Celeron or P4?

Celeron or P4?

Post by Mett » Mon, 31 May 2004 16:33:34


Hi all,

I'm having to choose between two laptops and have (money IS an object)
narrowed it down to two choices:

Either an HP Pavillion with Celeron or a Fujitsu-Siemens Amilo with Pentium
4.

Other than design and the difference in processors, there is little
difference between the two - one or two extra USB ports on the FS is about
it. I like the design of the HP a lot better than the FS, and the HP is
cheaper, but if there is sufficient reason to choose the FS I will of course
do that.

My plan is to use my laptop for all my computer needs and I'm hearing
different messages about Celeron as opposed to P4. One person says I won't
notice the difference, another says P4 is MUCH faster and that I should
definitely go with P4.

My desktop is P3, and I don't want to downgrade with my laptop - so what's a
girl to do? I hope some of you can help me with some more info about the
difference between the two intel processors. :-)

TIA,
Mette
 
 
 

Celeron or P4?

Post by Yousuf Kha » Mon, 31 May 2004 20:36:24


It's too bad one of your other available choices wasn't an Athlon XP-M
processor as well, then that would've clinched it. Those systems usually are
as powerful as P4s, but at the price of Celerons.

I think the only time you'll notice much of a difference between the Celeron
and the P4 is when you try to play games, or encode videos, etc. Athlons
also usually feel much faster than Pentium 4's at much higher speed ratings
in these activities.

Doing web-surfing or word-processing shouldn't put too much of a strain on
the Celeron. However, both of those two activities do put a bit of a strain
on the memory and disk subsystems, and a P4 should be able to drive those
two subsystems much faster than a Celeron.

Yousuf Khan

 
 
 

Celeron or P4?

Post by Mett » Tue, 01 Jun 2004 15:31:17

> It's too bad one of your other available choices wasn't an Athlon XP-M
are

I think the price of Athlon XP-M has gone up here, but I'll have a look
around. I've only been looking at Intel. Old habit.

What I have now is a P3 666MhZ, what I would be getting if I don't find an
Athlon is a P4 2.8Gh or a Celeron 2.8Gh. If it is as fast or faster than my
current system, I'll be a happy camper. The only fault with my current
system is that it isn't portable, other than that it fits my needs
perfectly. Do you know how the Celeron 2.8 would compare with a P3 666?

I don't know anything about Athlon - does it have to be exactly XP-M, or
would other Athlons also be better than Intel?

Thanks for your help!

Mette
 
 
 

Celeron or P4?

Post by Carlo Razz » Wed, 02 Jun 2004 00:09:20


Athlon XP-M would be preferable, it handles power better than the standard
Athlon XP. However a standard Athlon should fit the bill and have a similar
battery life as a P4 laptop. I have to agree with Yousuf, you should
probably stay away from the P4 and Celeron notebooks if at all possible, you
would be happer with an AXP or if you do prefer having the Intel inside
sticker I would suggest Centrino over any P4 or Celeron laptop (if you can
swing it). One thing you may check is if you can order a laptop from one the
major OEMs online, I'm not sure which might deliver out side the US at
reasnoble prices. I know Dell does quite a bit in Europe (you are in Europe?
Sorry if I made an incorrect asumption.). Perhaps H/Paq or IBM may also do
bussiness out there too. Anyway, just besure to consider all your options
and don't makes your dessicion just base on what name brand sticker is on
your computer, there are plenty of great deals on systems that will make
your PIII 666 seem like a 386 (ok, I'm really stretching it on that last
statement).
 
 
 

Celeron or P4?

Post by Yousuf Kha » Wed, 02 Jun 2004 04:20:54

ette < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote:

Yes, it's best not to close off avenues of choice. You may still end up
picking the Celeron or P4, but at least you looked at the alternatives.


The Celeron would definitely be faster than your old P3. There's no doubt
about that, but it's not really the criterion that you should be selecting
on. All modern systems will be faster than your old system. What your real
criterion should be is a comparison between modern systems, not your old P3
system.

For example, that Celeron 2.8Ghz might only be as fast as a P4 2.0Ghz. Or it
might only be as fast as an Athlon 1900+. These are the modern system vs.
modern system comparisons.


I would suggest an Athlon XP-M vs. a regular Athlon XP, since you are
talking about a laptop system. Though you can build laptops using regular
desktop chips, actually putting them on your lap for even a brief period of
time will be a definite no-no. Intel also designates its laptop chips with
an "-M" designation (mobile), such as Pentium 4-M, Celeron-M, or Pentium-M.
The mobile chips are specially designed to be cooler and use less power than
desktop chips. I always found the idea of using a desktop chip in a laptop
to be a bit silly.

There are also other choices within the AMD family. You can also buy laptops
with the Athlon 64-M processor. This is AMD's latest generation mobile
processor. It is also interesting in that it is a 64-bit processor rather
than a 32-bit processor. Though it runs all existing 32-bit software, in
about a half a year, Microsoft will release a 64-bit version of Windows for
you to use on these processors. Intel will also copy this technology from
AMD at around that time.

Also as far as just Intel chips go, I would put a higher preference on
getting a Pentium-M processor rather than a Pentium 4-M or Celeron-M. The
Pentium-M is the processor that is the heart of what Intel calls the
Centrino platform. It is their coolest running processor, however it is
considerably more expensive than P4 or Celeron systems. Even though
"Pentium-M" sounds like it could be a lesser-generation processor than the
"Pentium 4-M", but don't get confused it's actually a newer generation
processor than the Pentium 4's.

One thing you should note too, although it really shouldn't be a factor in
your decision to buy a processor *today*, but Intel has decided to stop
producing all Pentium 4's within a year. It was finding that Pentium 4's
were running too hot even inside a desktop PC, and they decided that it
wasn't worth their time to keep producing them anymore. They will replace
their Pentium 4's with a desktop version of the Pentium-M (though it won't
be called a Pentium-M at that point, since it won't be a mobile processor,
maybe they'll call it a Pentium-D). So if the Pentium 4 is getting too hot
even for a desktop system, you can imagine how hot it's going to be inside a
laptop system! This affects Celeron systems too, since they are built on a
stripped down version of the Pentium 4. All Pentium 4's will be replaced by
Pentiums, and the Celerons will always be stripped down versions of whatever
is the flagship Pentium at that time.

Although the heat problem only gets really bad as you push the clock speed
of the Pentium 4 upwards, so the existing Pentium 4's should be just fine,
Pentium 4's in general run a lot hotter than other processors. Not a good
thing for a laptop.

Oh and another thing, as if there wasn
 
 
 

Celeron or P4?

Post by Bill David » Thu, 03 Jun 2004 07:22:02


The other processor you need to at least consider is the Pentium-M,
which is lower power than any of the other chips based on P4 (or Atlon-M
from what I read, but no personal experience). Don't let the low speed
fool you, a Pentium-M at 1.5GHz is similar to a P4 at 2.4 for most things.

It all depends on how price sensitive you are, and if you need long life
and low temp. Also, the option of slow low-power operation (often a BIOS
option) can make a big difference in heat and battery life.


--
bill davidsen < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
 
 
 

Celeron or P4?

Post by Mett » Fri, 04 Jun 2004 06:33:21

Thanks everyone, this has been most enlightening!

I ended up with an AMD Athlon XP-M 2500+ with 256 MB Ram.

So far it seems fast enough, but I still have to try it with a PDF file,
Word and a dictionary all at the same time. ;-)

Thanks for your help! :-)

Mette
 
 
 

Celeron or P4?

Post by Lanc » Fri, 04 Jun 2004 23:39:38

Mette said the following on 6/2/2004 2:33 PM:

Well I see the AMD fans have won a convert :)

I still think you need an additional 256MB RAM, but have fun with your
new laptop!

Lance
*****
 
 
 

Celeron or P4?

Post by Vu Nguye » Sat, 05 Jun 2004 03:59:37

In my opinion I think the Intel is still the good choice. I have been using
the AMD and notice the difference in heat generating between two processors.
The Intel is still faster and more reliable, and also generate less heat,
mean less energy is consumed. I also can see the difference clearly in
processing graphic. Even the Celeron can handle the Starcraft game, but the
same AMD ( same speed) can not handle it.
And of course there is much difference between P4 and Celeron, especially
when performing some sort algorithm or process a database.
You can use the Sandra Sisoft to see the difference between those machines.
Well, hope you have a good choice.
 
 
 

Celeron or P4?

Post by Yousuf Kha » Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:20:17


Well, no, not really. You may find that the temperature readings on Athlons
might be slightly higher than equivalent readings on Pentium 4's, but that
is a measure of heat. Temperature is really a measure of heat density, the
amount of heat given off in a certain unit of area, not the actual overall
heat itself. Athlon chips are typically radiating their entire heat through
the small area of the processor body. But Pentium 4's have a large heat
spreader that lets it radiate its heat out through the much bigger area of
the heat spreader.


I had the precise opposite reaction. I was trying out a game of Rise of
Nations on an Athlon XP 1600+ and also on a Pentium 4 1.6Ghz, same amount of
memory. Much to my surprise, there was a big difference in running the game
between them, they weren't even close -- the Athlon for some reason was able
to run the game at full speed but the P4 wasn't. And it was a fully decked
out Pentium 4 system too for its time, with 512MB of RDRAM, whereas the
Athlon had only 256MB of SDRAM. Rise of Nations isn't even a 3D game, it
tests out the true power of the processors in this case.

Yousuf Khan