Pentium 4 1.7Ghz vs. Celeron 2.4 Ghz

[jeffchan]

Pentium 4 1.7Ghz vs. Celeron 2.4 Ghz, which one is faster? Is it possible to find which one is faster?

[bman]

the whole celeron petium thing isn't much of a difference, and since its 1.4 to 2.4, the celeron is faster.

[jdhore]

The Celeron would be faster...the only advantage the P4 really has over the Celeron is that the P4 has double the L1/L2 Caches

[darknessgp]

Neither is "faster" one runs at 1.7 Ghz and the other at 2.4 Ghz. That's roughly how much throughput it has. i.e. how much it can handle in 1 unit of time (I forget if it is a second or millisecond)

in anycase, it should be stated that Celeron processes are notorious at having bad wiring. Not anything damaging, but actual proformance doesn't reflect close to the specs for it...

Why exactly do you need to know which is faster?

[jeffchan]

Performance, I mean, if you will.

Anyways, as odd as this may sound, I'm running on a P4 1.7Ghz CPU right now, and I'm buying a 2.4 Ghz Celeron for a very very cheap price. I was just curious. I'm one of those people who don't think that people must be using the latest processors, motherboards, graphics cards, etc.

[odessa]

Performance, I mean, if you will.

Anyways, as odd as this may sound, I'm running on a P4 1.7Ghz CPU right now, and I'm buying a 2.4 Ghz Celeron for a very very cheap price. I was just curious. I'm one of those people who don't think that people must be using the latest processors, motherboards, graphics cards, etc.

You are correct, there is no reason at all to upgrade unless you need increased performance for such things as CAD, gaming or other such performance intensive activities. Furthermore, did you change the software since you installed it? Most likely NO.

A P4 1.7ghz is a good chip. If you do a full wipe of your HD or go get a good cleanup program like TuneUp Utilities and CCleaner, you may be surprised as you WILL get back the performance that was lost over the years. How about a simple memory upgrade ... both RAM and a Vid Card? Hard drive should be at least 7200 rpm 2mb cache.

Americans are wasters. The only reason so many Americans throw away so easy is because the companies are using cheap Communist labor from China. Soon, once America is fully dependent on Communist goods, the Chinese govt will increase the cost of doing biz. Start saving now! Be fiscally responsible and only buy a new computer if YOU will profit from this upgrade! Will a new computer increase your performance and in return will you make more money? No? Don't buy a new box! Just tweak out the P4 that you have!

Personally, I work with computers so I get my hands on all kinds.

I have an AMD 1ghz with 768 megs of ramm that is one of my favorite computers. It is still killer fast for what I do on it. I refuse to retire this bad boy!

I have a PIII 1 Ghz, P4 1.7 (like you) and a Celeron 2.4 ghz. Truth be told, unless you are going to be number crunching or playing video games the 1.7 ghz is plenty fast! Save your money.

The celeron just has less L2 cache memory. Again, unless you are going to be gaming or doing some extreme multitasking .. don't let the Celeron vs. P4 myths scare you. I also had the same misconceptions until this Celeron was handed to me by a supplier. I built it a box and was quite surprised. The Celeron now serves as the "everybody" computer and a network file server. Intense gaming no ... but it does work just fine doing multiple Office applications, internet surfing and many of the normal things people do on computers.

So, in conclusion, it comes down to ...

1. Will a new computer make you profit? If yes, buy it. If no .. see about tuning up your P4!

2. Do you number crunch, CAD, Gaming? If yes, unless you will profit from the update consider this a luxury and only buy it if you deserve it!

Remember save your money. The Sleeping Giant is reeling in America .. hook, line and sinker ... don't get caught!

BTW, Vista vs. XP .. you don't need Vista at all unless you like eye candy! Vista is designed to pump up hardware sales. It has heavy hardware requirements so that people need to upgrade into order to run the software M$ tells you that you need. XP will do the trick for years to come. Some people are still using W2K!

[darknessgp]

...
BTW, Vista vs. XP .. you don't need Vista at all unless you like eye candy! Vista is designed to pump up hardware sales. It has heavy hardware requirements so that people need to upgrade into order to run the software M$ tells you that you need. XP will do the trick for years to come. Some people are still using W2K!

that's a complete myth... I've seen Vista running on a P3 700 mhz. Yea, no Aero, but it ran and did so nicely. This myth was mainly propagated by review sites that think every enhancement (graphics and others) HAVE to be running for an OS to function properly. It should also be noted that most of those review sites were sent ASUS top of the line laptops with Vista and Office 2007 on them... I know one review of Vista that included why they didn't like the new look for Word, an Office app not a Vista app. The only way Vista will force you into a hardware upgrade is if your running on some shitty pentium 2 or less machine. So, please don't try to spread "facts" unless you know them to be 100% true. I'm not saying there is some massive benefit from running Vista, but to me it's so much more enjoyable to use than XP.

[odessa]

I agree, if you turn off AERO and all of the eye candy you can get VISTA to work on older machines. However, what is the point? In that case you might as well stick with XP, right?

I have been using VISTA on a test box since Beta RC2 and just wasn't overwhelmed by it. Besides, many products are still catching up to be VISTA compatible. I would wait at least a year before deploying VISTA on production PCS, if at all.

[darknessgp]

I agree, if you turn off AERO and all of the eye candy you can get VISTA to work on older machines. However, what is the point? In that case you might as well stick with XP, right?

I have been using VISTA on a test box since Beta RC2 and just wasn't overwhelmed by it. Besides, many products are still catching up to be VISTA compatible. I would wait at least a year before deploying VISTA on production PCS, if at all.


wrong, there are many back end things that changed in Vista. There is a point to changing, but you might not notice it right away like a gui change. For example, the super fetching is awesome once you've had and used Vista for more than a week or so. Oh, and running it since RC2 isn't saying much. I've ran it when it was on beta 2, RC1, and RC2. from beta2 to RC2 there were major improvements.

I do have to agree that a lot of companies are taking their sweet sweet time to move to Vista, assuming they have to recode. I have a lot of software that I ran on XP that works perfect on Vista. That said I would recommend the average user to wait till at least summer, all products barring a few small insignificant ones should have full Vista compatibility by then.

[ericjosepi]

That said I would recommend the average user to wait till at least summer, all products barring a few small insignificant ones should have full Vista compatibility by then.

Look, Microsoft has committed support to Windows XP until something around the year 2012. I think by that number you can guess when I will be upgrading barring I buy a new machine in that time... actually... that's such a lie... Next system I'm using will likely be Apple based.

[darknessgp]

Look, Microsoft has committed support to Windows XP until something around the year 2012. I think by that number you can guess when I will be upgrading barring I buy a new machine in that time... actually... that's such a lie... Next system I'm using will likely be Apple based.

Yea, they are committing support for Windows XP till 2012, so what? Windows 95 was supported until Jan 1, 2002 (7 years). Windows 98 til July 11, 2006(8 years). Windows 2000 is still supported, but in extended support. i.e. only security fixes now.

Yea, 11 years is more than what they have previously supported, but it might be like 2000 with only security fixes in the last 3 or 4 years of the support. You should also remember the last major update to XP was SP2, 3 years ago.

Support not with standing, Vista has a lot to offer the average user. And more than just a nice looking interface. Vista is a really good improvement over XP, and shouldn't be compared to anything but XP. Alex touched on this in the most recent Diggnation, Apple unlike Microsoft has the advantage of only having to support their own hardware. If you've ever taken a computer systems class, you would know how easy it is to fake hardware tests when you can optimize the code for a specific piece of hardware. It becomes trickier when you have to support thousands upon thousands of different hardware configurations like Microsoft does.

So, if you feel like you need to spend that much money on a Mac, go right ahead. I guarantee you that you'll get a good product, but please don't turn into an Apple asshole that feels the need to share with everyone about how superior the Mac is or any shit like that, cause the truth is no one cares. I already have a machine with Windows on it, I don't want to go spend 2x the amount on a Mac, sure I'd like to try OSX but there is a reason it only runs on Apple machines.

[ericjosepi]

So, if you feel like you need to spend that much money on a Mac, go right ahead. I guarantee you that you'll get a good product, but please don't turn into an Apple asshole that feels the need to share with everyone about how superior the Mac is or any shit like that, cause the truth is no one cares. I already have a machine with Windows on it, I don't want to go spend 2x the amount on a Mac, sure I'd like to try OSX but there is a reason it only runs on Apple machines.

I'm not planning on turning into an "Apple asshole" as you put it. I just find their hardware appealing and OSX from all reports is a stable and secure alternative to Windows.

Also... some reports say that MacBook Pros are some of the best laptops for Vista