Best CPU? Celeron 430 (1.8 single) vs. Presler 3.0 D

[Pneumothorax]

Building computer out of spare parts for sister-in-law. Running in a Asus P5b. Which would be the best cpu? Single core Celeron 430 1.8 ghz based on Core or Netburst dual core 65nm 3.0ghz chip?

Mostly will be used for web -surfing, you-tube, watching old tv shows, occasional Photoshop Elements for their dig cam

 

[Andrew1990]

the celeron 430 runs at about Pentium D 805 speeds when not overclocked. I had a 420 and an 805 before and they were roughly the same in performance, although the pentium did sometimes beat it by quite a large margin.

If it is just used for those things though I would go for the 430. It uses less energy and less heat.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

The Presler will be faster.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln
The Presler will be faster.

+1

 

[Roy2001]

I would go with Celeron which has Conroe-L core. It should be more than enough for internet surfing. If I have use the Presler, I would lower the FSB and multiplier to reduce the CPU temp. I had a PC with a single core 2.8Ghz P4 CPU. I lower the CPU speed to 1.4Ghz and my dad never complain the speed and temp is really low.

 

[hans007]

the presler doesnt run THAT hot. its the smithfield that was horrible.

that said, the 430 is probably plenty for those tasks. if you need a bi tmore speed pin mod it to 1066 bus and run it at 2.4 ghz.

 

[FalseChristian]

Don't you guys mean Prescott?

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: FalseChristian
Don't you guys mean Prescott?

Prescott = 90nm 1MB L2 Cache Single Core
Smithfield = 90nm 1MBx2 L2 Cache Dual Core
Presler = 65nm 2MBx2 L2 Cache Dual Core


Presler is slightly faster and slightly cooler than Smithfield, which is 2x Prescotts.


For the OP, I would take the Presler 3.0. Dual cores are really nice to have these days.

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: FalseChristian
Don't you guys mean Prescott?

Prescott = 90nm 1MB L2 Cache Single Core
Smithfield = 90nm 1MBx2 L2 Cache Dual Core
Presler = 65nm 2MBx2 L2 Cache Dual Core


Presler is slightly faster and slightly cooler than Smithfield, which is 2x Prescotts.


For the OP, I would take the Presler 3.0. Dual cores are really nice to have these days.

basically, the presler cores wree maybe as hot as 1 prescott core, from my experience. smithfields were prettybad, though the 820 wasn't nearly as bad as say an 840.

the leakage of heat on the 90nm intel cpus, was such that 400mhz more could mean 30% more heat.

 

[zanejohnson]

go with the presler, they are actually decent chips...i still run one in my main rig as i dont see the need to upgrade just yet...they overclock decent too... i have mine at 3.8GHz on 1.32 volts...

 

[Jabbernyx]

Originally posted by: zanejohnson
go with the presler, they are actually decent chips...i still run one in my main rig as i dont see the need to upgrade just yet...they overclock decent too... i have mine at 3.8GHz on 1.32 volts...

Whoa! Are the specs for the wifey's machine stil accurate? I miss my K7S5A with modded BIOS

 

[magreen]

I'm running an x2 3600+ at 1.9GHz, which performs pretty much identically to that 3GHz Presler. I'm very happy w/ it, and you should be happy with your presler. Who gives a darn about a little bit of heat?