Differences between Pentium and Celron CPU's?

[mojo1701]

Unless I've missed some major upgrades in integrated graphics and notebook chipsets (possible; I'm a long way from an expert on the notebook market), any dedicated video solution is probably better than any integrated video solution (which will use 'shared' memory). Also worth noting is that more video memory has diminishing returns (going from 32MB to 64MB will help far more than going from 64MB to 128MB, or 128MB to 256MB), and the video chipset often matters more than the amount of video memory.

So, what I'm getting is even 32 mb dedicated is better than 128 mb shared?

 

[drothgery]

So, what I'm getting is even 32 mb dedicated is better than 128 mb shared?

Probably. But it's worth noting that the notebook with 128mb of shared video memory probably has a somewhat better components in other areas (faster CPU, more memory, higher quality display, larger and/or faster hard drive, etc.); it's probably a low-end (or at least non-gamer-oriented) notebook with a new design, rather than something designed as a midrange or high-end notebook a few years ago.

 

[Castellan]

My Mom wants to get a laptop with a Cerlron CPU. I had heard that Celron are not good for gaming. Whats the difference between that and Pentium?

I recently built a new computer, and though it has a motherboard that can support the latest Pentium 4 processors, I chose to save money and get a Celeron 2.4 GHz processor. I've been unemployed for over a year, and I bought a good enough motherboard that I hae a clear upgrade path when prices come down and I find work.

Prior to this computer, I had avoided all the latest games, because my older system just couldn't handle them. But this one is great. I'm running Neverwinter Nights, Doom 3, Dungeon Siege, and several others at impressive speeds considering the CPU. I have a decent upper-middle grade video card, and gameplay is wonerful.

I won't argue that it would be better with a P4, but the Celeron isn't nearly as bad as a lot of people indicate.

The big problem you're going to run into is that a laptop is not a good gaming platform unless you spend a lot of money. A sub $1000 notebook is likely not going to be very good on multiple levels. It's a great investment for office applications or PCGen, etc. But it won't cut it for the latest games.

It migt be worthwhile to re-examine whether a laptop is what you really need. If it's being taken everywhere, then you probably need it, but if not (i.e. you're working in the living room, the den, the bedroom) the you might do better spending the same amount of money on a desktop system that you can upgrade as time goes by...

Good luck!

 

[Krieg]

I won't argue that it would be better with a P4, but the Celeron isn't nearly as bad as a lot of people indicate.

The current Celeron's just aren't the price/performance bargain that their PIII predessors were.

You can get a 2.8ghz Celeron for just under $100 right now while at the same time a 2.4ghz P4 (Prescott core) can be had for around $120.

The Prescott's 1M cache (128k for the Celeron) and 533Mhz front side bus (Celeron = 400Mhz FSB) are far more important for real world performance than the Celeron's 400Mhz clock advantage.

Is the difference enough to be worth an extra $20?

IMO more than enough.

However in the end that is still a 20% premium, which isn't the best choice for everyone.

The big problem you're going to run into is that a laptop is not a good gaming platform unless you spend a lot of money. A sub $1000 notebook is likely not going to be very good on multiple levels. It's a great investment for office applications or PCGen, etc. But it won't cut it for the latest games.

It migt be worthwhile to re-examine whether a laptop is what you really need. If it's being taken everywhere, then you probably need it, but if not (i.e. you're working in the living room, the den, the bedroom) the you might do better spending the same amount of money on a desktop system that you can upgrade as time goes by...

Well said.

One alternative to look at is the various small form factor boxes that are now popping up all over the place. Shuttle being one of the original pioneers...

 

[drothgery]

The current Celeron's just aren't the price/performance bargain that their PIII predessors were.

You can get a 2.8ghz Celeron for just under $100 right now while at the same time a 2.4ghz P4 (Prescott core) can be had for around $120.

The Prescott's 1M cache (128k for the Celeron) and 533Mhz front side bus (Celeron = 400Mhz FSB) are far more important for real world performance than the Celeron's 400Mhz clock advantage.

Though if you want to be nitpicky, the current Celerons are Celeron Ds, which are much better price/performance CPUs than Northwood-based Celerons (because they've got the same list price as the equivalently-clocked Northwood Celerons, but are much faster).

Intel's not going for straightforward CPU lines these days; their current 2.8 GHz desktop chips are

• Celeron 2.8 GHz (Northwood/128K cache/400 MHz FSB)
• Celeron D 335 @2.8 GHz (Prescott/256K cache/533 MHz FSB)
• Pentium 4 2.8A GHz (Prescott/1MB cache/533 MHz FSB)
• Pentium 4 2.8B GHz (Northwood/512K cache/533 MHz FSB)
• Pentium 4 2.8C GHz (Northwood/512K cache/800 MHz FSB/Hyperthreading-enabled)
• Pentium 4 2.8E GHz (Prescott/1MB cache/800 MHz FSB/Hyperthreading-enabled)
• Pentium 4 520 @2.8 GHz (Prescott/1MB cache/800 MHz FSB/Hyperthreading-enabled/socket 775)

To make this even more confusing, the Pentium 4 2.8 E and the Pentium 4 520 are the same CPU with a different socket; these two and the Pentium 4 2.8C perform essentially the same. The Pentium 4 2.8A and 2.8B perform essentially the same (slightly slower than the C, E, & 520). The Celeron D is a drop-off from the Pentium 4 A & B. And the no-suffix Celeron is downright pokey (relatively speaking; it's still faster than any Pentium III, and so more than fast enough for a lot of stuff); a 2 GHz Pentium 4 will outclass it in most tasks.