What is the difference between a Pentium and a Celeron processor?

[chip]

Here are the most important similarities and differences between the Pentium 4 and the Celeron chips coming out today:

• Core - The Celeron chip is based on a Pentium 4 core.
• Cache - Celeron chips have less cache memory than Pentium 4 chips do. A Celeron might have 128 kilobytes of L2 cache, while a Pentium 4 can have four times that. The amount of L2 cache memory can have a big effect on performance.
• Clock speed - Intel manufactures the Pentium 4 chips to run at a higher clock speed than Celeron chips. The fastest Pentium 4 might be 60 percent faster than the fastest Celeron.
• Bus speed - There are differences in the maximum bus speeds that the processors allow. Pentium 4s tend to be about 30 percent faster than Celerons.

When you sort all this out and compare the two chips side by side, it turns out that a Celeron and a Pentium 4 chip running at the same speed are different beasts. The smaller L2 cache size and slower bus speeds can mean serious performance differences depending on what you want to do with your computer. If all you do is check e-mail and browse the Web, the Celeron is fine, and the price difference can save you a lot of money. If you want the fastest machine you can buy, then you need to go with the Pentium 4 to get the highest clock speeds and the fastest system bus.

 

[Kulendra]

And some info I got while on an industrial visit:

Celeron and Pentium chips are not exactly manufactured as two different products. If u take the physical circuits of the two, they are exactly the same except that in celeron, some parts are not functional. How this happens is during manufacture, each chip is tested for performance (and yes u heard it right, its each chip, not one chip in a sample stock) and the chips that fail the Pentium benchmark , but still functional to a considerable level are rebranded as Celeron.

Well some might feel that its sort of a cheating. But the thing is tht there is nothing wrong with the chips if they r run at the specs they are supposed to run. I was also told that celeron chips are more prone to malfunction during overclocking, although this is highly possible, I havent personally checked this. Anyone having more info?

 

[Anusha]

Isn't that how they make all the stuff? Good example is video cards. The huge differences of performance is a result of disabling the # of functional pipelines, limiting the memory bus width etc. The clock speeds also are changed, but they don't contribute much to the HUGE performance differences.

Why they do this is because it's easier (less costly) to make only a limited number of PCBs. Same with CPUs, but they need to do some tweaking after a certain clock speed, to go for higher clocks.

I didn't know that they check each CPU. I know that when it comes to motherboards, they power the motherboards (each of them) up and check the voltages at certain predetermined test points to see it the voltages are within the allowable range (the margin of error better be very small ). They never test if the board is working or not, other than that basic electronics.

 

[chip]

thanx addin few more imp info..dude

 

[Kulendra]

I didn't know that they check each CPU. I know that when it comes to motherboards, they power the motherboards (each of them) up and check the voltages at certain predetermined test points to see it the voltages are within the allowable range (the margin of error better be very small ). They never test if the board is working or not, other than that basic electronics.

Well yeah I guess its the same for the CPUs. What i meant by each CPU is t that things such as cache are done a read/write test the ALU's and CUs. Im not sure how they are tested exactly. But I know thats how teh rebranding goes

 

[nEoN_wHitE]

so can any one explain whats da difference between Pentium and AMD processor?

 

[Anusha]

Pentium 4:
Speeds: 1.2GHz - 3.8Ghz for single core, 2.66Ghz - 3.4GHz for dual core
Cache: 256kB (earliest versions) to 2MB L2 cache
FSB: 100MHz x 4 to 200MHz x 4 (or 266MHz x 4 for Pentium Extreme Edition)
Supported multimedia instructions: MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3
32-bit CPUs in general, 64-bit available more recently. 6xx,8xx,9xx and 5x1 are 64-bit

Athlon64:
Speeds: 1.6GHz - 3Ghz for single core, 2Ghz - 2.8GHz for dual core
Cache: 512kB to 2MB L2 cache (2MB = 2x1MB for X2)
FSB: 200MHz (1GHz HTT)
Supported multimedia instructions: MMX, AMD-MMX, 3D Now!, Extended 3D! Now SSE, SSE2, SSE3

You can't compare those two architectures with only those specifications. Usually Athlon64 can perform more IPC (instructions per clock). This is why usually a 2GHz Athlon64 performs almost as a 3GHz P4. With the above information alone, you can't say which one is better. These are good only for knowledge.

Anyway, Pentium4 is better than A64 when it comes to video encoding and stuff, but with the release of X2 processor, AMD overhauled Intel in all the areas. Ahtlon64 is (was) the most popular CPU among gamers.

AMD Sempron64 is a cut down version of Athlon64, which has lower cache (256kB) and which are not (yet) available as dual core. Still, an A64 and S64 perform very close to each other when the clock speeds are identical. I'd say, within 5% performance delta. Another thing is that Sempron64 is not available in high clock speeds. Mostly 2GHz range, but they boast a very good bang for the buck.

After the recent announcement of Intel Core2Duo processors, the prices of P-D fell by a huge margin. There are dual core CPU's available for less than US$100 (I don't know if that's true in Sri Lanka). Since AMD can't keep up with the Core2Duo either, they had to reduce the prices too. A 2GHz X2 3800+ retail for around US$150 (from 300+ couple of months ago). Both have become affordable to normal PC buyers.

However, Pentium 4, D, EE CPUs are power hungry monsters. If you are a electricity-bill concious person, and leave the computer ON for a considerable period of time in a day, maybe you should avoid those CPUs. AMD's X2 at maximum load performs cooler and consumes less power than Pentium D CPUs at idle state. That's a big advantage AMD have (had) over Intel. And mind you, AMD are still on 90nm process technology and Intel are in 65nm. Lower value suggests more advanced technology and they should be able to produce CPUs that consume a lot less power than that of higher value. This point makes AMD's attempts really admirable.

 

[nEoN_wHitE]

ohhh ic thanx anusha

 

[deffa]

basicallly celeron is cheaper, and doesnt support sum programs

pentiums is bert dan celeron

bill gates ge trix thama

 

[zerocool]

Pentium 4:
Speeds: 1.2GHz - 3.8Ghz for single core, 2.66Ghz - 3.4GHz for dual core
Cache: 256kB (earliest versions) to 2MB L2 cache
FSB: 100MHz x 4 to 200MHz x 4 (or 266MHz x 4 for Pentium Extreme Edition)
Supported multimedia instructions: MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3
32-bit CPUs in general, 64-bit available more recently. 6xx,8xx,9xx and 5x1 are 64-bit

Athlon64:
Speeds: 1.6GHz - 3Ghz for single core, 2Ghz - 2.8GHz for dual core
Cache: 512kB to 2MB L2 cache (2MB = 2x1MB for X2)
FSB: 200MHz (1GHz HTT)
Supported multimedia instructions: MMX, AMD-MMX, 3D Now!, Extended 3D! Now SSE, SSE2, SSE3

I cant understand why r u comparing these two. Why cant you compare the intel one with 1.2Ghz AMD processor?

* this is just my opinion so dont get offended

I have seen many post which states that AMD is better than Intel in most of the benchmarks. But personally i dont like AMD @ all.
A friend of mine running an internet cafe and he has both AMD and Intel machines (2GHz and up). We play lan games there till morning on weekends and AMD machine get stuck most of the times (note that all the pcs running with 256 MB DDR). Also so far several AMD processors were burned and non of the intel processors had any problem. This is my 4th intel pc and im very happy to say that i have never got any problem with any of my processors.

For those who wanted to buy Intel (no matter how much they cost) just go for it you wont regret it.

 

[Kulendra]

I cant understand why r u comparing these two. Why cant you compare the intel one with 1.2Ghz AMD processor? ....:

I think he was just mentioning the configurations available in the market.

I have not had any personal experience with AMD, had one pentium and now using a celeron. THere was this big rumour about AMD heating up right? Is it really true? does it really heat up that much? can some one who had experience on both the chips put some thoughts?

 

[zerocool]

I think he was just mentioning the configurations available in the market.

I have not had any personal experience with AMD, had one pentium and now using a celeron. THere was this big rumour about AMD heating up right? Is it really true? does it really heat up that much? can some one who had experience on both the chips put some thoughts?

Im not sure but as far as i know AMD is heating up a lot faster than Intel. That's why AMD processors got stuck in my friends cafe. I have seen some posts saying that AMD is not suitable for some of the countries. Also i saw that AMD in asian market are not good and best ones are working fine in other countries like america.

 

[ibba]

Processor speed *alone* has no meaning

Hi dudes,

This may be a late note, but thought of giving some insight in to the original discussion.
Yes, Celeron is slower than the pentium. But for the "peformance" you see, its not the only contributor. For something to see as performant, your processor, memory, mother board and its bus speed, hard disk, etc as a set should be fast. Even if you have a 3.8GHz processor with a slow RAM, your PC might not perform as much as you like.
Again, this performance depends on the type of operation or the application you are running.
Remember, I don't think 95% of the PC users use at least 10% of the power of a PC. I strongly discourage when they try to buy the best available computer in the market.
My recommendation is to get a reasonably speed celeron processor (if you are not doing Autocad), get 512 DDR RAM, 7200 rpm Hard disk and a mother board which has at least 333 or 400 FSB (Front side bus speed - this is the rate at which the mother board can support data transfers among devices) and mother board compatible with Chips (mother board with intel chipset for Intel processors. Remember intel chipset only. Intel m/board is costly. Gigabyte m/board with an intel chipset would be fine. For AMD processors buy MSI motherboards.).

If you are not doing high end things, buy a Celeron or an AMD and invest on RAM or any other thing mentioned above to improve the performance.

 

[ibba]

Im not sure but as far as i know AMD is heating up a lot faster than Intel. That's why AMD processors got stuck in my friends cafe. I have seen some posts saying that AMD is not suitable for some of the countries. Also i saw that AMD in asian market are not good and best ones are working fine in other countries like america.

Yes AMD emits considerable amount of heat, but its just a matter of putting one or two more fans. Just that. Two fans will cost you, at most 800-1000 rupees but the saving in buying an AMD over a pentium is about 5000-6000. Use that to buy a better memory.
About AMD in asian marker not good: Yes it can be like that as they may be "dumping" low quality stuff here. But from the information I have, all the chips, irrespective of whether sold in US, Europe, Sri Lanka or any other country, are manufactured in China, Taiwan or in some low cost country. So all the chips are the same, but processor manufacturers might dump low quality stuff once in a while.

Do not worry, still you can buy from Unity. But make sure you have good warranty.

 

[Anusha]

I didn't compare Intel 1.2GHz with AMD 1.2GHz because both are very old. I had to put 1.2GHz because there is a Pentum4. I should have spoken specifically about Intel Pentium Prescott and up because they and A64 belong to the same era.

Anyway, going with AMD or Intel...it's your personal choice. If someone's PC is having problems such as random freezes, it's his problem mainly. Not the processor's. Maybe the heatsink is loose (not tightly mounted), maybe the ari inside the casing is being blocked and the cool air can't move freely inside the case, maybe it's not the processor - bad RAM can easily do those things. To tell the truth, I have never seen and AMD or Intel CPU being burned since I first had a computer in 1997. On the other hand, I have seen every other possible component getting burnt or malfunctioning. It's really amazing that CPU is supposed to be the hottest thing inside the chasis (except for maybe modern GPU's which easily get to 90C or more) and still doing really well. So I never check the CPU when it comes to PC malfunction. However, this also had a negative effect on me. Recently my PC also faced with rnadom restarts (I mean, BSODs) and I checked every possible thing except the CPU. They all turned out to be working fine. But I still got the errors. I later found out the problem was with the heatsink. It would losen a bit if the chasis is moved and after that I would get the BSODs. I fixed it tightly and I haven't got an error ever since.

Currently, Intel have the best CPUs: Conroe. However, they are ridiculously overpriced. Some are selling the sub $300 E6600 for arund $500, because the demand is very high compared to the low supply. So there are still a lot of people who buy A64 X2 systems. In fact, AMD had the best sales last month I think.

Still, people who buy new computers (who move from low end dual core systems to high end dual core systems) are saying that they aren't noticing any real world difference between the new Conroe system and the old AMD System. This is not on specific applications, like encoding etc. For general usage, the biggest bottleneck is the hard drive. So a person with an old CPU and a 10000RPM Raptor is enjoying his computer more than a person having a Conroe E6700 and a normal 7200RPM HDDs.