Computer Newbies forum

General discussion

What can't a celeron do versus other pentium 4s

by thumper49 / December 15, 2004 2:01 AM PST

I don't know the difference between the new Celeron CPUs and the Pentium 4s. Anybody know, or point to a website?

Post a reply
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: What can't a celeron do versus other pentium 4s
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: What can't a celeron do versus other pentium 4s
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
My understanding is
by dsheets5 / December 15, 2004 2:21 AM PST

My understanding is that a P4 has twice as many transitors as a celeron. Allowing it to do more and run faster than a celeron processor. In most cases a celeron will work just fine, but if your building a gaming pc then you probably want to go with the P4. Now if your just upgrading your system without changing the motherboard you will have to check with the MB manufacturer to see what your MB can handle. Hope that helps some

Collapse -
Celeron vs P4
by thumper49 / December 15, 2004 3:13 AM PST
In reply to: My understanding is

that helps!

Collapse -
ok
by dsheets5 / December 15, 2004 3:17 AM PST
In reply to: Celeron vs P4

glad to be of service. Grin

Collapse -
sry thats wrong
by animal17 / December 17, 2004 6:06 AM PST
In reply to: ok

Read my other post and it will tell you real difference. Its not just faster becasue of more transistors. read my other post it will tell you the real reason Happy

Collapse -
Speed !
by Grif Thomas Forum moderator / December 15, 2004 3:27 AM PST

Basically, it comes down to the ability of the processor to process data "through" the system..Remember also, there are AMD processors which also compete well for processing speed vs money. And this is an ever-changing thing...Pentium 4's currently have larger "FSB" (Front side bus) and "L2 Cache" than comparable Celerons and can handle more efficient RAM and therefore process data faster.

Here's a link to an article which will explain it better than I can. After reading each page, click on the "Next" link in the lower right corner to access the next page of the article.:

Tom's Hardware-Battling Brothers - Celeron Vs. Pentium 4

Hope this helps.

Grif

Collapse -
celeron vs P4
by thumper49 / December 15, 2004 8:32 AM PST
In reply to: Speed !

this is what I was looking for! thanks

Collapse -
A Celeron should be able to do it all, just slower
by ChuckT / December 15, 2004 5:51 AM PST

There should be very little that a Celeron can't do that a Pentium can do, since a properly written program should recognize the processor difference and only use the code that is compiled for that processors instruction set.

But, a Celeron will take the extra steps (and more steps means more time) to do the same overall actions.

It is actually possible to program a 4 bit microprocessor to perform massive and complex computational tasks, including multi-tasking. Just don't expect quick response.

I remember way back in the old Apple ][ (read that as "Apple 2") days, which was a 6502 8 bit microprocessor. Then it had a pseudo 16 bit microprocessor (called the "Sweet 16") in the monitor (the base code of the computer) that actually worked. It was more than twice as slow, since 16 bit operations required more than 2 fetches to retrieve and operate almost any 16 bit instruction, but it was cool to play with.

Collapse -
ChuckT..nostalgia
by radean / December 15, 2004 7:20 AM PST

Do you remember the time of the VIC20, and Commodore64?
Then TI came out with a 16 bit computer. Never appeared faster to me, so stuck with the C64. LOL.
Shouldn't clog the forums with comments I guess, but, hey, it's Christmas!

Collapse -
C64
by thumper49 / December 15, 2004 8:35 AM PST
In reply to: ChuckT..nostalgia

I bought one of those in the early 80's and thought it could do amazing things, but the cassette memory storage sucked. SO I returned it to the store after a week of trying to make it useful.

Collapse -
I used to use
by MarkFlax Forum moderator / December 15, 2004 8:53 AM PST
In reply to: C64

the Zilog Z80 processor with the Sinclair ZX81 and Spectrum computers.

The Z80 was an 8 bit, but had 2 indexing registers called IX and IY to emulate 16 bit. But really they were just 2, 8 bit registers joined together for programming purposes.

Mark

Collapse -
cassette interface
by ChuckT / December 16, 2004 8:12 AM PST
In reply to: C64

The C64 didn't have a great tape cassette interface, and the TRS80 (Trash 80) had an even worse tape interface.

On the other hand the tape interface for the Apple ][ or the ][+ actually have very a reliable tape interface. It had a wide range of allowable recording and playback levels that worked without a hitch. Woz (the designer) devised an interface that was unlike other designs, at the time, and with it he got (comparably) high speed (about 1500 bits per second) that was reliable. Other computers often had a meager 400 bps speed, and not near as reliable.

Collapse -
cassette interface x 4
by Junk_Mail / December 17, 2004 5:21 PM PST
In reply to: cassette interface

You should have got the trash80 4 cassette controller. Super Kool memory expansion.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Now THAT Was A Floppy Disk ! ;-))
by Grif Thomas Forum moderator / December 15, 2004 9:08 AM PST
In reply to: ChuckT..nostalgia
Collapse -
Sure I remember those
by ChuckT / December 16, 2004 8:07 AM PST
In reply to: ChuckT..nostalgia

How about the PET, the predecessor to the C64 and the VIC20? The PET was the one with the terrible "chicklets" keyboard.

I didn't have a ][, I had the ][+. I did alter the ROMs in the ][+ to be a ][ when I wanted to play with Integer BASIC.

And before I got my ][+ I had a Balley Arcade Computer System. A game console that had a "Palo Alto Tiny BASIC" cartridge so that you could play with the "whopping" 1.8K of RAM.

Even today, I still have my Heathkit Microprocessor Trainer. I use it, and programmed it as a clock for use in my office. I expanded the base 256 byes of memory all the way up to 512 bytes! And I also have the Memory Expansion Box, that had the default 1K of memory, and I expanded it all the way out to 4K.

Ah memories! and to think of all the money I poured into those boxes!

Collapse -
Commodore Pet
by jimo3 / December 17, 2004 2:30 AM PST
In reply to: Sure I remember those

The original Pets had the chicklet keyboards because Commodore at the time was a calculator company. So they used what they had for the keyboard. Made touch typing very difficult but the problem was actually space. They built the tape recorder into the keyboard area to be able to house the entire shebang in one case. Once they discovered that the keyboard was universally disliked they got rid of the tape player. I didn't own a Pet because I was running an 80k {double expansion interface} TRS-80 with the upper/lower case mod. I think that when Commodore took the tape player out of the keyboard they installed 5 1/4 floppy drives.

Jim

Collapse -
Commodore
by Vince.Rosati / December 17, 2004 3:38 AM PST
In reply to: Commodore Pet

Wow! Some of you guys are as old as I am! My first home computer was a VIC-20, then a C-64, then a C-128, and then an Amiga. My first computer at work was an HP 9810. The thing that the HP computers and the Commodroes had in common was OPERATTING SYSTEM IN ROM. It was great. No bootup time, and BASIC was always ready.

With memory being so cheap these days, wouldn't it be nice to have the OS in ROM (The ROM could be re-writable to allow for updates.).


Vince

Collapse -
Ahh the memories (pun intended)
by Jim Cassata / December 17, 2004 3:56 AM PST
In reply to: Commodore

My first time was a C64, $200.00 (not including monitor and external floppy). A fraction of the cost of a PC in those days. It was great. OS in ROM, and BASIC interpreter in the OS. Just goes to show you the best technologies do not always prevail, just the most popular / better marketed.

Collapse -
Re: Commodroes had ... Operating System in ROM
by ChuckT / December 17, 2004 10:09 AM PST
In reply to: Commodore

Well, that is not entirely true. The C64, like the Apple 2 line had a very limited OS in ROM. It did have BASIC and some rudimentary commands to enable some peripherals.
It did not have a disk operating system in ROM. For the disk OS your needed to boot up a peripheral (a floppy drive, typically) that had a bootstrap program to then load the disk OS addendums.

In the Apple 2 line, you typically would type "PR#6" (for slot 6) to start up the disk controller in that slot, where it usually was.
In the C64 I believe you had to type "load *,8,1" (don?t blast me if I got that slightly wrong, I didn?t have a C64).

The point is, to get the computer to use some program that was on an external peripheral, you needed to do another boot. I did like the occasional ?flip the switch? and the built in OS with BASIC was there, and I was able to do some things. But if I wanted to then save some program I just typed in I would then have to save it to cassette tape (because those tape routines were in ROM) boot to start up a disk drive, bring the saved program off of tape, then save it to floppy.
OR make sure that I boot up the floppy at turn on so that the DOS would be there, if needed.

I had the (Commodore) Amiga 1000 (a truly great computer, and a great multi-tasking OS), it did not have any usable OS in ROM at all. All it had was a ?bootstrap? program whose only purpose was to start up the floppy to then read in the OS.
That limitation was ?remedied? in the later Amiga?s, like the 500 and the 2000 and 3000 that followed.

I made modifications to my Amiga 1000 to add in third-party ROMs into the case of the Amiga that was the OS, but even with that I still had to boot to a connected hard drive to load in the Disk Operating System. I even added additional memory INSIDE my Amiga 1000 case to then have 1.75 MB of memory (much more than the standard 256K or if you had the expansion extra 256K to then have 512K).
But with the added third-part ROM, the extra memory, and the hard drive, the boot was just a few seconds and I just loved that machine.

Collapse -
C64 DOS
by pctech3 / December 19, 2004 10:38 PM PST

The C64 and C128 did not load DOS from the floppy drive. The DOS resided in the drive, and it appeared as a serial device to the computer. You just could not 'hot plug' a drive and expect it to work. I have owned and programmed on several of them.
The C128 with the 3.5 inch floppy drive was awesome compared to anything else around when it came out!

Collapse -
C64 or C128 Disk
by ChuckT / December 25, 2004 4:34 AM PST
In reply to: C64 DOS

Whether you consider the DOS (Disk Operating System) "loading" or "becoming resident" only after you enabled the drive is irrelevant. The point is that the DOS was not there when you first turn on the computer. So the idea of "turn it on" and everything being immediately automatically present wasn't the case. But we are only quibbling semantics anyway. Drop it, not important.

So, what made the C128 3?" drive so "awesome" anyway?
Was it faster than the current crop, at the time? Did it have more capacity?
And if it was that awesome, what do you suppose was the reason that its capability was not followed more toward the 3?" standard that was being developed at the time?

Collapse -
OMG!! We're all showing our age!!
by MartinM2517 / December 18, 2004 11:41 AM PST
In reply to: Sure I remember those

It's so funny to look back on those days isn't it! I'm back in college with some people one third of my age (I'm 46--went back for certification finally.) And we'll all get to talking about the older computers and I'll tell them how it used to take 30 minutes to an hour and a half to load up games and stuff. It was funny and frustrating back then and all these computers today can still be funny and frustrating, so in that sense it hasn't changed much. Heck, just cussed out a computer not too long ago for problems with a video card that I've got to go and find a driver for on the web.

What memories though huh? I'd kind of like to get an old C64, TRS80 and Apple IIc myself. I have an old MacPlus, but I'd lover one of the older guys. One of these days I'll find someone who doesn't want theirs. Be great to have to show the younger generation.

Merry Christmas to all of you! Have a drive to set up for a customer.

Martin

Collapse -
OMG, We're all showing our age
by Cad_1.0 / December 19, 2004 12:16 AM PST

Speaking of showing our age, when I got started, it was only Fortran and IBM cards

Collapse -
Oh the money!!
by rockinchair / December 22, 2004 12:35 PM PST
In reply to: Sure I remember those

I remember taking most of my tax check back in the 80's to buy a dual 5.25 single sided external floppy drive for my Radio Shack/Tandy color computer 2. I hate thinking about the wasted money I really didn't have cause I was trying to raise my family.

Collapse -
I've got you all beat when it comes to age and old computers
by Don880 / December 23, 2004 4:01 PM PST
In reply to: ChuckT..nostalgia

The first computer that I worked with in 1970 was a Univac Model G15 which used one of two OS's. The simpler one was call Unicom 550 and the more sofisticated one was Unicom 1000. These OS's were loaded using punched paper tape much like the old teletype machines. Infact the keyboard and printer was a teletype machine. Instead of a harddisk and solidstate memory, the G15 used a constantly moving serial bit stream and a rotating magnetic drum for temporary data storage. All of the electronics were electron tube based and the G15 had hundreds of miles of wire connecting everything. One G15 generated about 50,000 BTU's of heat and could easily provide all the heat that a small house would need in the winter. The Univac G15 was desiged as a fire control computer for the Navy for shipboard use and could do any of the most sofisticated math calculations of todays computers. Unfortunately a modern calculator can do the same calculations in about 1/10 the time that the G15 could do them. Now that's what I call and old computer.

PS: For anyone who is interested, Apple was not the first PC to be invented. Commodore, a Canadian based company at the time, beat Apple by about one month to market. We in the US didn't hear of the Commodore till later when it was finally marketed in the US.

Collapse -
Thanks for the memories
by SpamHater / December 26, 2004 1:43 AM PST
In reply to: ChuckT..nostalgia

I also started with a C64 with the external floppy drive & a 13 inch TV for a monitor. I thought it was awesome! I remember when the computer of my dreams was an Amiga but never could afford one. I never got that Amiga but now I have 2 p4's along with several older computers I like to push to the limits just to see what they're capable of. But that C64 got my whole family hooked on computers. I still greatly admire that C64 and what itwould do for the time it was around. It was still working great when I got my first 486 and gave it to one of my son's friends.

Collapse -
Commodore - Scroll Speed
by ddesigns / January 2, 2005 8:42 AM PST
In reply to: ChuckT..nostalgia

The thing I liked about the Commodore was the SMOOOTH scrolling of the screen.

Why can't we get that back ? I don't think it has anything to do with the power of the PC, because I have used VERY fast computers at offices.

I could be wrong, but it seems to be just Gates' software.

Collapse -
SIGH.......
by relentlesss / January 10, 2005 5:55 AM PST
In reply to: ChuckT..nostalgia

My first pc was a 386 built from spare parts gleaned from a "cyberkid's" garage floor. These kids used land lines and ran private BBS's with WWIV software. I yearn for the intimacy of those days. Oh well.....
relentlesss

Collapse -
less cache
by msimplay / December 17, 2004 4:06 AM PST

to my knowledge its the fact that celerons have less cache
there are maybe other things but thats probably the main factor

Collapse -
Save some trouble and confucion
by kbut / December 17, 2004 4:11 AM PST

Save some trouble, get a Athlon XP
Cooler, Cheaper, Faster

I run similar machines side-by-side and the Athlon XP 2800 outruns the P4 2.53 by far...AND the Athlon runs far cooler

The P4 is a Dell, the Athlon is a white box andseveral hundred dollars less.

Collapse -
Save some trouble and some confucion
by Cad_1.0 / December 19, 2004 12:19 AM PST

P4 is an "Intel" product, not Dell or other computer making company.

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Help 47,885 discussions
icon
Computer Newbies 10,322 discussions
icon
iPhones, iPods, & iPads 3,188 discussions
icon
Security 30,333 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 20,177 discussions
icon
HDTV Picture Setting 1,932 discussions
icon
Phones 15,713 discussions
icon
Windows 7 6,210 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 14,510 discussions

CNET Forums

Looking for tech help?

Whether you’re looking for dependable tech advice or offering helpful tricks, join the conversation in our forums.