Celeron / Pentium debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mountainmirrors
  • Start date Start date
M

Mountainmirrors

kaleidoscopic renegade
I'm about to upgrade to a new system.
I heard somewhere that the Celeron processor is not as good as a Pentium for recording, as it's not as "mathematically efficient".
Is this true, or do some of you use the Celeron with good results?

Thanks!
 
Of course I'm not in a position to do an A/B test against a Pentium, but here's my setup:

eMachine T2245 with a 2.2GHz Celeron, WinXPhe, Cakewalk 9, Aark24. I just upgraded from 256MB to 768MB and haven't yet had a chance to see if the "disk full" errors go away when I dump 4-track tape into Cakewalk. Other than that I have no complaints.
 
Always get the pentium for audio. That's not to say the celeron won't work but the lack of a maths coprocessor will slow it up during computational intensive processing. A hyperthreading pentium will see you right for a couple of years
 
Pentium, and most recently, AMD processors are considered the standard for doing any sort of audio work on a PC. To get the maximum performance from your audio application, you need to
be running a processor with a 800 MHz rating or higher spec. Processors like Intel Celerons are fine for basic computing chores, but are not well suited for audio and should be avoided.

;)
Jaymz
 
How about the Athlon processor?
Any input?
 
Athlon is fine.

The main thing is to ensure your motherboard performs and does audio well. The VIA chipset has had issues in audio applications in the past. If you go with an ASUS motherboard, you can't go too far wrong
 
Bulls Hit said:
Always get the pentium for audio. That's not to say the celeron won't work but the lack of a maths coprocessor will slow it up during computational intensive processing. A hyperthreading pentium will see you right for a couple of years
Click to expand...

Where on earth does this misconception come from? The only possible reason I can think of is that the 486SX lacked the 486DX's math corprocessor, and somehow there is a continued belief that all "value" processors from Intel are FPU-less.

Celerons (all versions, both PII/PIII-core based and P4-core based) have math-coprocessors.

What it lacks is the amount of 2nd-level cache that the regular Pentium 4 has. The Celeron has 128K where the (Northwood-core) P4 has 512K.

As for its use with audio, I second (or third, fourth, fifth, whatever) the recommendation to go with an Athlon. I've got a Barton-core 2500+ overclocked to 3200+ speeds and it does very well (I run Sonar 3 PE).
 
Here's an idea:

Go with an Athlon!

These are my favorite for recording because they are much more stable than any Intel processor. Even though the clock speeds are slower than some Pentiums, they are much more stable and you'll have "dropouts" much less.
 
James Argo said:
Celeron = Pentium - MMX...
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. The Celeron is not missing any instruction set that the P4 supports (let alone one as old as MMX).

Besides the cache difference, the only other difference is that even the fastest Celerons are limited to a 400MHz FSB.
 
virgoanmethod said:
Here's an idea:

Go with an Athlon!

These are my favorite for recording because they are much more stable than any Intel processor. Even though the clock speeds are slower than some Pentiums, they are much more stable and you'll have "dropouts" much less.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I have an Athlon 2.4 and it works beutiful!
 
Marquis said:
Besides the cache difference, the only other difference is that even the fastest Celerons are limited to a 400MHz FSB.
Click to expand...
You mean this is the only thechnical difference perhaps... :D


There is no question really: If you can afford a Pentium then, get one. If you only can afford a Celeron, get an Athlon... ;)
 
moskus said:
You mean this is the only thechnical difference perhaps... :D


There is no question really: If you can afford a Pentium then, get one. If you only can afford a Celeron, get an Athlon... ;)
Click to expand...

Oh, absolutely. I would never wish a Celeron upon anybody but my enemies... :-P

The technical differences do add up to mean a big performance hit compared to the P4. And yes, if you have a Celeron budget by all means buy an Athlon instead.
 
moskus said:
If you can afford a Pentium then, get one. If you only can afford a Celeron, get an Athlon... ;)
Click to expand...

I don't think like that. My opinion is: the cost/benefit you get with Athlon is better than with Pentium. Celeron is out of game at all, no arguments here, but AMD chips are as good as Intel. I don't see any reasons or real benefits you get by buying Intel instead of AMD. It's just more expensive. Just remember to get an extra cooler for Athlon. ;)

PS: Shouldn't this thread be on Computer Recording and Soundcards forum? :confused:
 
BloodShark said:
I don't think like that. My opinion is: the cost/benefit you get with Athlon is better than with Pentium. Celeron is out of game at all, no arguments here, but AMD chips are as good as Intel.
Click to expand...
One word: Hyperthreading. ;)
 
What problems are associated with using a Celeron for audio work? Or is this just a theoretical discussion?
 
EddieRay said:
What problems are associated with using a Celeron for audio work? Or is this just a theoretical discussion?
Click to expand...
It's not just a theoretical discussion.

Celeron sucks for audio work because they are much slower than a Athlon or Pentium.
 
moskus said:
It's not just a theoretical discussion.

Celeron sucks for audio work because they are much slower than a Athlon or Pentium.
Click to expand...

I'm just wondering if, as a Celeron user, what I'm missing out on is actual or theoretical. At this point I don't really think I need to put a better chip on my must-have list.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top