Advice Needed: Celeron or Pentium IV

[randallhb 0]

Hello to All:

 

I want to buy several PCs for a new project and I need advice on what CPU to choose, Celeron or Pentium IV. The PCs will be used mostly to run client/server applications with Oracle Forms and Reports (most of the code is in stored procedures in the Oracle database), and also Microsoft Office 2003, with Windows XP.

 

Some people have told me that Celeron are not as reliable as Pentium IV, is that true? I understand that the only difference is speed due to the smaller cache and slower bus speed.

 

TIA, Randall

[Immortal 0]

If you want an expensive paperweight then get a celeron.

 

Seriously, if you want a comparison then a 2.8 Ghz Celeron will be outperformed by a 1.6Ghz Pentium 4.

 

NEVER EVER even consider a Celeron, ever.

[Silver-Dagger 0]

Why not get P4 perfomance at Celeron price and get an AMD XP systems?

[clutch 1]

Quote:

Why not get P4 perfomance at Celeron price and get an AMD XP systems?

Probably because all of the supporting hardware (good motherboard, good PSU, etc.) will add up to about the same most of the time anyway. In addition, many people still have stability issues (heat management) and compatibility issues (running different OSs and even some applications may exhibit problems when running non-Intel hardware). This isn't meant as a pointless AMD vs. Intel debate, but this is what I have seen with many, many combinations of hardware and software over the years. If you are running an application that is to be available 24/7, these issues become paramount.

[CyberGenX 0]

For an unbiased opinion: Go with the P4. Celerons are for email, web browsing, simple stuff etc. You never see actual workstations with celerons, why, because P4s (as mentioned) running at lower speeds get the job done quicker.

 

 

As for NEVER EVER getting a celeron, I would have to disagree. A celeron IS a lower end P4. I have one in my wife's machine, Celeron 1.8Ghz S478. I have yet to have a problem and she games as well, not just sissy games, we're talking 1942, UT, MOHAA etc. Burns CDs, scans pictures, does a little photo editing yada yada.

 

At the time we built her machine it was the best priced chip for the money and speed for what we could afford. Even a P4 1.4 S478 at the time was too expensive and still is at $120 on pricewatch! The celeron 2.4 is $67. Regardless of that price quote:::: P4 is a V6 engine and the Celeron is a 4 Cylinder if you want to look at in car terms. XEON, EE, and AMD64bits are V8 big blocks. LOL

[Immortal 0]

Clutch, not to be rude or anything but do what you just said makes no sense at all.

 

The AMD Athlon series and the AthlonXP to ANY software is an intel -compatible CPU. There is no way that a program designed to run on an Intel CPU will not run at the same speed or better on an AMD system. This has been proven. This was a misconception when AMD first started mass-producing but was rightly shown to be a load of cowpat.

Stability is not an option, a well setup AMD based system will run just the same as a well setup intel system. A computers stability is linked to its setup and hardware configuration, for many people the AMD systems have been easier than the intel systems.

 

Your theory holds true ONLY for the old K2/K3, not the Athlon series. Except maybe the heat managment bit, that still plagues them a bit. As i said im not trying to be rude, but people have been using this as a thing agaisnt AMD whereas its not true in anyway.

 

CyberGenX, Celerons, because of their crippled cache can fill their pipe quick enough so they must stall for it to be filled before they process. Gaming suffers a lot, your wife can probably play those games because she has a good GFX card, which matters more to Graphics intensive games than CPU does. Lets not also forget resolutions and also details.

I did a test with my system, using a Celeron 2.8Ghz my FPS fell from 100 FPS to around 40 FPS in some games, thats a huge hit for a CPU 400Mhz higher clocked than mine. As a genrall rule of thumb, a celeron needs to be either 1.5 or 2 times higher clocked than a P4 equivalent to beat it in most applications!

[Tomay 0]

I use celerons from the time they first came out C300A and I also had a few pII and pentiumIII processors so I know what I'm talking about. It depens on the price. I'm sure you don't get twice the performance of a celeron 2,4 in a P4 2,4/800 but the p4 costs twice as much.

 

My celeron calculates a seti unit in aprox 4,5 hours.

It reaches 8900 3dmarks and almost 10000 overclocked.

 

It's good enough for me also playing games doing some video and audio editing from time to time. I'll probably get a p4 when they become cheaper.

[Immortal 0]

The early celerons and PIII versions were very good, they offered excellent price performance ration, the current ones dont.

 

As you have a dual channel chipset, that reduces the bottleneck slightly as your faster system RAM makes up for the lost CPU cache slightly.

[CyberGenX 0]

Yeah for gaming I would go P4 or XP+ all the way. Luckily I just ordered a P4 3.2 800MHz Bus and a new board. She will get my 2500+ (OCed to 2.1GHz 400MHz BUS) and nForce2 MB. I think she will be happy. Her graphix card isn't much, old GeForce2 GTS 64MB DDR. My brother will get the 1.8 celly in place of his K6-2 400, i think he will be happy too.

[clutch 1]

Quote:

Clutch, not to be rude or anything but do what you just said makes no sense at all.

The AMD Athlon series and the AthlonXP to ANY software is an intel -compatible CPU. There is no way that a program designed to run on an Intel CPU will not run at the same speed or better on an AMD system. This has been proven. This was a misconception when AMD first started mass-producing but was rightly shown to be a load of cowpat.
Stability is not an option, a well setup AMD based system will run just the same as a well setup intel system. A computers stability is linked to its setup and hardware configuration, for many people the AMD systems have been easier than the intel systems.

Your theory holds true ONLY for the old K2/K3, not the Athlon series. Except maybe the heat managment bit, that still plagues them a bit. As i said im not trying to be rude, but people have been using this as a thing agaisnt AMD whereas its not true in anyway.

Actually, it holds to be *very* true depending on what you are using. If the person is going to a *NIX based platform at some (very realistic when using Oracle) the person can run into serious issues. I tried running Gentoo Linux on an AMD-based system using an nForce chipset and could not get the system to boot, period. It was only when I found there to be a bug in the BIOS used on nForce/AMD systems that I was able to get a hacked alpha of GRUB to get it running. This situation has also be found in harddisk controllers and with memory management issues due to poor memory controller design (mostly Via). If the person is considering a Celeron, this person may also be considering a lower quality board to save money. Using a lower quality board to drive an AMD solution would be inviting even more trouble. Again, this is based on what *I* have seen and done. These have happened to me, and have been documented by others.

Also, heat management is still a major issue with AMD processors. They still put out a great deal of heat, and have less tolerance to power fluctuations than their Intel counterparts. If a person was to look for a low cost alternative, said person may look to further cut corners in this arena. So, how well do you think an AMD XP would work with a cheap motherboard, HSF, and PSU? Not very, I would imagine. On the other hand, I have seen cheap motherboards, HSF, and PSU combos with Intel processors and they still run. Again, this is something I have witnessed. Just because the CPU may be cheaper, this does not mean the entire solution is cheaper. A stable AMD-based solution in my eyes would require the use of an upscale nForce motherboard (not a fan of Via at all) along with high quality memory, HSF, and PSU. Even with all of this, you may still run into low-level hardware compatibility issues across OSs (ever try to get the onboard audio to work in Linux? Lots of fun.) due to lack of support and you will still have at least a system that is merely equal to the cost of a stable, cooler, and quieter Intel solution.

Note, I am not so much an Intel fan as a fan of smart design. Currently, I favor the Mac G5 64-bit systems. These systems can move a great deal of data easily, and can do so at an ever decreasing price without sacrificing stability. Compatibility, however, is a different story...

[jmmijo 1]

Hmm, can't say I've run into any issues with any of my AMD boxes. My old one was an Asus A7V-333 with a slower XP 2100. I gave this combo to my cousin along with a GeForce 4-4200 graphics card. He's primarily a gamer and has no problems running anything on this config.

 

As for me my Workstation/Server box stays on 24x7 and runs on an Asus A7N8X Deluxe 2 board along with an Athlon XP 2600. I did add a secondary fan for cooling on this however since it stays on all the time. The CPU temps remains pretty low and constant

 

As for Celeron 4's, they are decent for what you pay for them including the fastest 2.8Ghz version. But since Oracle is a DB app I'd probably stick with the P4's as well. Also don't skimp on the ram as this can help out the performance, especially for DB queries

[Immortal 0]

Im running an low end Jetway KT266A chipset motherboard and it runs even more stable than my current rig....

 

*NIX Systems, fine probbaly, but that may be the OS's problem, not the CPU's. Developers should cater a one size fits all solution....

[Tomay 0]

I've seen some very instable athlon xp systems caused by mostly cheap ram or motherboards, but I've seen a mail server running suse linux with an duron 1GHz wich is up 24/7.

 

So you see like myself the cpu isn't that important for stability, but the quality of other components is, so I saved money buying a celeron but invested in better Mobo and ram. And my rig is rocksolid running 24/7.

[clutch 1]

Quote:

Im running an low end Jetway KT266A chipset motherboard and it runs even more stable than my current rig....

*NIX Systems, fine probbaly, but that may be the OS's problem, not the CPU's. Developers should cater a one size fits all solution....

...therefore, many "one size fits all" solutions utilize Intel based hardware. As for the developers, it's the hardware vendors that should produce the drivers, and not the OS developers, unless the vendors simply do not want to see other OSs besides Windows running on their hardware (which would be narrow-minded at best). A co-worker here runs 5 systems that are all AMD-based, and he is the poster child for thermal management issues. He *always* has to buy an aftermarket HSF (I use the standard Intel one and can still overclock my 1.6GHz to 2.4GHz or better) and a beefed up PSU (I have an old Deer one that came with a case that I bought running that system) and he still has heat buildup issues during the summer (and no, I do not). Plus, he still has to buy the AMD HSF so he can get the 3 year warranty for the processor. He also adds for fans to the case to get the airflow needed. He usually recommends getting Intels now just because they are quieter and the entire package is cheaper. It's also fun to hear how his current Linux install attempts (Mandrake/RedHat distros are better about it, but definately not perfect) on his hardware.

Also, if that low-end system runs better than your current one, then it doesn't speak well to your configuration or setup of your new box. Are both systems running the same applications and support hardware?

[Immortal 0]

Just saying, my rig has more seting up to do, but once it has been setup as it has been now, it does smash the other one in...

 

Your point about thermal management is well taken!

I have to agree that the Intel Stock HSF is the best stock HSF ever, much better than the AMD one.

 

My mate has the stock AMD HSF and his temps are way ionto the 50's, my temps border 50c at Full load after around 8 hours or so.

[Ali 0]

Quote:

I use celerons from the time they first came out C300A and I also had a few pII and pentiumIII processors so I know what I'm talking about. It depens on the price. I'm sure you don't get twice the performance of a celeron 2,4 in a P4 2,4/800 but the p4 costs twice as much.

My celeron calculates a seti unit in aprox 4,5 hours.
It reaches 8900 3dmarks and almost 10000 overclocked.

It's good enough for me also playing games doing some video and audio editing from time to time. I'll probably get a p4 when they become cheaper.

I work for a computer company. I have used Celeron for our reception desk and I could clearly see the difference when I just replaced the Celeron 2.4 with a p4 2.4b. I’ll never buy Celeron for home use anyways.

Celeron is good if you are building more than one computer for a company and all they want is cheap systems for their secretaries.

[shassouneh 0]

Quote:

Quote:

Why not get P4 perfomance at Celeron price and get an AMD XP systems?

Probably because all of the supporting hardware (good motherboard, good PSU, etc.) will add up to about the same most of the time anyway. In addition, many people still have stability issues (heat management) and compatibility issues (running different OSs and even some applications may exhibit problems when running non-Intel hardware). This isn't meant as a pointless AMD vs. Intel debate, but this is what I have seen with many, many combinations of hardware and software over the years. If you are running an application that is to be available 24/7, these issues become paramount.

This is not entirely true. AMD processors AND p4 processors alike are BOTH 32 bit processors. They are "essentially" Intel 386s with architectural and design improvements that are incorporated into them over the years. Each of them has similar capabilities. AMD processor offer P4-like performance at celeron-like pricing.

The ONE thing to keep in mind with AMD systems though is components. I have noticed that even if u use brand names like an Asus or an Abit but mix and match with generic components then you are plain asking for trouble.

The BEST thing to do is visit AMD's web site. They have COMEPLETE listing of AMD processors and AMD-certifiied motherboards and components.

I have FINALLY managed to acheive stability with a SoYo board, and I highly recommend them for Athlon XP systems.

Also, Have you considered Multiple processor Systems? A system with 2 or more processors can offer performance and stability unlike the processors it runs. For example: An Athlon MP setup with 2600+ might be more stable than an Athlon XP 2600+ single processor setup (just something to ponder on).

With the prices of P4s way up in the sky, you can get a start on building multi-processor athlon systems rather than spending extra cash for P4s.

[clutch 1]

No, it IS entirely true to people that have used many different OSs across many different hardware combinations. If you were to read my post completely before quoting it, it states that many issues stem from supporting hardware such as the motherboards and supporting chipsets. Even the "better" chips from Via have had poor driver support in the past in Windows, let alone alternate platforms. Also, calling a modern AMD processor "essentially Intel 386s" with performance improvents is a bit of a stretch. The x86 architecture is used as a baseline for compling, but I wouldn't say that it assures success across all generations and makes of processors.

 

In addition, the portion you quoted also addressed the total cost of all the needed components to assure the same stability. And again, you will need to spend more on supporting hardware to get the best out of your low price CPU. It doesn't seem like such a great deal to me. I have to spend more on supporting hardware to get a cheap CPU and hope that it will not only run my server-based application (which is what he wants to do) in a stable and timely manner. Plus, if he wants to move to Linux with the Oracle application (or however he is providing the forms) to save in license costs, he could be in for a world of hurt unless he has time for a ton of hacks that may not even work to begin with.

 

As for adding a second processor to the system, that would be even more money as each processor costs more along with the motherboard and even beefier PSU and cooling. I don't see how that would achieve more stability since most crashes are going to be caused by poor hardware integration and/or thermal issues. Adding more hardware and more heat would seem to complicate the situation even further.

[Mr.Guvernment 0]

Quote:

for many people the AMD systems have been easier than the intel systems

from ALL the reading i have done do - i would say you are wrong - many people have more issues with AMD boards - mainly the chipsets in the AMD boards often needing up[censored] and various jumpers being set. many forums i visit in AMD section they have stickes for various AMD board - "what to do before you install windows" type deals - as in you have to tweak your mobo before you even get windows on it!


most intel based boards are ready to go! - with the exception of VIA , hehe



P.S - have Xeon's been considered due to their large cache? as i would think Xeon's would be better for what you want...

[Ali 0]

I agree with clutch. i have built AMD and Intel systems, and i have always been more successful with Intel. Not that AMD is bad, but I have rather to have an intel myself. Just personal preference, I pay a little more for the CPU and put it together and forget it. No checking for overheating, Voltage monitoring, and dealing with noisy Vocano fan!!! Actually the Intel stock fan is ENOUGH for cooling!!!! and even some overclocking!

 

The AMD system i have in the specs made me regret my purchase after i had to change the cooling fan and Powersupply. At end my AMD cost me a little more than my P4 system listed below (DV Editing, Including all the parts, without the Video cards).

 

Just to be fare I built an older AMD Athlon 1700 and it is still being used with no problems what so ever, but Athlon XP .... well, never again.

[MustardMan 0]

There is a lot of bad information in this thread. As someone had appropriately corrected someone else, a Celeron IS a Pentium IV. To say that one is a paperweight and another is a V6 or whatever is just WRONG!!!

 

The Recently released Celeron D has 256K of L2 cache and a P4 core that starts at 2.4Ghz with a FSB of 533Mhz(133Mhz quad pumped). Compare that with the PIII Tulatin which was the top of the line just a few years ago. It also had 256K of L2 cache but the FSB only ran at 133Mhz.

 

So by comparison, the PIII (which I still use today at 1Ghz for everything from word processing to graphics design) is MUCH MUCH slower than todays Celeron D CPU which actually sells for less than what the PIII 1Ghz sold for a few years ago.

 

So roughly, you've got maybe 4x the performance at maybe half the price of a PIII which is still powerful enough for the VAST majority of people now a days. The hardware requirements for most software has NOT really increased in the past few years.

 

IMHO the joke is on the people who spend hundreds of $$$ more on a full blown P4 and hardly if every use ANY of that extra power. It just increases their power bill by functioning as a VERY expensive electric heater!

 

But hey, instead of paying down their mortgage or contributing more to their childs college fund or whatever they can brag about how great their new P4 3.x Ghz computer is at playing games so at least they bought themselves bragging rights!

 

To answer the original posters question. Just get Celeron D computers, save your company some money and maybe you'll get a bonus!