While I REALLY doubt this is true, I agree I wouldn't touch them. Or anything else that comes from Intel, and yes an AMD would smoke them both.Pwolf wrote:i've also heard that celerons are also p4's that didn't make the cut and are then modified to the celeron specs. I don't quite remember where i heard this or if it is even accurate, so don't take my word for it. I wouldn't touch a celeron with a 10ft pole anyway
Pwolf
Here's the quick and dirty version the best way I can explain it.
Pentium 'M' line = Mobile as has been discussed. Not exactly sure what makes them different except for their lowered power consumption and lowered heat production. I know no one in their right mind uses them for desktop PC's so that's really all I need to know. I would assume that the proformance is lacking cycle per cycle.
Pentium III, IV, etc. = Your 'normal' Pentium chip. As stated earlier it has a larger built in cache. Why this is important is this. Your computers RAM is fast, but there is a degree of latency (lag I guess) in getting information from the CPU to RAM over your Motherboard's BUS. An onboard Cache allows the CPU to do more processing because it has that little bit of RAM built right into the chip. In simple terms it's MUCH more efficent. If there wasn't a cache on the chip, the CPU would have to waste alot of cycles just waiting for the information to come back to it from the systems RAM. The onboard cache essentially keeps the CPU from having to waste those cycles of being idol, therefore allowing more work to get done quicker. So to put it simply, More cache = More better BUT also = more expensive.
Which brings us to the Celery....I mean Celeron
This is basically a normal Pentium III (or IV, etc.) with a substancially smaller onboard cache. In theory, the internal die of the chip is identical to it's big brother. The main purpose of this chip is to save money at the cost of proformance. Since you lose CPU cycles to the chip sitting idol, you're proformance suffers. But it is cheaper.
The ironic part is that Intel markets them as running cooler and spins this as a major advantage. OF COURSE IT'S COOLER IT'S NOT WORKING AS HARD!!! :duh:It's all a big marketing ploy when you think about it. It really isn't as much about clock speed when you think about it. It's about how the CPU uses those cycles that matters.
Let's say you have a Pentium IV @ 3000 Mhtz, and a Pentium Celeron @ 3000 Mhtz. Consider this. If the Celeron uses a third of it's clock cycles waiting for instructions to return from system RAM, then you are basically operating at 2000 Mhtz instead, because 1000 cycles are being wasted every second for really no good reason. Granted that even the highest end chips on the market still sit idol for a considerable amount of time, it's the AMOUNT of time that matters.
All that said, all we have left (realistically) are the chips from the fine folks at AMD. From the evidence that I have, AMD manufactures their chips in such a way that the internal architecture of the chip is radically different from a standard Pentium equivalent, which allows it to operate MUCH more efficently then it's counter parts. There are benchmarks out the ass to prove that to you. Clock cycle per Clock cycle, AMD chips do more work, and cost LESS then Pentiums. Yeah I don't know why the fuck Pentiums are sold either, don't feel bad. In the AMD world, you have your standard Athlon chips (analogous to a Pentium III, IV, whatever), and your Durons (analogous to a Celeron) same basic concept.
The reason that you don't see that many name brand computers with AMD chips in them is really pretty simple. 1) long term proprietary contracts between the companys and Intel. 2) Name recognition. (your mom basically knows what a pentium is...does she know what an Atlon is? thought not) But ask just about anyone who has built their own computer what type of CPU is in their setup. I'm guessing you'll find that at least 80% have an AMD chip of some sort. I do.
Well, I didn't mean to write that much, but I hope it helps..... ::^_^
