I am looking at getting a Celeron D 325. How stable of a perfomer is this CPU? The PC will be used for interenet, MS Office and maybe some picture loading and editing. What are the pros and cons of this new Celeron D. Should I switch to a P4? Suggestions?
Celeron D or Pentium 4?
- Thread starter scca325is
- Start date
DrMrLordX
Lifer
- Apr 27, 2000
- 22,908
- 12,980
- 136
The Celeron D is quite stable. In fact, every x86 CPU on the market is stable(with sufficient cooling, which is not an issue with the Celeron D). The problem is that the Celeron D is slow and has a poor price/performance ratio compared to equivelant AMD processors(Semprons). Ditto for the Pentium 4.
Is there any particular reason why this has to be an Intel setup? Shouldn't you be looking at a Sempron instead? The Celeron D would be okay, and I see no obvious reason why you'd want to switch to the P4 unless you're getting into intensive use of Photoshop when picture editing. I just don't know why you'd want the Celeron D, either *)
Is there any particular reason why this has to be an Intel setup? Shouldn't you be looking at a Sempron instead? The Celeron D would be okay, and I see no obvious reason why you'd want to switch to the P4 unless you're getting into intensive use of Photoshop when picture editing. I just don't know why you'd want the Celeron D, either *)
I have used AMD before and there was always issues. Intel has always been a more stable performer and I want to make sure that my friend does not have too worry. I run AMD on my own PC, but I build Intel for friends. All the reviews and remarks I have read claimed that the new Celeron D blows the old orignal Celerons out of the water. THere have also been times when the Cerleon D topped some P4's. I guess I just wanted to see if the Celeron D is a good choice.
AMD systems are as stable as intel systems , in fact the only systems having issues are the intel ones because of the heat their CPUs produce. Take that ridiculous idea out of your head, nowadays AMD systems are as stable or more stable than intel systems, didn't read the THG stability tests where the AMD system was perfectly stable and the intel system had lot of heat and stability issues?
No reason to go for an intel.
As long as you buy quality parts, whatever you go (AMD or intel) will be stable, but with the issue of HEAT on the side of the intels, AMD CPUs have no issues.
No reason to go for an intel.
As long as you buy quality parts, whatever you go (AMD or intel) will be stable, but with the issue of HEAT on the side of the intels, AMD CPUs have no issues.
Markfw
Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
- May 16, 2002
- 27,250
- 16,108
- 136
What AMD's were unstable ? K-6 ? Via KT133 chipset boards ? Old news....
carlosd is correct, TODAY BOTH are stable, but Intel's as of late actually have heat that sometimes causes issues. I sure wouldn;t want any friend of mine coming back complaining about heat, or the fact their electric bill jumped ...
carlosd is correct, TODAY BOTH are stable, but Intel's as of late actually have heat that sometimes causes issues. I sure wouldn;t want any friend of mine coming back complaining about heat, or the fact their electric bill jumped ...
For the setup I have now, I am running Intel. But no one has really answered my question yet. Is there anyone here that actually has some insight on the Celeron D instead of trying to defend the AMD?
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
The celeron D is a perfectly stable chip. It's not the best value on the market, but it isn't a bad value either. I've seen some pretty good deals with celeron-Ds packaged with intel motherboards, which should make for a stable combination.
Internet/Office/light photo work does not need a P4 (or Athlon-64) processor, and actually, because the sempron does not currently run in the same socket as the A64, the intel option provides a slightly better upgrade path.
Consider finding one of the celeron models that are +1 (eg 326, 341, etc) as these support 64-bit processing, should your friend wish to upgrade their OS later.
Actually, Intel processors seem to be more unstable. Take THG's dual core stress test, for example. The AMD CPU ran just fine for days on end, while the Intel system required rebooting several times. Intel has also recalled a few of its chips in the past (remember the PIII 1.13 and the P4 3.0?). That nasty little habit goes all the way back to the days of the original Pentium 66.
But if you want Intel, it's fine. A bit of a waste of money, but fine even so. I'd go for the latest line of Celeron Ds (the ones with em64t and LGA775). They overclock well, or you can run them at stock with decent results. P4s are just too expensive, though. If you plan on spending more than $120 on the CPU, you had better make sure it's an Athlon 64.
But if you want Intel, it's fine. A bit of a waste of money, but fine even so. I'd go for the latest line of Celeron Ds (the ones with em64t and LGA775). They overclock well, or you can run them at stock with decent results. P4s are just too expensive, though. If you plan on spending more than $120 on the CPU, you had better make sure it's an Athlon 64.
If I went for an AMD, what would be the best bet for a chip under $100 and fullfill my requirments? Sempron 64 2800+? Athlon 64 2800+? and why?
The folks here aren't really trying to defend AMD, they are trying to explain to you that your concepts are very outdated and incorrect...
But be that as it may, the only real difference between the P4 and the CelD will be performance and heat. Since your most demanding app will be the picture editing, I would look around the web at Photoshop results...
In general, the amount of memory will play the largest factor for this. A Cel D will be much slower if he plans on doing any rendering...your question is very app dependant.
This is another app dependant question...
One major advantage for the AMD platform is the new NForce 6100. It allows you to have an onboard GF6100 (DX9, etc...) for a very low cost on a proven stable platform.
The K8NF4G-SATA2 (for example) is very stable, powerful, and costs about ~$65 including GeForce video. Add to that a Sempron 3100+ (~$95) and you'll have a stable platform that is feature rich and more powerful than any Cel D...
GuitarDaddy
Lifer
- Nov 9, 2004
- 11,465
- 1
- 0
The Sempron is superior in all metrics with the exception of video streaming, where they are about the same...
Edit: One other thing to think about...Windows Vista will require DX9 to use all of it's features, so most onboard video won't be able to use it properly. Also, the Sempron uses 64bit much better than the 64bit version of Celeron D...
Celeron D will run fine and isn't a slow processor. In fact, Intel fixed lag issues with the Celeron D by adding more cache than the usual 128k that Celeron's previosly received in older generations. In addition to the new instructions its received, it will perform just as well as a Northwood and even some Prescott CPU's of the Intel generation CPU sets. Because of the new architecture, you can match performances of an Intel Extreme Edition if you decide to OC the Celeron D over 3 GHz.
Personally, a Celeron D would be the better move since Pentium 4's are still overpriced and do not offer that much better performance over a Celeron D processor.
What socket are you talking about, specifically?
Personally, a Celeron D would be the better move since Pentium 4's are still overpriced and do not offer that much better performance over a Celeron D processor.
What socket are you talking about, specifically?
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
Hard Ball
Senior member
- Jul 3, 2005
- 594
- 0
- 0
Not really, Celeron D's are built on the Prescott revision of the netburst core. Having an extremely long pipeline with 31 stages will make branch prediction errors, and cache misses extremely costly. The typcial Celeron D has only 256kb of L2 cache, and 12+16kb of L1, That is less L1 than the 64+64kb of L1 of the Sempron, which have the same amount of L2 cache.
For equivalent P4 E (prescott) and A64, the P4 typically needs much larger cache to come close to A64 in performance. That's why single cored P4 typically have 1-2MB of L2 cache, while A64 has 512kb - 1MB L2; and A64 will still suffer less due to cache misses because of the much shorter 12/17 stage split pipeline.
The Prescott Celerons (Cel. Ds) compared to the Sempron, typically will fare worse than the comparison between P4 and A64, because of the discrepency in cache size. The L2 of the Celeron D needs to be much larger, at least 512kb, to have a chance to even catching similarly rated Semprons in performance. The older Northwood based Celerons were actually much better, with a 20 stage pipeline, somewhat more efficient IPC, and lower heat output as well. Celeron D's are probably the worst performing chips on the market with exception of the odd Via integrated chips or the extremely low power Transmeta chips and such.
phaxmohdem
Golden Member
If you're hell bent on getting Intel chips, the Celery D is a good choice. There is nothing really wrong with it. What everyone is simply trying to state is that right here, in this particular point in time, the better option for your needs would be a Sempron based system. Those suggestions of the nForce 6100 sound good to me. Either way, for a basic office system either one will do fine. I'd honestly sacrafice a bit on CPU power and add more RAM to the system your building. That should make your friend(s) happier longer methinks.
You can't get an Athlon 64 for under $100, so, yes, the Sempron 64 2800+ would be a good choice. Newegg sells an Epox EP-8KDA3J for $73, and with that motherboard you can overclock the Sempron to Athlon 64 3300+ speeds on stock cooling, stable as ever. If you're not overclocking, I'd get a Sempron 3000+ or 3100+, depending on your budget.
Show me one review where they recommended a Northwood 128KB Celeron over a Prescott 256KB Celeron.
AT Review
Clock for clock, with the same FSB/Multiplier, the Celeron-D outperforms the Celeron by over 10% on average (2% - 25%). If you bother to read the review, the Celeron-D at 2.66Ghz is on average about 25% faster than the Celeron-2.6Ghz, sometimes up to over 50% faster. Instead of mixing around a couple of cool techno lingo to make your statement sound truthful, how about you actually learn something first?
Anyways, if you do get a Sempron, just make sure you get the A64 variety. The K7 based ones are significantly slower (the PR rating is useless).
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
I don't understand paying more for less. Totally illogical to my mind. There is no intel chip which offers a better value than skt 754 semprons and A64's, especially true at the low end. Go look at some reviews 2600 - 3400's sempys lay smack down on the "good" celeron. Add in board prices and things get even worse since intel has to pay for all that advertising somehow and charges high for chipsets.
Totally OT, but I'd wager quite a few people would be commenting on why you'd pay for a Domestic (Big-3) automobile
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter