For $200, and considering what you're upgrading from, a Celeron system may very well be a good buy if you're not interested in anything especially demanding. As a word processing and internet surfing box, it's certainly more than adequate (and quite a bit better than the P3-800 that's my desktop). And if you're lucky, and have an AGP slot, then you can eventually just swap in a P4 and a respectable graphics card (odds are a $200 system either has integrated graphics only, or something no better than a GeForce 2MX).berova said:
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Computer advice--Pentium or Celeron?
- Thread starter johnsemlak
- Start date
Murrdox
First Post
AMD and Intel both have their pluses and minuses.
Personally, I'm an Intel fiend. I have a P4 2.26 GHz Machine, with RAM and a Motherboard specifically designed to take advantage of all the features of that processor.
However... ONE point you need to know, IF you decide to go with Intel.
DO NOT GET A CELERON. Get a FULL Intel processor. Celerons are "budget" processors that simply put do NOT work up to the specifications that they advertise. DO NOT GET A CELERON. If you stick with that, then buy AMD or Intel, whichever you are more comfortable with.
Personally, I'm an Intel fiend. I have a P4 2.26 GHz Machine, with RAM and a Motherboard specifically designed to take advantage of all the features of that processor.
However... ONE point you need to know, IF you decide to go with Intel.
DO NOT GET A CELERON. Get a FULL Intel processor. Celerons are "budget" processors that simply put do NOT work up to the specifications that they advertise. DO NOT GET A CELERON. If you stick with that, then buy AMD or Intel, whichever you are more comfortable with.
Altalazar
First Post
I am a Computer Programmer by trade (though I am in Law School too), though I am far from an expert. I am a Pentium/Dell phreak.
I have Three Dells - a P4-2.2Ghz, a P4-2.4Ghz, and a laptop P4-1.8Ghz - one is mine, decked out to the gills, one is my wife's, and one is my laptop I take to Law School classes. All are awesome. ANd I'm glad I went high end and got P4s - they can run everything, no problems, and they will be non-obsolete for a long time.
That's what I did with my last machine - I got a PII-300 decked to the max - it was expensive, but it paid big dividends because I had NO need to upgrade to a new system for six years - it still ran basically everything.
I expect the same out of my current machines, which are now over a year old - I bought all three of them in a 10 month period (I guess six years gave me withdrawl - plus I had a good excuse with school and needing a machine for my wife as well as myself). I networked them all together, along with the remains of my old machine using XP and I'm happy as a rich dragon.
I have Three Dells - a P4-2.2Ghz, a P4-2.4Ghz, and a laptop P4-1.8Ghz - one is mine, decked out to the gills, one is my wife's, and one is my laptop I take to Law School classes. All are awesome. ANd I'm glad I went high end and got P4s - they can run everything, no problems, and they will be non-obsolete for a long time.
That's what I did with my last machine - I got a PII-300 decked to the max - it was expensive, but it paid big dividends because I had NO need to upgrade to a new system for six years - it still ran basically everything.
I expect the same out of my current machines, which are now over a year old - I bought all three of them in a 10 month period (I guess six years gave me withdrawl - plus I had a good excuse with school and needing a machine for my wife as well as myself). I networked them all together, along with the remains of my old machine using XP and I'm happy as a rich dragon.
Arc
First Post
Just a quick bit about AMD Athlon processors. The way AMD designs their chipsets relies on a lower clockspeed, but provides more performance. So an Athlon XP 2200+ will probably be clocked at 1.8ghz, but should be comparable to a 2.2ghz processor. That design decision makes for a hotter chip (not much hotter, but enough to recommend getting something besides a stock fan).
AMD just came out with their new 64 bit processors, but they're a bit expensive, and probably not what you're looking for.
From my experiance putting together several PCs in the past few years, AMD offers much better price/performance, and more importantly, has much better motherboards available, and for a time, had much better RAM available.
AMD just came out with their new 64 bit processors, but they're a bit expensive, and probably not what you're looking for.
From my experiance putting together several PCs in the past few years, AMD offers much better price/performance, and more importantly, has much better motherboards available, and for a time, had much better RAM available.
Goobermunch
Explorer
Arc said:
This advice is dead on . . . up to a point. That point is about the Athlon XP 2800+. AMD's higher speed processors don't benchmark as well as their equivalency numbers suggest. An Athlon XP 2800+ will be significantly outperformed by an Intel 2.8 GHz processor. This is only an issue if you're looking for a high end processor.
If you're in the market for a 2.8, 3.0. or 3.2 GHz machine, you'll want to go Intel P4. If you're not interested in occupying the highest reaches of the SOTA, Athlon is generally better bang for your buck.
--G
Psionicist
Explorer
Arc said:
No. Way.
I review hardware. I have several dozens of motherboards lying around. There are not a parallell universe where AMD motherboards are even close to the Intel counterparts. Motherboard chipsets is what Intel is really good at, what makes most people buy Intel in the first place. Whereas AMD rely on third party manufacturers such as VIA and Nvidia to design chipsets for their systems Intel design everything themselves. The result is noticeable.
It was a long time ago I had an AMD motherboard that was perfectly stable.
Edit: That said, motherboards aside, there are no big differencies between AMD and Intel except for the low-end segment (where AMD excel). A 1.2 Ghz Duron outperforms a 2.6 GHz Celeron for instance.
Last edited:
While I agree that Intel chipsets are much better than Via, NVidia, and SiS chipsets (at least in terms of stability), and I'm generally an Intel fan (I'm going to get a new PC next year, and it'll be either a Prescott desktop or a Dothan notebook), most people have Intel CPUs because large OEMs favor Intel. And while chipset stability is one reason why large OEMs favor Intel, it's not the only one (or even the most important).
CerberusAOD
First Post
1. Athlons do not run hotter than P4s. They run a bit cooler, but it's mostly a null issue now, as the biggest problem when they did run hot was that very few manufacturers automatically shut the CPU off if it got too hot, and that they retail fans weren't that good. Both of those issued have been successfully dealt with for most any motherboard or retail CPU from the past year.
2. P4 celerons suck. Period. Athlons, up to about the 2800+, tend to be just a bit faster than P4s...but the 800MHz P4 'C' ruined that PR scheme (Athlons still have an edge in office apps, but if you notice a 10% performance gain in Outlook, you're way too picky). The P4s are still more expensive, a but a 'C' in a dual-channel DDR motherboard will beat most XPs for memory-intensive tasks, such as games and working with video, file compression, virus scanning, etc.
3. Unfortunately AMD chipsets are hard to find, and their last for the Socket A isn't a good performer now. VIA's are currently good, but not great. Given the prices, I wouldn't bother, given how I've had amazing luck w/ SiS.
NVidia's NForce2 is mostly ironed out and is as good as it gets for performance, but I don't know as I'd trust a server with it.
SiS' 746 (and 746FX and 748) is really about as good as it gets. Not quite NForce2 performance, but within single-digit %s, and I've yet to have one with any strange issues (like VIA is so known for) that newer chipsets don't (even Intel's are having issues with memory now).The ECS L7S7A2, while amazingly cheap, is an excellent, if no-frills, board, and combined with a ~2GHz Athlon, you'd be hard-pressed to beat the value. As long as you get a decent power supply (Fortron 300w only $32 shipped, not a big deal), any SiS-based board will be happy.
4. If you're used to an Intel or want a prebuilt PC, get a real P4. Even a 400MHz FSB 2GHz will blow away any Celeron, and a 800MHz FSB 2.4C will have a nice, long life.
5. Don't get an Athlon OEM PC--let someone you know or a local shop make one. while I've seen and worked on many that are 2 and 3 years old and still running, HP/Compaq never cease to amaze me at how cheap they can get. Dell might still be cheap, but not as bad as HP/Compaq, and always have much better designs, using plastic instead of steel, where HP has a fully steel case that can't have been as cheap as Dell's cases, but sacrifices capacitors everywhere.
Bottom line: Athlons don't suck, Celerons do, and a P4 OEM PC is your best bet, especially if you can find one with HyperThreading in your price range.
2. P4 celerons suck. Period. Athlons, up to about the 2800+, tend to be just a bit faster than P4s...but the 800MHz P4 'C' ruined that PR scheme (Athlons still have an edge in office apps, but if you notice a 10% performance gain in Outlook, you're way too picky). The P4s are still more expensive, a but a 'C' in a dual-channel DDR motherboard will beat most XPs for memory-intensive tasks, such as games and working with video, file compression, virus scanning, etc.
3. Unfortunately AMD chipsets are hard to find, and their last for the Socket A isn't a good performer now. VIA's are currently good, but not great. Given the prices, I wouldn't bother, given how I've had amazing luck w/ SiS.
NVidia's NForce2 is mostly ironed out and is as good as it gets for performance, but I don't know as I'd trust a server with it.
SiS' 746 (and 746FX and 748) is really about as good as it gets. Not quite NForce2 performance, but within single-digit %s, and I've yet to have one with any strange issues (like VIA is so known for) that newer chipsets don't (even Intel's are having issues with memory now).The ECS L7S7A2, while amazingly cheap, is an excellent, if no-frills, board, and combined with a ~2GHz Athlon, you'd be hard-pressed to beat the value. As long as you get a decent power supply (Fortron 300w only $32 shipped, not a big deal), any SiS-based board will be happy.
4. If you're used to an Intel or want a prebuilt PC, get a real P4. Even a 400MHz FSB 2GHz will blow away any Celeron, and a 800MHz FSB 2.4C will have a nice, long life.
5. Don't get an Athlon OEM PC--let someone you know or a local shop make one. while I've seen and worked on many that are 2 and 3 years old and still running, HP/Compaq never cease to amaze me at how cheap they can get. Dell might still be cheap, but not as bad as HP/Compaq, and always have much better designs, using plastic instead of steel, where HP has a fully steel case that can't have been as cheap as Dell's cases, but sacrifices capacitors everywhere.
Bottom line: Athlons don't suck, Celerons do, and a P4 OEM PC is your best bet, especially if you can find one with HyperThreading in your price range.
Last edited:
Arc
First Post
A fairly good breakdown of available processors/chipsets: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20031223/index.html
Similar Threads
