- Aug 22, 2001
- 31,768
- 31,771
- 146
They also have had problems with their PCI bus with corrupting data, which would come into play with his mom's computer.
If you compared an Intel i845G and Via KM400, would you really say their "reliability" is the same?
On the side note, I own a pair of Athlon based machines so don't think of me as an Intel zealot.
Jeff7181
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2002
- 18,368
- 11
- 81
I've owned 3 Via chipset motherboards... *EDIT*KT133 (the 6 is too close to the 3
), KT266, and KT400... I also used a KT266 in my brother's computer as well as my Grandfather's computer and there's absolutely zero problems unless you overclock the FSB. But that's not the result of it being a Via chipset, it's a result of it being a chipset with no PCI lock.Originally posted by: Jeff7181
I've owned 3 Via chipset motherboards... *EDIT*KT133 (the 6 is too close to the 3
I've also own the KT133A. There was also problems with the PCI bus arbitration in which misbehaving devices would not properly park themselves which would lead to stability problems. There were also memory interleave problems, but that was more of a performance issue than stability. Funny thing is that these problems were sporatic. Not every board exhibited this problem.
My point isn't that all Via chipsets are problems, but they have had problems and therefore haven't had the best track record with regards to stability.
Edit: Changed owned to own. I still run that machine
I read somewhere(I think it was at geek.com) .Here is the link,that the new celerons are in actuality the defective P4s and releasing these celerons is INTELs way of salvaging the trash.What they do is look for the chips which have the core intact and disable all except 128 KB of l2 cache and presto! here is a celeron 2600MHz or 2800MHz or whatever.
I agree that most people who buy computers buy it as a utility like TV or washing machine etc. Most of them are not aware that the computers are made of modular components which can be mixed and matched. They only want a 'COMPUTER'.
The celeron sells because of three reasons.
First, because it is intel. Most of the customers are fully aware of the presence of INTEL, and the rest at least vaguely know that there is a company named INTEL in the computer bussiness..Not so with AMD.They might be doing a good job but keeping it under the wraps doesn't pay.
Second, because it doesn't make much diffrence in performance if all you ever do is opening/closing office document and do a little bit of typing and emailing. Here you cannot convince a fellow that it is wise to go for a cheaper and better performing athlon rather than celeron, because you cannot show him any visible improvements in such applications.Such a person might attribute superior performance of a system(Which may be , for example,becuse of more RAM) to the processor, and if it is INTEL , then he will always have the impression that yes! intel is great.
Third, because Intel are more conservative in their approach where the performance vs stability of system is concerned.They make their own chipsets and even mobos, which do not allow the user any freedom to tinker with parameters , which may lead to system instability. So a user is happy with intel beacuse heis system never hangs.And such a user makes a beeline for an intel based system iven if it is lowly celeron
I agree that most people who buy computers buy it as a utility like TV or washing machine etc. Most of them are not aware that the computers are made of modular components which can be mixed and matched. They only want a 'COMPUTER'.
The celeron sells because of three reasons.
First, because it is intel. Most of the customers are fully aware of the presence of INTEL, and the rest at least vaguely know that there is a company named INTEL in the computer bussiness..Not so with AMD.They might be doing a good job but keeping it under the wraps doesn't pay.
Second, because it doesn't make much diffrence in performance if all you ever do is opening/closing office document and do a little bit of typing and emailing. Here you cannot convince a fellow that it is wise to go for a cheaper and better performing athlon rather than celeron, because you cannot show him any visible improvements in such applications.Such a person might attribute superior performance of a system(Which may be , for example,becuse of more RAM) to the processor, and if it is INTEL , then he will always have the impression that yes! intel is great.
Third, because Intel are more conservative in their approach where the performance vs stability of system is concerned.They make their own chipsets and even mobos, which do not allow the user any freedom to tinker with parameters , which may lead to system instability. So a user is happy with intel beacuse heis system never hangs.And such a user makes a beeline for an intel based system iven if it is lowly celeron
Jeff7181
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2002
- 18,368
- 11
- 81
Originally posted by: WobbleWobble
Originally posted by: Jeff7181
I've owned 3 Via chipset motherboards... *EDIT*KT133 (the 6 is too close to the 3
I've also own the KT133A. There was also problems with the PCI bus arbitration in which misbehaving devices would not properly park themselves which would lead to stability problems. There were also memory interleave problems, but that was more of a performance issue than stability. Funny thing is that these problems were sporatic. Not every board exhibited this problem.
My point isn't that all Via chipsets are problems, but they have had problems and therefore haven't had the best track record with regards to stability.
Edit: Changed owned to own. I still run that machine
Maybe it was manufacturer specific? My boards were Biostars, Shuttles, and MSI's.
I can still remember a time when the celerons were actually a good buy. Way back in the days of the p3 they actually performed alright. Things are also about to change with the celeron as they move on to a newer core. The prescott cored celerons should regain most of the lost performance. Without having to pay a high price. I suspect they should go a long way in providing for a good setup on a budget. With a faster fsb, 2x the l1 cache, and 2x the l2 cache. In six months the tables could be turned with the duron being beaten down by a celeron, you never know. In the mean time it makes more sense to me to buy a full version chip, albeit lower clocked. Even a 2ghz p4, or xp puts the celeron and duron to shame. Not really costing much more.
It wasn't manufacturer specific. A board made by someone would exhibit those problems while the same model wouldn't from the same company wouldn't. It was a bug with their Southbridge, the 686B or something like that. It also depended on what PCI slots you used with whatever devices.
Yeah!!!!.....you are right!!!!!......comsumers have to do research to get to know the current tech are now. So it is consumers' faults that they don't do their homework before they take the test/quiz. It is not inte's fault.
myocardia
Diamond Member
- Jun 21, 2003
- 9,291
- 30
- 91
Hey, I've used nothing but AMD for 6 or 7 years now, but wtf? Let's flame AMD this time... 1.Their Duron is not very durable! All you have to do is carry it in your pocket for awhile, and it no longer works. And forget about drying one in the dryer!! 2.Even though their Athlons do nearly twice the work per clock cycle, they still haven't hit 5Ghz. Am I forgetting anything?
- Jun 5, 2003
- 1,465
- 0
- 0
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
mainstream customers don'tknow much, and well everyone can't be experts on everything so its not fair to blame them. just hang around the computer area of a mainstream store sometime. u'll see people pass over centrinos because that p4 system has more "mhz". i've seen it countless times. but what can you do, exploiting ignorance of consumers is the american way
Celerons are fine for machines that dont do gaming. While i would agree that a duron is better. The Duron isnt wide available in consumer PCs.
- Jun 5, 2003
- 1,465
- 0
- 0
P4 Celerons suck, and Intel does take advantage of the general public with the ole' MHz game.
Not all Celerons are nearly as pathetic though. The orginal Mendocino was actually superior to the Pentium II technology at the time. It was the forerunner of the Coppermine architecture that was implemented soon after with a .18 micron core instead of the Celerons .25
Next up was the Coppermine Celeron, which as everyone knows had a lower associative cache at half the amount of the Pentium III. But the biggest hit was the 66MHz fsb speeds when the Pentium III had already progressed to a 133MHz fsb.
But in the later Coppermine stepping the Celeron was released in a 100MHz fsb version. The 800MHz as well as the 850 and sometimes 900 with a little luck all made it to the 133MHz fsb speed with a little extra core voltage. At 1100MHz+ they actually were a decent alternative for people running a socket 370 rig.
A little too late, but the Tualatin Celeron was a very nice processor. With the .13 micron core they had little trouble hitting 1400MHz at the beginning, 1600-1700MHz with later steppings. Overclocking brought the fsb up to 133MHz+ Pentium speeds, but no competition for a 266MHz Athlon or Duron at that time.
I still say that a $35 1.0a Celeron overclocked to 1500-1600MHz on a P4 board would rock. If someone could find a way to modify it to fit a 400MHz board the 10X multipier would make it a perfect candidate for overclocking. A 150MHz fsb speed would make it 1500MHz on a 600MHz fsb. It would kick but on a lower to medium speed P4 for dirt cheap!
Oh well, I'm dreaming again. It ain't gonna happen, but I know that some one out there is smart enough to figure out a possible mod......
Not all Celerons are nearly as pathetic though. The orginal Mendocino was actually superior to the Pentium II technology at the time. It was the forerunner of the Coppermine architecture that was implemented soon after with a .18 micron core instead of the Celerons .25
Next up was the Coppermine Celeron, which as everyone knows had a lower associative cache at half the amount of the Pentium III. But the biggest hit was the 66MHz fsb speeds when the Pentium III had already progressed to a 133MHz fsb.
But in the later Coppermine stepping the Celeron was released in a 100MHz fsb version. The 800MHz as well as the 850 and sometimes 900 with a little luck all made it to the 133MHz fsb speed with a little extra core voltage. At 1100MHz+ they actually were a decent alternative for people running a socket 370 rig.
A little too late, but the Tualatin Celeron was a very nice processor. With the .13 micron core they had little trouble hitting 1400MHz at the beginning, 1600-1700MHz with later steppings. Overclocking brought the fsb up to 133MHz+ Pentium speeds, but no competition for a 266MHz Athlon or Duron at that time.
I still say that a $35 1.0a Celeron overclocked to 1500-1600MHz on a P4 board would rock. If someone could find a way to modify it to fit a 400MHz board the 10X multipier would make it a perfect candidate for overclocking. A 150MHz fsb speed would make it 1500MHz on a 600MHz fsb. It would kick but on a lower to medium speed P4 for dirt cheap!
Oh well, I'm dreaming again. It ain't gonna happen, but I know that some one out there is smart enough to figure out a possible mod......
- Jun 5, 2003
- 1,465
- 0
- 0
At the end of the day it doesn?t matter what you do with the Celeron the Athlon XP will blow it to hell and back in every benchtest and game around ! for the same price.
The celeron has reached the end of its life!
Intel just doesnt want to let go they would love AMD to go bankrupted so they can bump up the price of there Pentium 4's and go back to the day when we gamers could only afford Celeron based PC's
The celeron has reached the end of its life!
Intel just doesnt want to let go they would love AMD to go bankrupted so they can bump up the price of there Pentium 4's and go back to the day when we gamers could only afford Celeron based PC's
The economy is a funny thing though... it always regulates itself. If that time were to ever come where AMD goes bankrupt, then yes... Intel would hike up their prices.
Then all of a sudden, because of Intel's high prices, they would be opening up the doors for a new CPU manufacturer to enter the game, compete with low prices, and thus drive Intel's prices right back down again.
agreed!
Also...
Can we please get off our "AMD is superior" high horse please? It's getting quite annoying.
We all understand that the numbers speak for themselves. Yes, we understand that for the budget user, AMD is far superior over Intel's crappy celeron.
but let me ask this...
what normal consumer runs benchmarks on their computers? I don't think many. I really don't think the average consumer could tell the difference in speed between a Celeron 2.6 ghz and a Tbred 2200+ for everyday use like windows word and internet browsing.
- Jun 5, 2003
- 1,465
- 0
- 0
If those same people ever want to use there computers for game thats when they will see a Diferance ....
they may not require the extra speed but why not have that option to get the best gameply out of there system when the cost is the same.
they may not require the extra speed but why not have that option to get the best gameply out of there system when the cost is the same.
As someone who works at a retailer [paid commision and believe it or not very, very well for selling pc's ]that sells ALOT of computers and also owns a custom pc business on the side (I have a small but loyal customer base).......I have used alot of celeron pc's......we get them in at my retail pc job all the time, I've used compaq's, hp's, and emachines.....trust me the celeron feels alot more sluggish then the athlon even doing normal desktop stuff such as surfing the web......since I get alot of people who aren't very informed about computers alot of them say "well I'm just going to be surfing the web etc".....all I do is go in to screen properties and show them the 3-4 second lag it takes just for the screen to change the desktop background.....then I show them how its almost instant on any of the other systems and alot of the time, that's all they need to see......it's much easier to do this then to try to explain to them how the different architectures work, something I'd only do if they came to me at my own business where I won't get punished for being brutally honest or as it's called "disparaging" a product....a big no no where I work.....
]that sells ALOT of computers and also owns a custom pc business on the side (I have a small but loyal customer base).......I have used alot of celeron pc's......we get them in at my retail pc job all the time, I've used compaq's, hp's, and emachines.....trust me the celeron feels alot more sluggish then the athlon even doing normal desktop stuff such as surfing the web......since I get alot of people who aren't very informed about computers alot of them say "well I'm just going to be surfing the web etc".....all I do is go in to screen properties and show them the 3-4 second lag it takes just for the screen to change the desktop background.....then I show them how its almost instant on any of the other systems and alot of the time, that's all they need to see......it's much easier to do this then to try to explain to them how the different architectures work, something I'd only do if they came to me at my own business where I won't get punished for being brutally honest or as it's called "disparaging" a product....a big no no where I work.....I have in main rig, a p4 2.4b that I use for everything, and at my parents house, I have a 2ghz Celeron, now I bought it cuz it was really cheap, its fine for what my parents do which is web browsing, email, word processing, and occiasional cd/dvd burning. For that purpose alone, the celeron is fine if you can find it for a low price. Intel creates these to cater to those who are like my parents and who dont care about the faster performance they can get. Just my opinion.
Well, if you think about it, its probably cheaper to up the clock speed than to add more cache, - but even still - its a stupid chip and doesnt - wait I'm talking about Intel.
There is on thing that I think everyone seems to have forgotten. Longevity. A faster and more sophisticated XP chip will perform at an adequate level for internet browsing, Office, uploading digital pictures, etc, for longer than the crappy Celeron, which will become inadequate significantly faster, and force the casual buyer to get a new computer sooner. Which is a waste of money. That is why a casual user should be pointed towards an Athlon XP and away from the Celeron whenever possible.
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 Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter