Jump to content


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.

Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.


Processor Help

  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 cpotter


  • Members
  • 148 posts
  • Local time:03:01 PM

Posted 11 October 2004 - 03:55 AM

I'm an intermediate skilled computer user. Used to be advanced, but have not been able to keep up with technology due to work demands. Would love to build my own computer, but at this point in time don't have the time or finances to build at this time. So, I've resorted to buying a pre-configured desktop.

Currently have an IBM desktop. Have had it for 3 years and multiple problems. Will never buy ANYTHING IBM again. Have pretty much decided to buy Compaq this time as I've luck with them in the past and they have decent customer support.

My main question is regarding processors. The Compaq I'm looking at has hardware as listed below and comes with a 17" CRT for $500. Would love an LCD, but currently deals demand you get a CRT. The CRT is basically thrown in for free.

Intel Celeron 340 2.93GHz (socket mPGA478)
533 MHz Front side Bus
512 MB Ram PC2700 MB/sec DDR1-333 SDRAM

For a little less money, I can go with a different Compaq with the follownig specs:
AMD Sempron 2800+ at 2.0 GHz
Advanced 333 MHz Front side bus
256 MB of identical RAM

As far as use, I use it for standard word processing/internet browsing. Also look at computed tomography images from my house which tie up a lot of RAM. The IBM that no longer exists was running at 1GHz and I had 384 MB Ram. This suited my needs, but with big image files, more memory would have helped. I do not do any high end gaming.

My basic question revolves around processors. I'm more familiar with Intel Pentium processors. I'm guessing that the Celeron is decent, but not as good as the Pentium. And I know nothing of the AMD Sempron. Are there any sites that compare processors? And of the above two, I'm guessing the first is a better option given the higher processor speed and front side bus. But I'm guessing you just cannot compare the two processor speeds of 2.93 and 2.00 and compare them. Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Chad

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)


#2 Grinler


    Lawrence Abrams

  • Admin
  • 43,718 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Local time:03:01 PM

Posted 11 October 2004 - 08:09 AM

You may want to take a look at these urls:

Celeron and Pentium 4 comparison

Sempron vs Celeron Comparison

If you can get the sempron with 512 megs of ram I think you mayt be better off.

#3 tg1911


    Lord Spam Magnet

  • Members
  • 19,274 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SW Louisiana
  • Local time:02:01 PM

Posted 11 October 2004 - 09:35 AM

This is a post from a well respected member of another board. I think he explains the difference between the Celeron, and the P4, pretty thoroughly.

Petecovell (01/27/2004)
Celeron VS Pentium4
"The big difference between the Premium chip (Pentium) and its bargain cousin (Celeron) is the
amount of on the chip memory (Cache).
There are two types L1. or instruction sets (tells the processor what to do with the data it
recieves). and L2 memory cache (retains data which has just been worked on and will be
processed more, or data "prefetched" in anticipation of its being next to be worked on).

For example , the L2 cache on a P4 is 512KB (later versions now have 1MB) while the celeron
has only 128KB. Similar ratios apply to the instruction set memory.
Also there is a component called Prefetch, or prediction architecture, where the processor
looks at the data it is working on, and guesses what data it will need next, and fetches it to
L2 cache.
This cache works at the same speed as the processor, as opposed to the speed of the RAM. SO
the processor can swap things in and out of it , basically as fast as it works.

The end result is that the P4 is going to be more efficient. It will not have to stop working,
and wait for new data to be sent to it as often, as a celeron will. SO on many intense tasks
(photoshop, games), a celeron might just sit there over half the time because it guessed wrong,
or has finished with all the data it has, and needs to wait for more to get sent from RAM.
Meanwhile a P4 would still be plugging away at the next set of data.

Additionally there is hyperthreading in newer P4, this allows them to work on multiple
independent tasks simultaneously, if the data in one task is not enough to use the entire
processing capacity .

So, if you can afford the premium, it is a better processor, if you actually need the
processor to do something.

Basics, like email and surf the web, you will notice no difference.
Intense things like editing graphics, or gaming, you will see a big difference."

Just a little extra info.
MOBO: GIGABYTE GA-MA790X-UD4P, CPU: Phenom II X4 955 Deneb BE, HS/F: CoolerMaster V8, RAM: 2 x 1G Kingston HyperX DDR2 800, VGA: ECS GeForce Black GTX 560, PSU: Antec TruePower Modular 750W, Soundcard: Asus Xonar D1, Case: CoolerMaster COSMOS 1000, Storage: Internal - 2 x Seagate 250GB SATA, 2 x WD 1TB SATA; External - Seagate 500GB USB, WD 640GB eSATA, 3 x WD 1TB eSATA

Become a BleepingComputer fan: Facebook

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users