Intel P4 celeron chips

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by tim, Dec 7, 2003.

  1. tim

    tim Guest

    I don't get it,when I mention the above, peoples reaction are stay away from
    it.

    can someone tell me whats wrong with these?
    tim, Dec 7, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. tim

    HamMan Guest

    "tim" <> wrote in message
    news:bqvo45$gg$...
    > I don't get it,when I mention the above, peoples reaction are stay away

    from
    > it.
    >
    > can someone tell me whats wrong with these?
    >
    >

    Celerons and Durons have half (or less depending on version) of the internal
    CPU cache that the more expensive P4 or AthXP. End result is a PC which
    takes 30secs to load word 2000.

    If youre thinking about getting a celeron, dont, get a nice Athlon XP for
    far less. It will out preform it by miles.
    HamMan, Dec 7, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Howdy!

    "tim" <> wrote in message
    news:bqvo45$gg$...
    > I don't get it,when I mention the above, peoples reaction are stay away

    from
    > it.
    >
    > can someone tell me whats wrong with these?


    Nothing really. It's a P4 that has half the cache disabled, so it
    runs a bit slower (USUALLY!)

    Plus, Celerons based on the P4 can only run (CURRENTLY!) at 400MHz
    FSB, unlike a full P4, that is available at up to 800MHz FSB.

    OTOH, for your average joe, anything over about 2GHz (2,000 MHz)
    will be plenty fast enough (AVERAGE joe - the gamers, 3D modelers, and
    Processor Penis Size War players need not answer ...)

    RwP (who's writing this missive on a system based on the XP-1700+
    .... and who plans to be getting his P4 back running soonest)
    Ralph Wade Phillips, Dec 7, 2003
    #3
  4. tim

    Harrison Guest

    P4 and Celeron are two different products made by the same company.
    Analogous to Camry and Prius, which are both made by Toyota. Get it?

    On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 17:30:45 +0000 (UTC), "tim" <>
    wrote:

    >I don't get it,when I mention the above, peoples reaction are stay away from
    >it.
    >
    >can someone tell me whats wrong with these?
    >
    Harrison, Dec 7, 2003
    #4
  5. tim

    Barry Walsh Guest

    tim wrote:
    > I don't get it,when I mention the above, peoples reaction are stay away from
    > it.
    >
    > can someone tell me whats wrong with these?
    >
    >

    Read this

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927

    and you'll know why to avoid them.
    Barry Walsh, Dec 7, 2003
    #5
  6. tim

    Zknb Guest

    It comes down to this...

    What are you going to do with the computer?

    Are you going to be using it for general purpose computing like
    "Office" apps and internet access?

    If you are the Cellerons are just fine.

    I am still using a socket 370 celleron 1.0 Ghz over clocked to 1.2Ghz
    Windows XP-Pro and Word2000 starts in 3.75 seconds.

    How much faster do you really need Word to start?

    I have a Dell P4 2.4Ghz at work. You know it really does not seem that
    much faster then my celleron here at home. Sure Word may start in 1.5
    seconds on the P4 but I cant tell the difference.

    This computer is plenty fast for daily computing and internet usage. I
    don't play a lot of games but with a decent video card (I have a GF3)
    its performance is still not that bad and plenty playable.

    So unless you are just after bragging rights save your money

    On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 17:30:45 +0000 (UTC), "tim" <>
    wrote:

    >I don't get it,when I mention the above, peoples reaction are stay away from
    >it.
    >
    >can someone tell me whats wrong with these?
    >
    Zknb, Dec 7, 2003
    #6
  7. tim

    Zknb Guest

    Pure BS

    I have a Celeron 1.0 over clocked to 1.2 Ghz and Word 2000 loads in
    3.75 seconds.

    I just timed it.


    On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 17:41:01 -0000, "HamMan"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"tim" <> wrote in message
    >news:bqvo45$gg$...
    >> I don't get it,when I mention the above, peoples reaction are stay away

    >from
    >> it.
    >>
    >> can someone tell me whats wrong with these?
    >>
    >>

    >Celerons and Durons have half (or less depending on version) of the internal
    >CPU cache that the more expensive P4 or AthXP. End result is a PC which
    >takes 30secs to load word 2000.
    >
    >If youre thinking about getting a celeron, dont, get a nice Athlon XP for
    >far less. It will out preform it by miles.
    >
    Zknb, Dec 7, 2003
    #7
  8. tim

    HamMan Guest

    "Zknb" <> wrote in
    message news:...
    > Pure BS
    >
    > I have a Celeron 1.0 over clocked to 1.2 Ghz and Word 2000 loads in
    > 3.75 seconds.
    >
    > I just timed it.
    >

    Now add in the RM effect in the machines i have to put up with every day.
    HamMan, Dec 7, 2003
    #8
  9. tim

    Harrison Guest

    That's pretty damned slow.

    On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 19:25:38 GMT, Zknb
    <> wrote:

    >Pure BS
    >
    >I have a Celeron 1.0 over clocked to 1.2 Ghz and Word 2000 loads in
    >3.75 seconds.
    >
    >I just timed it.
    >
    Harrison, Dec 7, 2003
    #9
  10. tim

    Zknb Guest

    Yeah, well untill they have a CPU fast enough to open Word, type,
    format my document, and print it before I even click on the Word icon,
    this is fast enough for me.

    On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 15:31:16 -0500, Harrison <Harrison> wrote:

    >That's pretty damned slow.
    >
    >On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 19:25:38 GMT, Zknb
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>Pure BS
    >>
    >>I have a Celeron 1.0 over clocked to 1.2 Ghz and Word 2000 loads in
    >>3.75 seconds.
    >>
    >>I just timed it.
    >>
    Zknb, Dec 7, 2003
    #10
  11. Howdy!

    <Harrison> wrote in message
    news:...
    > P4 and Celeron are two different products made by the same company.
    > Analogous to Camry and Prius, which are both made by Toyota. Get it?


    Not quite - think "F150" and "F150 Lariat" for the Celeron and P4
    ....

    Same core in both.

    RwP
    Ralph Wade Phillips, Dec 8, 2003
    #11
  12. tim

    Wee Bit Tall Guest

    --

    -----
    Registered Linux user #334297

    "Ralph Wade Phillips" <> wrote in message
    news:bqvtli$261ndt$-berlin.de...
    : Howdy!
    :
    : "tim" <> wrote in message
    : news:bqvo45$gg$...
    : > I don't get it,when I mention the above, peoples reaction are stay away
    : from
    : > it.
    : >
    : > can someone tell me whats wrong with these?
    :
    :

    watch the Celeron desktops. Quite a few use onboard parts. Celeron is
    just a cheaper chip. (cheaper desktop)
    Stay away if you want to upgrade to good cards. Or make sure to check that
    you will have a few extra slots. All around it is a slow computer.
    Wee Bit Tall, Dec 8, 2003
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Intel 3Ghz chips

    , Nov 16, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    494
    Steve Freides
    Nov 16, 2003
  2. gz
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    807
    Oldus Fartus
    Nov 5, 2005
  3. desdog
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    1,042
    Impossible
    May 25, 2005
  4. Rudy Lopez

    Upgrading from Celeron to Celeron D processor

    Rudy Lopez, Apr 5, 2005, in forum: A+ Certification
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    351
    Rudy Lopez
    Apr 6, 2005
  5. H1B Stings
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,444
    H1B Stings
    May 9, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page