celeron vs. pentium vs amd

  • Thread starter Thread starter gwayms
  • Start date Start date
G

gwayms

New member
Can anyone give me help on this. I dont know which type to buy, the Celeron is very cheap but I dont know much about them.
Any information would be helpful.
 
Don't ever buy a Celeron. Ever.

Amd 64 bit PC's are pretty good, but they are underclocked, and the chips are geared toward gaming calculations.
I prefer the Pentium IV - 3.4 ghz to even the brand new AMD 64's

I used to have an Amd 2800+, and it clocked slower than my Pentium 4 - 2.1 ghz

If you are looking for a top-of-the-line PC, that won't be obsolete for a long, long time, and trying to get it for an awesome price,

Click Here!
 
I've used celerons without problem!Do a search,gwayms to get more detailed info!
 
yeah I used a celeron in my last comp.....granted i messed it up by not cleaning the dust from the heatsink so that was my fault it died but celeron did the job. i ran no more than 22 tracks with a 1.7 ghz celeron and 512 mb of pc133 memory...but like i said it did its job....i didnt run a whole bunch of hoopla on it with plugins and midi and all..i just used flstudio for drums and the guitar and bass were recorded through the ap 24/96. something else you might want to notice and disregard are extreme "anti" comments from people like what gkirksooner said "dont ever buy a celeron. ever". thats a bunch of crap. i home recorded 2 acoustic cds with a celeron and did over half of my newest project with a celeron. its not the greatest but when all i had was $150 for an upgrade, it was satisfying.
 
i'd say go with the 64 if you have the money. AMD does underclock their stuff and they currently run slower than the Pentiums. However, it's nothing you would really notice. Gamers always brag about how fast their processors go, while audio guys brag how stable their processor is. AMDs are stable processors that process more efficiently than the Pentiums do, and that's what matters in the audio world. The 64s FSB speed is incredible too, killing what Pentium's give you.
I use an Athlon XP 3000, and it works like a charm
 
Last edited:
oh boy what a bunch of misinformation in this thread....
gwayms - there is a simple processor test you can do.
take a wave file track. hilite whole track then process reverb on the whole track. do it on a celeron, a p4, an amd sempron, and an amd athlon, and finally a 64. log elapsed time on each. youll learn a whole bunch in the process....also record on each architecture - track after track.
and note how many tracks on each system before "stuttering" occurs.
 
gkirksooner said:
Don't ever buy a Celeron. Ever.

Amd 64 bit PC's are pretty good, but they are underclocked, and the chips are geared toward gaming calculations.
I prefer the Pentium IV - 3.4 ghz to even the brand new AMD 64's

I used to have an Amd 2800+, and it clocked slower than my Pentium 4 - 2.1 ghz

If you are looking for a top-of-the-line PC, that won't be obsolete for a long, long time, and trying to get it for an awesome price,

Click Here!
Click to expand...

A couple things: 5 minutes internet research gets you a long way. First of all, not all Celerons were/are bad. The old Celerons based on PIII's in the 1Ghz to 1.33Ghz range were quite good; my Gateway laptop is running a 1.33, and performs better than any P4 (not P4-based Celeron, but a P4) up to 1.8Ghz. The early p4's sucked, because they had a longer pipeline, but not much more speed.

The new Celeron D's come with 512KB L2 cache, and overclock like a mofo. Good bang for the buck, if Intel's your deal. The new Celeron M chips come with 512KB L2 cache or 1MB, depending on the model, and also rated quite nicely.

Now in comparison to the machine you listed: I could build an overclocked FX55 Athlon with quieter power supply, better case, and more HD space for less money and it would hand that PC's ass to it on a Chinette plate. :D

I love how people look at clock speed and think that that is the whole story. Yup, AMDs are clocked slower. Because they have a shorter pipeline than P4s, and don't need to go as fast per clock cycle to process the same amount of information.

P4s get more inefficient with every chip revision, with the Prescotts being the worst offender, and also the hottest running P4 ever, requiring the most power.

No wonder Intel dropped further development of the Netburst architecture. Apparently people want PCs that don't require 500 watt power supplies and sound like they're now boarding passengers for a flight.
 
Thanks for all the information, I will do some reasearch. The computer will be used mainly for recording (one track at a time ex. guitar, keyboard for drums, and vocals) Autocad and general internet.
If a celeron will work just as good, I would definitly go with that.
Again thanks for the info.
 
gwayms said:
Thanks for all the information, I will do some reasearch. The computer will be used mainly for recording (one track at a time ex. guitar, keyboard for drums, and vocals) Autocad and general internet.
If a celeron will work just as good, I would definitly go with that.
Again thanks for the info.
Click to expand...

Well, don't get the wrong impression. For the money, the Atlhon stuff is still better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top