P4, Celeron, Athlon, *sigh*

Remove all ads!

Can anyone please explain to me in plain english (I'm virtually computer illiterate) what the difference in these processors are? Am I going to notice a difference in performance provided the processor speeds are the same? In terms of gaming is there going to be a difference in performance? I'm going to need a new computer soon, I'm in the very early stages of looking into it (I have to get through upcoming Christmas bills first), and I'm looking for some very general information about processors, video cards, etc.

 

Try this link Aldeth

http://www.howstuffworks.com/question268.htm

 

Short answer - no. The are numerous differences in architecture - bus, acceptable motherboards, etc. etc. etc.

Dollar-for-dollar, AMD outperforms Pentium for gaming, and Pentium lately seems to have hit a ceiling in performance.

I just recently bought a new computer (AMD 64 3400+), and did a lot of research. I found Tom's Hardware and AnandTech to very helpful in making my decision.

 

I also have an AMD Athlon 64 3400+, and these days, it's just much better to go with AMD over Intel for gaming. As far as clock speed goes, the AMD procs have slower speeds than Intel ones, but do much more work per cycle, so my 2.412 Ghz Athlon outperforms a 3.4Ghz Pentium 4.

As far as the Celerons go, just avoid them, really. They are just cheap old Pentiums that really aren't suited for much gaming.

 

Question: someone mentioned the swanky new Athlon 64s. With one of these, do you need a different version of windows due to the processor being 64 bit? Its just that Ive read about people d/ling a Beta version of WXP aimed at 64 bit processors...

 

Which processor works best for capturing video?

We've been transferring the in-law's home videos to DVD and it is soooo slowwwwwwwww with an AMD Athlon 1700. It takes almost eight hours between recording, rendering (the real pain in the butt), and transferring to DVD.

 

My current system has an Athlon XP 3200+ and I love it. Next system I build will likely have an Athlon 64.

 

Pentiums: More reliable, more expensive.
Athlons: Cheaper and faster.
Celerons: Trash. The AOL of processors.

So, Pentiums for all-around heavy work, Athlons for gaming and Celerons for office work only, pretty much.

 

I don't know where you get that Pentiums are more reliable, AMD is just fine in that respect; They overclock splendidly. The only proc that isn't very reliable is the Celeron.

As for the 64-Bit Athlons, it works great with a 32 Bit OS, but it will be even better with 64-bit windows, or so I've been told.

 

I agree with most here. If you go for a processor, go for an athalon. I've got an athalon XP, but will upgrade to an athalon 64. They'll be sweet when 64 bit windows comes out.

 

And 64-Bit Versions of Linux are out already if you feel like trying it out.

 

Sure.

The Celeron has several different "base" layouts. The original Celeron core was based on the Pentium 3. The newer Celeron cores are based on the Pentium IV.

The main difference is that they have half of the level 1 cache that a "normal" core has, but that cache runs at full processor speed. You have to get into wafer yields and the actual physical production of the processor to understand the economics involved, but the bottom line is that they are taking processors which would otherwise not work, and making them work with reduced ability.

The Pentium IV has 20 pipelines. Think of this as 20 cubic centimeters, and when you have filled the flask with all 20 CC's, you can select to do something with that 20 CC's. This is data. What you are doing with those 20 CC's is an instruction, and THAT'S what gives such power to the SSE2 extentions. You can do the exact same instruction, with 20 data parts; or in the case of AMD64, 12 pipelines. You used to not be able to do that with the Athlon and Celeron and Pentium I's and Pentium II's. The Pentium IV's let you do that, and so, you can increase the amount of data being processed per instruction.

The Athlon is basically just a Pentium III. There's some minor differences that let it scale up to a higher clock rate. Then they added the SSE1 extensions, which allowed them to drop the clock rate, but still maintain the processing power because they could cut down on the number of instructions set.

With the Pentium I's (excluding the MMX instruction set), you had one instruction per one data "part". So if you wanted to add 2+2 and 3+3, it took SIX clock cycles. Two, Two, Plus; Three, Three, Plus.

SSE1 and SSE2 reduce that. Two, Two, Three, Three, Plus. Two, Three, Plusplus.

---

Right now, the AMD64 is an outstanding buy, for what you'll get out of it in the United States. Can't talk about the value in Sweden or Italy, but in the US, it's the best buy for gaming. Athlon XP is the next best buy, with the Pentium IV after that. I'm strictly talking about gaming, here; not Adobe Premiere or anything else. You will get more AI updates per second, simply because SOUND disrupts those 20 pipelines of SSE2 instructions on the Pentium IV.

 

AMD quality has improved quite a bit over the last few years. Just a few years ago I wouldn't have touched one (since anything that did, melted and vaporized). I still remember seeing the RMA bin at the local Comp USA filled with burnt out and broken AMD CPUs. Plus, they don't design their own chipsets. A while back, every time something new came out, AMD guys had to download the latest VIA upgrade for their boards. Their boards were a real pain.

Now nVidia makes a really nice, well designed chipset for AMD boards. But their processors can no longer double as hambuger grills, which also means that AMD boxes can no longer be used as space heaters during the winter months. The rest of the good news is that they no longer have the power requirements of a chainsaw either.

I built an Intel 2.6 Northwood/Springdale machine nearly a year and a half ago, which is still running so strong and stable that I feel no need to upgrade. But if I did feel the need, I would probably move to an AMD based system. But next year Intel will have something new....

 

I have a Celeron, and it's great. No problems with it, not at all.

 

AMD processors suck because:

• Their Cores are very small and fragile. If you buy a custom CPU cooler, there is a 50% chance that you can crank it down to tight and crush the core...killing the CPU. Also, since the core is so small, it can't transfer as much heat to the heatsink.
• Even you don't crank the CPU cooler down too tight you might not want to move your computer since the cooler might come loose, or possibly fall off, causing the CPU to go up in smoke in a matter of seconds. AMD CPUs have no thermal overload protection (even though they claim that they do). If you take the cooler off the CPU for more than a few seconds, it WILL get fried. Intel chips have protection against this. If the CPU gets too hot, the system will either freeze, or turn off...causing you loose any un-saved data, but it will save your $500+ investment.
• AMDs are only good for gamming...and Intel isn't that far behind. Computers are used fore more things than just gamming, so why buy a CPU that only excels at running games?
• Overclocking is out of the question for more than the afore mentioned heat/core problems.
• LAN parties are out of the question...unless the CPU isn't hanging off of a vertically mounted motherboard...which most are.

AMD CPUs just suck!

 

AnandTech has just released a buying guide for gaming rigs at various price levels. When I started looking for my computer, I found that these sorts of buying guides were very good for at least getting my feet wet; otherwise, the amount of information could become a bit overwhelming to a non-techie like myself. Sharkey Extreme has similar guides.

 

I have an AMD in mine, and just the other day I had to take it, without a box, on the train. Then in London, I had to take it accross town on the tube. Then, at the end of the evening, I took it back.
After all that, was it screwed? pfft, yeah right. Still worked just fine.

Also, mine is slightly overclocked, with no problems occurring, and I've yet to have any troubles mentioned by Kitrax. Maybe you just treat them wrong buddy?

 

OK, I use my computer primarily for gaming, although I do some other stuff including things for work. For this, I'm just using things like Word, Excel, Powerpoint, etc. I take it for stuff like that, any computer would do, so I should be making my decision based on gaming then?