OT: question about computer processers

bryce · 02-13-2004, 09:04 AM

I know there seems to be a weekly computer question thread, so sorry for the redundancy if this has been covered, but:

i'm looking at getting a new computer in the next month or so, but don't want to spend an arm and a leg (certainly less than a grand is my goal.) it seems that much of the range in the prices of computers boils down to the processing chip.

what is the difference in quality b/w the pentium 4 (or whatever we're up to now), the celeron, and then there's the amd something-another? computers with the celeron and the amd seem to be vastly cheaper than the pentium. i've always had pentiums in the past, so i have no experience with the other two - is there a legitimate reason they are cheaper? or is it just my imagination that the pentium is that much more expensive?

thanks in advance.

gstelmack · 02-13-2004, 09:25 AM

Celeron and the AMD Duron are cheaper processors with less cache, etc. In other words, they are slower than their Pentium and Athlon brethren.

Intel Pentium vs. AMD Athlon will get you a religious war between the two sides.

Airhog · 02-13-2004, 09:37 AM

basically there isnt alot of difference between the Intel and AMD on the surface. THis is really a Coke vs. Pepsi type issue. People just love one or the other.

AgustusM · 02-13-2004, 10:39 AM

at this point in CPU history - you will notice little difference between almost anything you choose. The Celeron will be a little slower because of the l2 cache - but it is not like the old days with the huge difference between say a 286 and a 486.

My recommendation is spend your money on RAM and the video card - especially with any time of gaming those things make a far bigger performance difference then the CPU

Shepp · 02-13-2004, 11:03 AM

I wouldn't skimp on the processor and mess with either the Celeron or the Duron. Two weeks ago I bought I P4 2.8GHZ, 512 MB of RAM, and an NVIDIA 5200 video card 256MB of RAM for $933.00. I know that its not top of the line but 2.8 GHZ will hold its own with just about any game you would want to run today. Also, if you buy a good system board you can upgrade to a faster processor down the road.
I was a little diappointed with the video card so I bought an ATI 9800 pro for another $300.00. So my total came up to about $1200.00.

hukarez · 02-13-2004, 11:16 AM

Now, is RAMBUS still in play, or has it been out-performed by whatever memory Intel boards are running off of nowadays? Last I heard, it was DDR, I believe.

gstelmack · 02-13-2004, 11:41 AM

RAMBUS is a non-factor for any machine sold today. Quad-pumped DDR is where it's at.

Fidatelo · 02-13-2004, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shepp

Also, if you buy a good system board you can upgrade to a faster processor down the road.

I would never buy a motherboard with the intention of upgrading to a faster processor down the road. By the time you decide to upgrade again, unless you buy new CPU's every 3 months, your motherboard will not support the new CPU you wish to buy.

Draft Dodger · 02-13-2004, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I would never buy a motherboard with the intention of upgrading to a faster processor down the road. By the time you decide to upgrade again, unless you buy new CPU's every 3 months, your motherboard will not support the new CPU you wish to buy.

I second this

Godzilla Blitz · 02-13-2004, 12:39 PM

I would avoid the Celeron and the Duron. Otherwise, it seems like Pentium and AMD each have their own cult following. I couldn't really find a significant difference between the two brands, but when I was comparing prices it seemed like you got more bang for the buck with AMD. However, I ended up buying a Pentium 4 because, um...come to think of it, I don't remember why I went with a P4. I'm happy, though, so all is good.

gstelmack · 02-13-2004, 12:43 PM

The common argument between Intel and AMD is "AMD has better prices but is less stable". Most of my instability experience has been because people with Intel chips tend to have Intel chipsets on their motherboards, but lots of AMD people have third-party chipsets. If the motherboard chipset is made by AMD, NVidia, or Intel you are in pretty good shape.

The real good that's come of this is the competition means prices as a whole are lower than they might otherwise be.

Draft Dodger · 02-13-2004, 01:35 PM

I don't think AMD has much of an instability knock anymore. On the other hand, I don't think they are as clear-cut in the "better price for the same speed" category anymore either.

When I bought my 1.2 Athlon a couple years ago, I save a bundle going AMD...and got a machine comparable to the highest Pentium at the time.

this summer, when I built my 3000+ Athlon, there was a noticeable speed bump between it and the high end Pentium at the time. There was a price difference too, but not as great as in the past (although the P4 mobos were definitely more than the AMD mobos I priced). I still went with the Athlon, mostly because I had a source where I could get a processor for free...but I was definitely leaning towards the P4 at that particular time.

Mr. Wednesday · 02-13-2004, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hukarez

Now, is RAMBUS still in play, or has it been out-performed by whatever memory Intel boards are running off of nowadays? Last I heard, it was DDR, I believe.

RAMBUS has never been totally outperformed by DDR on Intel boards -- the P4 is particularly well-suited to RDRAM's strengths. However, performance is usually comparable, and I believe DDR is cheaper.

jeff061 · 02-13-2004, 07:43 PM

$750 and less Amd has the fastest processors. $900 and up Intel has fastest. Really the only logical reason you go with a cheaper Intel cpu is if you plan on overclocking a 2.4. I get the feeling you are not one to do this.

Thats my quick and dirty analysis. If you want the best bang for your buck, AMD is far and away the winner.

ps, RAMBUS is an evil evil thieving company of lawyers. Don't support them

.

sabotai · 02-13-2004, 07:57 PM

Avoid Celeron and Duran like the plague. My suggestion would be the AMD Athlon, since it sounds like price is a factor. There really isn't much of a difference between between comperable AMD and Pentium chips, except the AMD's are cheaper (probably because they don't spend 10's of millions of dollars on marketing each year). Just save the money and buy the Athlon and put that extra money towards a video card or more RAM.

Mr. Wednesday · 02-15-2004, 12:17 AM

Jeff, I don't think Intel has a clear performance lead even at the high end, at the moment. Their best (the EE, which stands for "Extremely Expensive"

) is maybe a hair ahead of the top-of-the-line Athlon64 FX model, with Intel winning some things and AMD winning others.

jeff061 · 02-15-2004, 10:14 AM

Yeah I was was speaking of the EE. Which is why i said 900 and up, i figured that would scare off any sane man.

Danny · 02-15-2004, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

I still went with the Athlon, mostly because I had a source where I could get a processor for free...

Having your wife buy it for you doesn't count.

Sun Tzu · 02-15-2004, 11:45 AM

I use to be an AMD man up until about 3 years ago when I had a couple of them go kapput on me in a short time period. I am strictly Pentium now and I have only good things to say about P4's. Like most here have said I would recommend avoiding Duron and Celeron processors altogether. Those CPU's are cheap for a reason. I'm running on a P4 1.7 that I have overclocked @ 1.9 right now. I will probably be looking to upgrade my processor and motherboard in about a year, but until then I should be fine. I would recommend something in the 2.8 GHz range if you plan to hold on to this CPU for a while.

02-13-2004, 09:25 AM	#2
gstelmack Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Cary, NC	Celeron and the AMD Duron are cheaper processors with less cache, etc. In other words, they are slower than their Pentium and Athlon brethren. Intel Pentium vs. AMD Athlon will get you a religious war between the two sides. __________________ -- Greg -- Author of various FOF utilities

02-13-2004, 09:37 AM	#3
Airhog Captain Obvious Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Norman, Oklahoma	basically there isnt alot of difference between the Intel and AMD on the surface. THis is really a Coke vs. Pepsi type issue. People just love one or the other. __________________ Thread Killer extraordinaire Yay! its football season once again!

02-13-2004, 11:16 AM	#6
hukarez College Starter Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Chula Vista, CA	Now, is RAMBUS still in play, or has it been out-performed by whatever memory Intel boards are running off of nowadays? Last I heard, it was DDR, I believe. __________________ ...what we have here is a man who looks like Tarzan, but fights like Jane! My VG collection \| Xbox 360 Gamertag: ManThol \| PS3 Network ID: hukarez Doce Pares International - San Diego Council Filipino Martial Arts Digest tweet tweet twitter

02-13-2004, 11:41 AM	#7
gstelmack Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Cary, NC	RAMBUS is a non-factor for any machine sold today. Quad-pumped DDR is where it's at. __________________ -- Greg -- Author of various FOF utilities

02-13-2004, 12:43 PM	#11
gstelmack Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Cary, NC	The common argument between Intel and AMD is "AMD has better prices but is less stable". Most of my instability experience has been because people with Intel chips tend to have Intel chipsets on their motherboards, but lots of AMD people have third-party chipsets. If the motherboard chipset is made by AMD, NVidia, or Intel you are in pretty good shape. The real good that's come of this is the competition means prices as a whole are lower than they might otherwise be. __________________ -- Greg -- Author of various FOF utilities

02-13-2004, 10:39 AM	#4
AgustusM College Prospect Join Date: Dec 2003	at this point in CPU history - you will notice little difference between almost anything you choose. The Celeron will be a little slower because of the l2 cache - but it is not like the old days with the huge difference between say a 286 and a 486. My recommendation is spend your money on RAM and the video card - especially with any time of gaming those things make a far bigger performance difference then the CPU

02-13-2004, 11:03 AM	#5
Shepp High School Varsity Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Atlanta, GA	I wouldn't skimp on the processor and mess with either the Celeron or the Duron. Two weeks ago I bought I P4 2.8GHZ, 512 MB of RAM, and an NVIDIA 5200 video card 256MB of RAM for $933.00. I know that its not top of the line but 2.8 GHZ will hold its own with just about any game you would want to run today. Also, if you buy a good system board you can upgrade to a faster processor down the road. I was a little diappointed with the video card so I bought an ATI 9800 pro for another $300.00. So my total came up to about $1200.00.

02-13-2004, 12:39 PM	#10
Godzilla Blitz College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000	I would avoid the Celeron and the Duron. Otherwise, it seems like Pentium and AMD each have their own cult following. I couldn't really find a significant difference between the two brands, but when I was comparing prices it seemed like you got more bang for the buck with AMD. However, I ended up buying a Pentium 4 because, um...come to think of it, I don't remember why I went with a P4. I'm happy, though, so all is good.

02-13-2004, 01:35 PM	#12
Draft Dodger Coordinator Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Keene, NH	I don't think AMD has much of an instability knock anymore. On the other hand, I don't think they are as clear-cut in the "better price for the same speed" category anymore either. When I bought my 1.2 Athlon a couple years ago, I save a bundle going AMD...and got a machine comparable to the highest Pentium at the time. this summer, when I built my 3000+ Athlon, there was a noticeable speed bump between it and the high end Pentium at the time. There was a price difference too, but not as great as in the past (although the P4 mobos were definitely more than the AMD mobos I priced). I still went with the Athlon, mostly because I had a source where I could get a processor for free...but I was definitely leaning towards the P4 at that particular time. __________________ Mile High Hockey

02-13-2004, 07:43 PM	#14
jeff061 Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: MA	$750 and less Amd has the fastest processors. $900 and up Intel has fastest. Really the only logical reason you go with a cheaper Intel cpu is if you plan on overclocking a 2.4. I get the feeling you are not one to do this. Thats my quick and dirty analysis. If you want the best bang for your buck, AMD is far and away the winner. ps, RAMBUS is an evil evil thieving company of lawyers. Don't support them . Last edited by jeff061 : 02-13-2004 at 07:44 PM.

02-13-2004, 07:57 PM	#15
sabotai General Manager Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The Satellite of Love	Avoid Celeron and Duran like the plague. My suggestion would be the AMD Athlon, since it sounds like price is a factor. There really isn't much of a difference between between comperable AMD and Pentium chips, except the AMD's are cheaper (probably because they don't spend 10's of millions of dollars on marketing each year). Just save the money and buy the Athlon and put that extra money towards a video card or more RAM.

02-15-2004, 12:17 AM	#16
Mr. Wednesday Pro Starter Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: South Bend, IN	Jeff, I don't think Intel has a clear performance lead even at the high end, at the moment. Their best (the EE, which stands for "Extremely Expensive" ) is maybe a hair ahead of the top-of-the-line Athlon64 FX model, with Intel winning some things and AMD winning others.

02-15-2004, 10:14 AM	#17
jeff061 Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: MA	Yeah I was was speaking of the EE. Which is why i said 900 and up, i figured that would scare off any sane man.

02-15-2004, 11:45 AM	#19
Sun Tzu Pro Starter Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: In the thick of it.	I use to be an AMD man up until about 3 years ago when I had a couple of them go kapput on me in a short time period. I am strictly Pentium now and I have only good things to say about P4's. Like most here have said I would recommend avoiding Duron and Celeron processors altogether. Those CPU's are cheap for a reason. I'm running on a P4 1.7 that I have overclocked @ 1.9 right now. I will probably be looking to upgrade my processor and motherboard in about a year, but until then I should be fine. I would recommend something in the 2.8 GHz range if you plan to hold on to this CPU for a while. __________________ I'm still here. Don't touch my fucking bacon.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)