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.

Photo

Processor Brands


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Ataryu

Ataryu

  • Members
  • 93 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Location:Texas
  • Local time:03:50 PM

Posted 25 June 2004 - 12:24 AM

Ive heard alot of opinions about different brand of processors saying one is better than the other. But I was wondering if the brand really did matter, when it comes to performance that is. I mean, quality possibly, but what is the big deal about different brands?

I have a Celeron that runs at 2.5GHz and alot of people have told me thats it is a piece of CRAP and that I should invest into buying a new processor. If I went out and bought a new processor would it actually alter the performance at all? I mean, what would be the difference between a Celeron and an AMD that both ran at that same speed??

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 QuaGon

QuaGon

  • Members
  • 39 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:03:50 PM

Posted 11 July 2004 - 10:55 AM

i think there just nitpicking, obviously there is differences in hardware but probably talking milliseconds, not worth investing for such a small improvement if ur a general PC user

#3 Grinler

Grinler

    Lawrence Abrams


  • Admin
  • 43,504 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Local time:04:50 PM

Posted 11 July 2004 - 05:20 PM

There are some significant differences between a pentium 4 and a celeron chip. They are outlined below:

[list]

[*] The celeron chips have less cache memory than a pentium 4. They can have as much as 4-5 times less cache. This can have a big effect on the performance of the cpu.

[*] Clock and Bus speeds are significantly higher on a pentium 4 compared to a celeron.


Both of these characteristics can affect performance on your computer. If you do not see an issue then I would not bother upgrading, but if you were going to upgrade, I would definitely tell you to avoid a celeron and go with a regular pentium.

#4 newwavecomputers

newwavecomputers

  • Members
  • 8 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:03:50 PM

Posted 15 July 2004 - 10:05 PM

It could be that your friend remembers the Celeron of old. They are very good quality now. Upgrading up is always an option but because of a brand? I don't think that is necessary.

#5 Guest_brunt_*

Guest_brunt_*

  • Guests
  • OFFLINE
  •  

Posted 25 July 2004 - 08:40 PM

An Amd and A celeron.. the difference would be the amd would whooop a celeron. But As mention from grinler there is alot less cache on a celeron and much lower front side bus's. And the cache is not on the die of the chip. It all depends what your going to do with your computer. AMD are good as long as you get a 64 bit. Intel are good but a little more priceier and also hav a 64 bit in them but not activated(prescott's) Intel is waiting to activate them for what reason I do not know. There will be some type of download to open the 64 bit option up! I have use both for years and In my opinion the new p4's are very much worth the extra money. They last forever. But in the other hand the AMD FX53 is a very fast cpu. But also 900.00!!! Good luck on choosing. If your a casual gamer or just tinker with your pc a little here and there that celeron you have in there now is good for now!

#6 DaveJoBot

DaveJoBot

  • Members
  • 39 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  

Posted 08 December 2016 - 09:43 PM

the best way i know is the core 2 duo from intel it has 2 cores, one for windows and the other for random crap 

 

really should go for it you can get it cheap on ebay here=http://www.ebay.com/itm/Intel-Core-2-Duo-E7200-2-53GHz-3MB-1066MHz-SLAPC-LGA775-CPU-Desktop-Processor-/401185807532?hash=item5d68899cac:g:05YAAOSwGtRX0zch



#7 Platypus

Platypus

  • Moderator
  • 13,995 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Local time:02:50 PM

Posted 09 December 2016 - 01:08 AM

DaveJoBot, did you notice you're replying to a topic from 12 years ago?

 

And, incidentally, having two cores doesn't really mean one for Windows and one for other stuff, it doesn't quite work like that. :)


Top 5 things that never get done:

1.


#8 mjd420nova

mjd420nova

  • Members
  • 1,714 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:06:50 AM

Posted 09 December 2016 - 12:55 PM

The determining factor for me is the OS structure.  That's to say, how well did the programmer understand the process calls and construct the OS to take maximum advantage.  This gives faster operation but does not always fit within the quicker routines for gaming.  BIOS has the final say as some parameters can be set to take advantage of certain operations used in specific software programs like image and video rendering. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users