66MHz base
| 256k Level 2 cache, 66MHz base
| 256k Level 2 cache, 100MHz base
| 512k Level 2 cache, 100MHz base
| 512k Level 2 cache, 133MHz base
|
| The first, fourth and last two of the above were branded
"Pentium";
| the rest, "Celeron". In fact, both Pentium and Celeron
names were
| attached to the 256k L2, 100MHz cores.
|
| P4 generation
|
| 256k L2, 400MHz base
| 128k L2, 400MHz base
| 512k L2, 400MHz base
| 512k L2, 533MHz base
| 512k L2, 800MHz base, HT
|
| Much beating of the drum between Celeron (the second in
the above
| list) and the original P4 (first in the list). Muted
murmers when P4
| went 512k, 533MHz etc. while the "old" P4 were still for
sale,
| enjoying the marketability of the "Pentium" name (and
costing extra
| for "Pentium tax"). Same in the PIII era; beating of the
drum when
| Celeron lacked SIMD and PIII had; not a murmer when SIMD
was added to
| Celeron later. Ppl still think Celeron suck from "zero L2
cache" days
|
| So steering posters to www.intel.com for straight answers
is like
| lambs to the slaughter! They cost about the same to make,
so the
| "Pentium tax" is windfall for Intel. What do you expect
them to say?
|
| My policy; consider Pentium 4 only after you've maxed out
everywhere
| else on the system - decent non-Micro-ATX motherboard,
good SVGS if
| games is your thing, a large and fast HD, and lots of RAM
(or at least
| the option to add later). In practice, I use Pentium 4
only for video
| editing or audio recording systems that are based on i875P
| motherboards, have 2 x 512M DDR400 for that dual-channel
800MHz base
| speed, and typically 3 x 120G S-ATA HDs (1 for system, the
other two
| as a 240G RAID 0 workspace).
|
| If you just "buy a Pentium 4" you will end up with
Micro-ATX trash
| that will stunt the chip's ability to deliver. Puny HD,
built-in SVGA
| with no AGP slot, 533MHz base speed - that's the sort of
| bottom-scraper junk that some builders drop Pentium 4
into, knowing
| that the gormless will only ask about processor.
|
| On the advantages:
| - HyperThreading (new P4 only) helps background tasks
| - most RAM access caught in Level 1 cache
| - most of the rest in Level 2 cache
| - law of diminishing returns when boosting L2 cache size
| - only the few remaining RAM accesses go to RAM
|
| So in effect, going 800MHz instead of 400MHz doubles the
remaining 5%
| or so of your memory accesses that the L1 and L2 caches
missed, 128k
| L2 cache does most of the work that 256k L2 does, and 512k
a bit more
| after that. Pentium 4's nice-to-have, yes, but the same
money can
| bring in larger benefits when spent elsewhere in
spec-boosting a
| price-hero system. Start with the HD, make sure mobo
doesn't suck.
|
|
|
| >-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
| Running Windows-based av to kill active malware is like
striking
| a match to see if what you are standing in is water or
petrol.
| >-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

 

[cquirke (MVP Win9x)]

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:42:18 -0800, "Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP Windows

can purchase a Pentium 4 system for between $100 and $200 more than a
comparably equipped Celeron based system. At such a low differential, it
simply doesn't make sense to get Celeron based system:

Nah, I'd rather exercise more control over the whole spec. If
$100-$200 is worth spending on "Pentium Tax", then how much more
worthwhile is a third of that to treble the HD capacity?

Celeron and Pentium 4 are based on the same core, and in fact there's
often more difference between one pentium X sub-generation than the
next than there is between Celeron and Pentium X. In fact, in some
cases, the newer Celeron outperform older Pentium X within the same
broad category. Here's what I mean...

Pentium II/III generation:

512k half-speed Level 2 cache, 66MHz base
Zero Level 2 cache, 66MHz base
128k Level 2 cache, 66MHz base
256k Level 2 cache, 66MHz base
256k Level 2 cache, 100MHz base
512k Level 2 cache, 100MHz base
512k Level 2 cache, 133MHz base

The first, fourth and last two of the above were branded "Pentium";
the rest, "Celeron". In fact, both Pentium and Celeron names were
attached to the 256k L2, 100MHz cores.

P4 generation

256k L2, 400MHz base
128k L2, 400MHz base
512k L2, 400MHz base
512k L2, 533MHz base
512k L2, 800MHz base, HT

Much beating of the drum between Celeron (the second in the above
list) and the original P4 (first in the list). Muted murmers when P4
went 512k, 533MHz etc. while the "old" P4 were still for sale,
enjoying the marketability of the "Pentium" name (and costing extra
for "Pentium tax"). Same in the PIII era; beating of the drum when
Celeron lacked SIMD and PIII had; not a murmer when SIMD was added to
Celeron later. Ppl still think Celeron suck from "zero L2 cache" days

So steering posters to www.intel.com for straight answers is like
lambs to the slaughter! They cost about the same to make, so the
"Pentium tax" is windfall for Intel. What do you expect them to say?

My policy; consider Pentium 4 only after you've maxed out everywhere
else on the system - decent non-Micro-ATX motherboard, good SVGS if
games is your thing, a large and fast HD, and lots of RAM (or at least
the option to add later). In practice, I use Pentium 4 only for video
editing or audio recording systems that are based on i875P
motherboards, have 2 x 512M DDR400 for that dual-channel 800MHz base
speed, and typically 3 x 120G S-ATA HDs (1 for system, the other two
as a 240G RAID 0 workspace).

If you just "buy a Pentium 4" you will end up with Micro-ATX trash
that will stunt the chip's ability to deliver. Puny HD, built-in SVGA
with no AGP slot, 533MHz base speed - that's the sort of
bottom-scraper junk that some builders drop Pentium 4 into, knowing
that the gormless will only ask about processor.

On the advantages:
- HyperThreading (new P4 only) helps background tasks
- most RAM access caught in Level 1 cache
- most of the rest in Level 2 cache
- law of diminishing returns when boosting L2 cache size
- only the few remaining RAM accesses go to RAM

So in effect, going 800MHz instead of 400MHz doubles the remaining 5%
or so of your memory accesses that the L1 and L2 caches missed, 128k
L2 cache does most of the work that 256k L2 does, and 512k a bit more
after that. Pentium 4's nice-to-have, yes, but the same money can
bring in larger benefits when spent elsewhere in spec-boosting a
price-hero system. Start with the HD, make sure mobo doesn't suck.

-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

Running Windows-based av to kill active malware is like striking
a match to see if what you are standing in is water or petrol.

 

[cquirke (MVP Win9x)]

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 09:36:20 -0600, "Jim Macklin"

Where did you get your specs (listed below) if not from

| So steering posters to www.intel.com for straight answers
| is like lambs to the slaughter!

From building PCs over the years. The same info would be at Intel's
site, or other hardware sites, etc. but the spin from Intel would be
deafening. In fact you'd prolly hit a lot of baby-food such as "a
computer is only as good as it's processor" and have to dig for info.

It's not the processor that limits expansion, determines reliability,
stores (and possibly loses) your data, or even materially affects
speed for that matter.

Heh - I'm sure the last assertion got your attention

Think of it this way; a 1996 PC is a 1996 PC. Unimaginably fast by
1988 standards, pretty far off the pace by 2004 standards. At the
time, it would have cost a small fortune to materially boost the PC
to, say, 1998 processor speed norms. By 1998, the hero chip of the
time would have been in the bargain bin with the entry-level speed
grades, priced maybe an extra $10 or so.

So the bleeding edge stuff has to justify its cost, and quickly - and
there are times when it can do just that - by allowing the user to be
fierst on the block with just-possible technologies, and building a
year's experience by the time everyone's doing it a year later.

What sickens me is systems that are so skunky that the costly
processor will never live up to its potential or be able to do
anything really useful in the cheap cage it's sold in.

-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

Running Windows-based av to kill active malware is like striking
a match to see if what you are standing in is water or petrol.

 

[Jim Macklin]

The computer I built for myself in Sept. 2002 was built with
lowest cost with best (for the time) expansion
possibilities.
I select an Intel D845GBVL mobo and a 1.7 GHz Celeron CPU.
Why? Because I could buy the mobo and CPU for about $200
and didn't need to buy sound or graphics card or a NIC. I
installed a V.92 modem and have 5 open PCI slots. If I want
more power I can spend the bucks for a P4, I can add an AGP
card, I can add a 5.1 sound card. But for what I do, it is
more than adequate.

I'm not saying that the P4 or the Celeron (or even an AMD)
is the only way to go, but everybody should know that facts
are available and the hype is not a fact, but a sales pitch.


message | On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 09:36:20 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
|
| >Where did you get your specs (listed below) if not from
|
| >| So steering posters to www.intel.com for straight
answers
| >| is like lambs to the slaughter!
|
| From building PCs over the years. The same info would be
at Intel's
| site, or other hardware sites, etc. but the spin from
Intel would be
| deafening. In fact you'd prolly hit a lot of baby-food
such as "a
| computer is only as good as it's processor" and have to
dig for info.
|
| It's not the processor that limits expansion, determines
reliability,
| stores (and possibly loses) your data, or even materially
affects
| speed for that matter.
|
| Heh - I'm sure the last assertion got your attention
|
| Think of it this way; a 1996 PC is a 1996 PC.
Unimaginably fast by
| 1988 standards, pretty far off the pace by 2004 standards.
At the
| time, it would have cost a small fortune to materially
boost the PC
| to, say, 1998 processor speed norms. By 1998, the hero
chip of the
| time would have been in the bargain bin with the
entry-level speed
| grades, priced maybe an extra $10 or so.
|
| So the bleeding edge stuff has to justify its cost, and
quickly - and
| there are times when it can do just that - by allowing the
user to be
| fierst on the block with just-possible technologies, and
building a
| year's experience by the time everyone's doing it a year
later.
|
| What sickens me is systems that are so skunky that the
costly
| processor will never live up to its potential or be able
to do
| anything really useful in the cheap cage it's sold in.
|
|
|
| >-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
| Running Windows-based av to kill active malware is like
striking
| a match to see if what you are standing in is water or
petrol.
| >-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

 

[Jim]

I still haven't seen the price/value ratio between an Intel P-4 and AMD
Barton chip addressed. Any thoughts?

 

[MacKenrick]

Wow!!!

Thanks everyone, for the great answers, suggestions and leads to sites that
have more information on the subject. Not only did I get the answer to my
question but learned a whole lot more about processors from the added
information posted. I want to especially thank Jim Macklin for his very
clear, concise answer to the basic question. "Bottom-line , the Celeron is
fine for surfing and word-processing, but for big databases, spreadsheets
and multimedia, the P4 will out perform by a strong margin." I also thought
that Mike Solomon's very logical statement about price was a very good
point, "You can purchase a Pentium 4 system for between $100 and $200 more
than a comparably equipped Celeron based system. At such a low
differential, it simply doesn't make sense to get Celeron based system.".
Thanks again for all the info. Mac

 

[Jim Macklin]

You're welcome.


| Wow!!!
|
| Thanks everyone, for the great answers, suggestions and
leads to sites that
| have more information on the subject. Not only did I get
the answer to my
| question but learned a whole lot more about processors
from the added
| information posted. I want to especially thank Jim
Macklin for his very
| clear, concise answer to the basic question. "Bottom-line
, the Celeron is
| fine for surfing and word-processing, but for big
databases, spreadsheets
| and multimedia, the P4 will out perform by a strong
margin." I also thought
| that Mike Solomon's very logical statement about price was
a very good
| point, "You can purchase a Pentium 4 system for between
$100 and $200 more
| than a comparably equipped Celeron based system. At such
a low
| differential, it simply doesn't make sense to get Celeron
based system.".
| Thanks again for all the info. Mac
|
|
|
|

 

[Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP Windows Shell/User\)]

Essentially, I agree with the following caveat, if builders can low ball the
Pentium they can low ball the Celeron. My response was simply to point
toward a comparison of the two processors, not two systems nor would I
advise anyone to purchase based solely on processor.

I'm currently in the midst of planning my next purchase and have written and
posted the first in a series to cover it. The first is a general overview,
the second will deal more specifically with the overall hardware I am
seeking and the reasons why. To simply buy on the basis of processor with
no eye toward the rest of the system serves no purpose as the system may
well be have several choke points. Right now, I'm amazed at the number of
pretty good Pentium 4 systems that come with shared memory. People get them
home and when they try to play games or a DVD movie, at best it plays
haltingly and at worst it crashes.

However, I think the fault lies more with the builders than with Intel.
There's a race to the bottom mentality among computer manufacturer's today
and I blame Dell for this and they are a prime example of exactly what
you've mentioned. Their ads say, "Think you can't afford a Dell, think
again." However, upon close examination of that under $500 system that Dell
has offered, you find a fine example of what you have stated, a good
processor that is choked at every turn, a processor not allowed to breath
and do its stuff. It may be fine for normal office work as long as the
number crunching and graphics requirements aren't too great and fine for the
beginner and student with the same proviso but the average user today is
taking digital photos, storing and editing them and videos, playing some
pretty powerful games, watching DVDs and even television on their systems
and that puny Dell well barely be able to handle such tasks.

It was not my intent to offer the information I offered in that context and
when I mentioned a Pentium over a Celeron I should have added that the user
needs to view the processor in the context of the entire system and not just
on the basis of the processor alone. Unfortunately, that was the impression
when I said you could get a Pentium system for $100 or so more than a top
Celeron. That's true, you can but people need to view systems in terms of
what they are going to do with them, their needs as well as how long they
intend to keep the system and that should be as much a consideration as what
they plan to spend in order to find a system that best suits their needs and
their budget.

 

[Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP Windows Shell/User\)]

You're welcome, please, call me Michael!

I've added some additional thoughts given "cquirke's" post and while I still
feel the Pentium 4 is going to be a better value it should be only one of
several considerations with regard to buying a computer.

 

[cquirke (MVP Win9x)]

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 18:10:25 -0800, "Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP Windows

Essentially, I agree with the following caveat, if builders can low ball the
Pentium they can low ball the Celeron.

Yep. In fact, Intel's intention is that they should low-ball the
Celeron but not low-ball the P4. Hence the "fluff" notes on
motherboard chipsets etc. that position all the Micro-ATX trash as
"for Celeron" and the decent stuff as "for P4". Sometimes you really
have to scratch to find out that yes, you can build an i875P system
with a Celeron for now (of course, it won't do the 800MHz tango yet)

In practice, system builders use glossy parts where consumers look,
and dingy gunk everywhere they don't look. Intel has spent a lot of
money on indirect advertising and PR to make sure they look at
processors, or even just for the sticker on the front.

All those big OEMs who display that "Intel Inside" thing on their ads;
do you think they do that because they view that as an important
factor in the spec? Or because Intel shares the advert costs?

My response was simply to point toward a comparison of the two
processors, not two systems nor would I advise anyone to purchase
based solely on processor.

Yep, I figured as much. I've seen some horribly misleading "buyer's
information" from Intel that basically says, processor uber alles.

I'm currently in the midst of planning my next purchase and have written and
posted the first in a series to cover it.

Like an earlier poster, my current box is i845G-based, for all the
reasons he mentioned

Today, I'd build on i865G for most purposes, and i875P if I knew from
the outset that I wanted max speed (e.g. video editing).

Right now, I'm amazed at the number of pretty good Pentium 4
systems that come with shared memory.

I don't mind that if it isn't a life sentence (i.e. as long as there's
an AGP slot). Intel's built-in SVGA doesn't grab a full 32M the way
VIA/S3's does, so it's quite easy to live with (given that office
systems don't really need 32M of 3D textures).

Often the cost of the SVGA card (speed of which may be irrelevant to
the useage) rivals that of extra RAM. Hmm, add a GeForce 4 to spare
4M RAM, or add another 256M? Let me think about that for a nanosecond

People get them home and when they try to play games or a DVD
movie, at best it plays haltingly and at worst it crashes.

No problems with DVD so far, and games up to Serious Sam 2 run OK with
i845G and i865G built-in graphics. May be jerky at 1024x768, but
800x600 looks OK. You'd want to go up to FX5200 to get a clear speed
and quality boost, and they don't come free in corn flakes boxes yet.

There's a race to the bottom mentality among computer manufacturer's today
and I blame Dell for this and they are a prime example of exactly what
you've mentioned. Their ads say, "Think you can't afford a Dell

If you can't afford to make a mistake, you can't afford any bottom-end
proprietary trash - of which Compaq are Exhibit A. They are the prime
example of leveraging a reputation for good kit (they were first 386
based PC, ahead of IBM; pretty cool) to sell trash. Bait and
switch... brand shenanigans seem to be US's main export product.

However, upon close examination of that under $500 system that Dell
has offered, you find a fine example of what you have stated, a good
processor that is choked at every turn, a processor not allowed to breath
and do its stuff. It may be fine for normal office work

But then, so would a Celeron have been. If that price delta had been
ploughed into doubling the HD and RAM, the thing would be much better

Anything that's up-spent on Pentium Tax should need no excuses. The
only excuse I had to make about a "build an audio recording system but
keep it around R 10k" PC I just done is that it has only one 120G HD.
But the door's not closed; the mobo I used has an additional Promise
RAID S-ATA controller onboard, so I can add another two 120G or larger
for workspace as and when their business plan requires.

The funny thing is, while I'm building these things, I can't really
feel the difference. Even the archive extraction phase of setup
(normally exquisitely sensitive to integer performance) feels much the
same on the budget 1.7GHz Celeron / 128M / 120G PC next to the 2.8GHz
P4 / 1G / 120G I'm building in the same batch. Even when running the
Sam 2 demo to (ahem) test the system feels pretty much the same.

Whip 'em in Cubase, with hoards of audio tracks dripping with effect
plug-ins, and that's when the nosebleeds start

-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

Running Windows-based av to kill active malware is like striking
a match to see if what you are standing in is water or petrol.