Need Opinion

[-Genesis-]

I am thinking of buying a new 2nd pc for my home. It has an intel Celeron 2000Mhz processor but what worries me is that its a Celeron and not a P4. Is there a performace diffrence or are Celerons ok.

[CornerPocket]

The real questions is what is it going to be used for, gaming, editting, heavy application use or just plain daily use. Also what other devices are part of it?





I always thought the celerons were good overclockers, but that's beside your question. B)

[adamp2p]

Definately shine Celeron. If you are short on cash, you should go the AMD route.

Corner Pocket is right that it depends on what you are using your computer for, but I would STRONGLY avoid going the Celeron route altogether.

For your information, the reasons why Celerons SUCK is the fact that they have so little on die cache. Basically, the larger the on chip cache, the less the CPU has to go to memory to fetch data. On die cache memory is the fastest, L2 slighly slower than L1. The Celeron chip only has 128 kilobytes of level 2 cache, whereas AMD's Barton line has 128 kb of level 1 cache and 512 kb of level two cache. The Pentium 4 Northwood line has 512 kb L2 cache.

You can get a AMD chip that is MUCH better than a celeron processor for the same price as a crappy Celeron. You should ask Lamsey for advice on this, though. You could also Check out dell's refurbished website for deals too.

Cheers. B)

[lynx]

The cache in a P4 is designed so they can switch faulty bits off. They build it with more than they actually need and switch the least reliable off to give stable cache. If there isn't enough stable cache, they switch even more off (and some other bits too I think) and call it a Celeron.

Amd do the same, to make the Duron processor.

So a Celeron is a P4 with lots of faulty bits.
And a Duron is an Athlon with lots of faulty bits.

Avoid both.