OK-all you geeks.What can I expect out of a celeron (2k) machine vs the other 2?
I never play games,just need a combo library/encylopedia/file cabinet for surfing and occasional downloading of text.
Will the celeron meet my demands?This particular box has 256 DDR ram an 40 gig hard drive.
Thanks for any nontechie responses.Computers are not my strong suit.
unless that celeron is in the sub 500 mhz range which I highly doubt since I see ddr ram, it’ll do office work just fine.
Celerons are less powerfull than either Pentium or Athlon processors at the same clock speed, usually due to having less cache memory.
For internet access, word processing etc you really don’t need much in the way of CPU power and would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the three. You’ll probably find the cheapest new system you can buy more than powerfull enough.
Have you considered buying a second hand system rather than new?
I currently have a 500MHz PIII which is still perfectly usable for pretty much everything except games.
BTW by Celeron (2K) do you mean the processor runs at 2GHz or the machine is supplied with Windows 2000?
milo
I think the chip is rated at 2.2 GHZ?
To see how fast your processor is, right click on the My Computer icon, and click on properties - it should list processor type and speed, along with the amount of RAM.
A 2.2 GHZ Celeron will be more than fast enough for basic web surfing/word processing type work, and in those types of applications you would have a difficult time telling the difference between it and a Pentium4 or Athlon, though it will lag behind those processors in games/mp3 encoding/divx encoding/video editing. Really, though a Athlon machine between ~1800-2200 XP rating should be much faster than a 2.2 GHZ Celeron, and probably cost the same too. Intel Processors are overpriced at the low end. Also, you would probably be better off going with a slightly slower processor, and upgrading the RAM to 512MB; this would give better overall performance.
Not only is a 2.2GHz celly more than enough for your computationally inexpensive needs, but by adding a £50 ($75?) graphics card i.e Radeon 9000/GeForce 4 MX 440 or above you will also have a reasonable gaming rig.
If all want to do is read the web/usenet and save text files then forget about fast CPU’s etc and buy a huge monitor, an optical mouse, a printer who’s replacement ink cartridges are inexpensive and a comfortable chair.
milo
The best value for your money is definitely an AMD Athlon XP processor. Between an Athlon XP 2000+, P4 2.0Ghz, and a Celeron 2.0Ghz the Athlon XP will be fastest, the P4 in close second place, and the Celeron a very distant third. You’re probably not going to notice the difference in your usage, but unless you can get a Celeron-based computer for MUCH cheaper than the other two, I’d go for the Athlon XP.
It’s not going to matter much, but the Athlon XP will also have the lowest power usage of the three, by a small margin.
This is one of those emotional issues, like OS. However, most benchmarks (like this one) put the Pentium 4 2.2 GHz ahead of the Athlon XP 2000+. I have machines with both processors (otherwise configured similarly: 1 GB RAM, 60 GB HDD, Radeon 7500 VE cards, etc.), and there’s no obvious difference perceptible to users.
Comparing a P4 2.2Ghz to an Athlon XP 2000+ isn’t exactly fair. One should compare CPUs with the same “speed grade,” for example an P4 2.2Ghz vs. an Athlon XP 2200+. They tend to be priced to compete in this fashion. That article is from well over a year ago, when the CPU marketplace was a little different.
As an aside, how shall I put this…the accuracy and method of Tom’s Hardware Guide’s articles are often called into question. Using their reviews alone to make decisions on product purchases is not advisable.
Of course, you also have to look at the price too - an Athlon XP 2000+ cost $58, a 2200+ is $74, while a 2.26GHZ P4 runs in at $151, a 2.0GHZ P4 $127, and a 2.0GHZ comes in at $82. www.pricewatch.com AMD motherboards tend to be cheaper than Intel ones too. At the “low end” (hard to believe 2.0 Ghz CPU’s are now low end) AMD is much cheaper for the same performance than Intel. Also, I second ** Alereon ** in saying you shouldn’t trust Tom’s Hardware Guides very much.