Which is better pentium d or celeron. Intel Pentium and Core i3: dual-core optimality. Pentium generation processors

Until recently, some 20 years ago, computer performance was completely determined by central processor. Actually, the computers themselves were named after the generation of processors - “three”, “four”, “Pentium”. And it was immediately clear to everyone what the system was capable of. But since 1997, 3D accelerators began to play an important role, radically increasing performance in games. At first they were an addition to the main video card, but very soon they moved into it itself. Moreover, video cards have learned to take on part of the load that previously lay on the central processor.

Therefore, today PC performance is determined by the combination of processor, video card, memory and storage. None of the components is capable of “pulling out” speed alone. And yet the processor still sets the level of the machine, and it is from there that the configuration selection begins.

I remember a time when choosing a processor was easy. They differed only in generation, frequency and, of course, price. The newer the generation and the higher the frequency, the faster. You evaluate your financial capabilities and buy. Those were good times. It's a pity that there's no money for normal processors there wasn't enough then.

It’s interesting that the “waffle” that comes out of the oven can have very different processors. I mean, the crystals are the same, but how they are labeled is a big question.

Now everything is, to put it mildly, more complicated. Let's start with Intel products. Three generations of processors (and in some cases four) for desktop systems are on sale simultaneously. Each generation is divided into three families. Each family, in turn, is divided into groups, from 3 to 10 (!). And in each group there are from several to one and a half dozen processors. Normal, right? Even for a person who understands a little about this, it can be difficult to decide. But for normal people who need to quickly buy a computer without bothering, it’s really hard.

After reading this text to the end, you will be able to choose a processor for your needs without spending extra money on it. Which, in fact, are very useful.

Let's start with the basics

Processors for personal computers Today they are made by two companies - Inteland AMD. A couple of years ago, I would have said that you should only choose from Intel products, because AMD was catastrophically behind in performance. But, fortunately, the company managed to bridge the gap, and today processors compete on almost equal terms. In this article we will talk about what Intel produces, and I will write about AMD later.

Desktop and laptop processors differ significantly in features and performance. Simply put, they have little in common other than their names. Mobile versions significantly slower: Core i7 in an ultrabook loses to Core i3 in home system. In this material we are talking specifically about stationary, desktop versions. We can choose them according to our own taste, whereas in a laptop the chip is tightly soldered and cannot be replaced. You can only change the entire laptop.

The number of cores alone does not determine performance. Salespeople in stores like to say the opposite: they say, four cores are better than two, take more! In fact, a lot depends on the tasks. If the computer is used for typing text, amateur photo processing, and even 3D games such as World of Tanks, you will not feel the difference between 2 and 4 cores. Simply because most programs still only know how to use two cores, and the rest will be idle. Of course, if you don’t want money, you have to take everything that is MOST EXPENSIVE. But in a situation with a limited budget, a dual-core processor with a high frequency seems to be a more preferable purchase. It also makes sense to save on a processor if you don’t have enough for a fast video card: it’s definitely more useful in games. Four cores will come in handy when rendering video, mass converting photos from RAW to JPEG, working with 3D graphics, archiving large amounts of data, etc. and so on. That is, when solving professional rather than domestic problems.

Cache matters. Cache is ultra-fast memory built into the processor itself. In ancient times, when RAM and the drives were slow, cache size was a performance-critical parameter. Seriously, when the cache size in the processor increased from 512 kilobytes to 1 megabyte, at the same frequency the speed jump was noticeable to the naked eye. Nowadays the cache is no longer so important, but it is still useful when the most frequently used data is located inside the processor. This does not affect performance tests, but the responsiveness of the computer is higher, the larger the volume. In modern Intel processors, the cache size ranges from 2 to 12 megabytes.

Processors differ by generation. Now there are three on the shelves side by side. Intel generation Core – sixth, seventh and eighth. The first two are purely cosmetically different, use the same socket on the motherboard, and are generally interchangeable. Whichever is cheaper, we take it. The eighth generation has undergone significant changes, which I will write about separately. And, alas, it requires a new motherboard, which does not support processors of the sixth and seventh generations. So the buyer is faced with a peculiar dilemma: buy a slightly cheaper non-scalable system on old-generation processors, where when upgrading you will have to change both the processor and the motherboard at once, or buy a new one right away, where - perhaps - if necessary, you can change only the processor. This is such an illusory hope, because the “old” processor will have enough performance reserves for a long time, for sure two years. And by then Intel will come up with some other incompatible socket. But, of course, we must hope.

What's the difference?

Intel today has three families of processors - Celeron, Pentium and Core.

Celeronhistorically the cheapest and slowest variety, designed for basic-level computers. When they first appeared, using them without overclocking was not very comfortable. However, the first Celerons overclocked remarkably well; I was able to boost the Celeron 300A from 300 MHz to 450, which gave performance at the level of the top Pentium II of that time.

But times have changed. For example, the Celeron G3950 operates at 3 GHz, has two cores and is made using a modern 14-nanometer process technology. And it costs a little more than 3 thousand rubles. Not a record holder, of course, but it’s just perfect for most office machines.

Pentium– cheerful middle peasants. The Pentium G line has a frequency of 3.5 to 3.7 GHz, which, combined with 3 megabytes of cache and two cores, provides decent performance, to put it mildly. Paired with a top-end video card, such a processor will not put even a top-end game to shame. The only disadvantages include the lack of technology support Turbo Boost, which additionally overclocks the processor cores under high load, but given the base frequencies of modern Pentiums, this is hardly that important. Moreover, the new Pentium models, unlike the sixth and seventh generation Core i3, support Hyper-Threading technology, which helps execute two threads of commands on one core. Price from 3300 to 5000 rubles.

Core- top family. But inside it, not everything is so simple, because very, very different processors live inside it.

Corei3 until recently they were very similar to Pentium. Differences were found only in frequencies (even slightly higher) and cache size (4 megabytes instead of 3). There was no point in overpaying, to be honest. But recently the 8th generation Core i3 appeared on sale, where old price The dual-core model is given a quad-core model, and the cache size is 8 megabytes. In Russia, however, there is still a difference in price with older models, but not serious, a few hundred rubles. For example, Intel Core The i3-8100 costs about 9 thousand, and if not all users will benefit from the “free” cores, then the 8 MB cache is very much in the picture. The price of Core i3, depending on the generation and frequency, ranges from 7 to 14 thousand rubles.

Corei5 - the golden mean. In the vast majority of cases, this is a top-end processor for home needs. Everyone's there in at its best– 4 cores for serious tasks, high frequencies, Turbo Boost for acceleration under load, and enough cache. And in the eighth generation, the number of cores in the top Core i5 was increased to 6. To be honest, it’s hard for me to imagine a task where so much would be useful. Few applications can load four cores properly, but when will they learn to work with six? It's a big question. On the other hand, here, as with the Core i3, the principle of “more cores at the same price” is used. And if six are worth as much as four - well, why not take it? For the sake of the same cache. Fair warning: you won't feel the difference. But moral satisfaction is quite possible. The price range is again large - from 11 to 24 thousand rubles.

Corei7 – the top of the tops. The difference from Core i5 is more high frequency and increased cache size. Plus, such a beast appears as the already mentioned Hyper-Threading. This is a fairly old technology that appeared in the Pentium 4, thanks to which each core pretends to be two at once for applications. That is, from the point of view of programs, the system has not 4 cores, but eight. Well, or not 6, but 12, if we talk about the eighth generation. There is no serious point in buying a Core i7 for home. That's just no, that's all. Recommended only to those who can’t eat until they buy the coolest thing. The eighth generation Core i7 also received 6 cores and as much as 12 megabytes of cache. The issue price is from 20 to 34 thousand rubles. Yes, by the way, I have a Core i7.

Useful tips

– Don't skimp on your motherboard. Don't regret it, that's all. So that it’s a good breed, and there’s plenty of all sorts of connectors, and even some frills wouldn’t hurt, like improved built-in sound and Wi-Fi/Bluetooth modules. The mother is the head of everything, and how stable the system will work depends on her. I like products from ASUS, ASRock and Gigabyte.

– In the name of the processor familyCorethere is a letter K at the end. For example, Intel Core i7-8700K. This means that the processor has an unlocked multiplier and you can try to overclock it to a higher frequency standard means motherboard, without additional sorcery. There is no economic sense in this, because the multiplier is unlocked only for the most expensive and productive models, which already operate at high frequencies. But you can have fun. The main thing is not to forget to buy a good cooler with a large radiator.

– Dual coreCeleron, Pentiumand Corei3 may well work with passive cooling , if there is at least one fan in the computer case. It is enough to place an effective radiator on them and moderately generously lubricate them with thermal paste.

– In all modern processorsIntelhas a built-in graphics core. It's not great for gaming, but it handles everything else. Moreover, all current models have hardware encoding and video decoding, which was previously an attribute of older processors.

– I deliberately left the ruler behind the scenesCoreX, where there are very expensive models for wealthy maniacs. If you already have a lot of money, you will find one for yourself without my prompting.

A continuation about AMD is in the works. Questions can (and should) be directed to:

Hello everyone. In fact, the difference between Celeron and Pentium is minimal. But many users may disagree with me, saying that Celeron is much weaker and, in principle, there is some truth here... And all because it was like that before. When there was a 775 socket or an even more ancient 478 socket, then in those days there were basically two families, these were Pentium and Celeron. I don't mean quad-core processors on socket 775, they appeared later.

So. That's when Celeron was much weaker. But starting with socket 1156, everything began to change, now Celeron is close to Pentium in performance and some users on the forum even advise buying it, since the power is almost the same. But I don’t think so, after all, Penek will be faster... it has 3 MB of cache, and Celeron has 2 MB..

And the whole point is that powerful processors ABOVE Penk appeared in socket 775 (but not immediately, but with the release of new chipsets), even then there were so-called quads, but there was still a difference between Penk and Celeron. But now it is already minimal. Technical process, modern technologies, in general, today's Celeron (1150 socket) is a couple of times more powerful than the old top-end Pentium 4 EE (775 socket), who would have thought...

Therefore, the difference between Penk and Celeron fluctuates around 10-15%, that’s approximately, but not more than 20%, that’s for sure. Basically the same as the price

But it’s true that Celeron has one big plus - it’s actually even cooler, that is, it heats up even less than Penek, and in principle it can be used with passive cooling. But at the same time, you need to think about ventilation in the case, because after all, the Celeron kit comes with a radiator with a fan for a reason.. *cute*

All I’m writing here is that the difference is small, I mean modern processors starting with socket 1156. I’ll tell you a secret, Celeron G3900, which is 1151 socket, frequency 2.8, 2 MB cache, sixth generation Skylake, well, so Well, it will be more powerful than even the quad-core Q9650 on socket 775, although it is the latest Yorkfield core...!

In general, I don’t know what to say. Because my opinion is that the difference in price between a modern Penk and a modern Celeron is exactly equal to their difference in performance. But there are Penka models that can be overclocked, for example the Pentium G3258 model. An overclocked Penek will already be head and shoulders above Celeron, keep this in mind. The price of a model that supports overclocking (that is, having an unlocked multiplier) is 10-15 bucks higher. But it's worth it, believe me...

For example, in this test, Celeron falls just short of Penk’s level:

And believe me, you may not even notice this difference, especially if the computer is intended for the office..

Here is another test and here the same situation will be repeated, the difference is very small:

Another test:

The tests themselves are not particularly important here, the main thing is that the processors here are modern, that is, this is real information in order to understand the difference.

And look here, Celeron 1037U, Celeron J1900, these are processors that are already included in motherboards, that is, soldered, they are not for ordinary computers at all, but for media centers. This is actually why they lose to desktop Celerons:

Here's another WinRAR test (the archiver has a built-in performance test):

Well, I hope that now you already understand that the difference in price is almost the same as the difference in performance. For an office PC or just a home PC, I would take Celeron. If you need a gaming PC, but don’t have a lot of money, then take only a Pentium that can be overclocked, for example, these are the G3260, G3258, G3420 models, these are all 1150 socket. Here's what CPU-Z shows about the G3420:

As you can see here, it’s 4.5 GHz and believe me, this is no longer a joke. And for this you can do without water cooling, it is enough to have a decent radiator with a decent cooler

The year 2013 is the year of the great 22nm breakthrough

Autumn is inevitably followed by winter, winter is followed by spring, and with the same inevitability we need to return to budget families of Intel processors for the LGA1155 platform. The inevitability is dictated by the fact that since late autumn (when we last dealt with this issue), although not revolutionary, but very serious changes have occurred in this market segment. Nothing unpredictable - if back then we saw the first Pentium on Ivy Bridge, now the new microarchitecture has become firmly established not only in the Pentium line, but also in Celeron. Moreover, the company’s pricing policy, traditionally, leads to the fact that the purchase of previous models by trade organizations loses all meaning: new ones are shipped at the same prices. Moreover, the process turned out to be so rapid that one model managed to disappear from the horizon altogether, almost never reaching Moscow retail.

To make it clearer, we decided to present such a unique table, which only needs a brief explanation: the first column is the “standard” price levels of processors in the budget segment, the second is the best that “lived” on them at the time of the material mentioned above, and the third is what “lives” there now. As you can see, models with four-digit numbers occupied all the “standard” niches, and similar processes were taking place in the area of ​​the “energy efficient” T-family. In fact, the last bastion of Sandy Bridge remained the single-core processors of the Celeron G400 line, but they were not of particular interest to the retail buyer before.

As for the usual models of the G500, G600 and G800 families, they remain in the wholesale price list, but cost like new. However, they can still be considered as candidates for purchase (as well as the quickly flying by Pentium G2010), but only due to the peculiarities of the retail market, which is updated with a noticeable delay. Accordingly, the inventory of the “old guys” must be sold off somehow, and the only way to attract attention to them is through price. Previously (when new models differed from old ones only in clock speed), this sometimes allowed for serious savings - as we already wrote, the opportunity to find an “old” Pentium G630 in stores at the price of a “new”, but slower Celeron G555 was quite real, and not hypothetical . But now it’s worth thinking carefully before taking such a step, taking into account in advance what you will have to lose. Those planning to use integrated graphics are generally better off not thinking about Sandy Bridge without a serious discount from the seller: we also compared HD Graphics of the second and third generations in the fall - with a devastating result for the first. And what has changed in terms of processor performance, which is more interesting to many (after all, despite all the progress, integrated graphics Intel gaming can still be called a decision only out of politeness)? We already know that Ivy is faster than Sandy “all other things being equal”, as well as the magnitude of this increase, but the massive arrival of the new microarchitecture in Celeron has led to the appearance of “not equal” ones. And what will be the final result? Today we will study this issue.

Test bench configuration

This is what almost the entire line of junior representatives of the Ivy Bridge microarchitecture looks like today - only the Pentium G2010 is missing, the reasons for its absence were given above. What you should pay attention to? Firstly, as it was easy to guess, the increase in clock frequencies continues - there is much more time left before the transition of Celeron and Pentium to LGA1150 than before the appearance of the new platform, so this extensive version of a creeping increase in performance “for the same money” was and remains main Secondly, as before, there are three lines of processors under two names, differing in the capacity of the third level cache and supported RAM frequencies. But if the L3 capacity has not changed, then the RAM has grown by one step: the G2100 family officially supports DDR3-1600, and the younger ones got DDR3-1333, which was previously the prerogative of only the Pentium G800. This is official, but in practice the situation is more interesting. Firstly, many motherboards based on “overclocker” chipsets allow you to set memory frequencies higher than the official ones. Secondly, even on non-overclocking models, the restrictions are more or less strictly observed for the G2000, but not the G1600: our “old lady” on the H67, for example, offered DDR3-1600 among the acceptable options for the latest line. Apparently, the origins of this confusion must be sought somewhere in the depths of Intel, where they decided to make an easing for Celeron - they are already “offended” by L3 capacity and frequencies, so additional restrictions may be less stringent. However, we have already studied the issue of performance gains when increasing the memory frequency from 1066 to 1333 MHz, which resulted in an estimate of 2%, and between 1333 and 1600 MHz the difference is even smaller, so this issue is only relevant when using an integrated video core. For now (in tests using the current version of the methodology) we use frequencies no higher than 1333 MHz for all LGA1155 processors.

Who should we compare the new processors with? Since there are no global changes in technical specifications did not happen, we decided to limit ourselves to “intraspecific” competition, once again taking the “tops” of three families of dual-core Sandy Bridge. It seems to us that this will be enough - AMD in this price class offers processors that are slightly different in organization, which, naturally, both overtook and will overtake the “classic” dual-core Intel processors where they could. And they will continue to lag behind them where they lagged behind :) In general, we will not give unnecessary reasons for continuing holy wars between fans of both companies, but will simply see what the new microarchitecture gives in this particular class of processors.

Testing

Traditionally, we divide all tests into a number of groups and show on diagrams the average result for a group of tests/applications (you can find out more about the testing methodology in a separate article). The results in the diagrams are given in points; the performance of the reference test system from the 2011 sample site is taken as 100 points. It is based on AMD processor Athlon II X4 620, but the amount of memory (8 GB) and video card () are standard for all tests of the “main line” and can only be changed within the framework of special studies. For those who are interested in more detailed information, again, it is traditionally proposed to download a table in Microsoft Excel format, in which all the results are presented both converted into points and in “natural” form.

Interactive work in 3D packages

Note that the processors are lined up in the form of a neat ladder, despite the similarity in performance characteristics (and the G1610 has a slightly lower frequency than the G555) - there is a certain increase from the change in microarchitecture. But there is nothing new in this - this was clear from the previous article. We remind you that the prices remain the same. Or even formally decreased.

Final rendering of 3D scenes

Another illustration of creeping progress while maintaining positions. The only interesting thing is that the Pentium G2130 has already almost achieved a result of 100 points. Let us remember that the “scale unit” is the Athlon II X4 620, equipped with four computing cores. However, this processor is very old, and at one time it was far from the fastest quad, but the result is still interesting. If only because the dual-core, but four-threaded (also old, by the way) Core i3-530 from 2010 was slower.

Packing and Unpacking

The greater growth in the younger families and the almost complete lack of progress in the older ones is largely due to the fact that we limited ourselves to DDR3-1333 memory for all processors.

Audio encoding

Pure mathematics, and even algorithms that have not been updated for a long time - it is clear that “classic” dual-core processors have nothing special to catch here. On the other hand, at the same frequency, Ivy is about 5% faster than Sandy, which, given the similarity of the test subjects, allowed the Celeron G1620 to almost catch up with the Pentium G645 - which has a higher clock frequency and in general... Pentium at least, and not some Celeron.

Compilation

And again, no changes. However, those who are counting on them, we think, have already quickly moved to conclusions :) From a more or less curious point, the G2020 is almost catching up with the G870, despite the 200 MHz difference in clock frequency.

Mathematical and engineering calculations

And here not only the G2020 is capable of such “feats,” but also the G1620, which is as close as possible to the G645. In general, despite the fact that the main changes during the transition from Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge are not concentrated in the processor cores, sometimes they lead to a quite visible effect. Relatively visible, of course.

Raster graphics

Repetition of what has been covered. Actually, it couldn’t be otherwise - the processors are very similar. Despite the difference in microarchitecture, names and positioning. Once again, the most interesting thing is that, in general, the practical difference between the Celeron G555 and Pentium G2130 is about 25% - in this situation, looking for differences between models that are closer to each other is, naturally, a thankless task.

Vector graphics

Video encoding

We didn’t comment on the previous diagram because we were tired of it, but this one is perhaps the most interesting of all. In any case, it differs from the rest: the advantages of Ivy Bridge over previous models are almost visible to the naked eye. In fact, the Celeron G1620 managed to not only catch up, but also overtake the Pentium G645, and the Pentium G2020 exactly repeated the results of the G870, i.e., the new microarchitecture made it possible to compete on an equal footing with higher-frequency processors from families positioned higher. And, by the way, a result of 100 points (i.e., the level of Athlon II X4 620) has already been achieved by two dual-core Intel processors, and two more completely exceed this level.

Office software

It was faster than necessary, but it became even faster - what can I add? :)

Java

Another case when the “younger new” catches up with the “older old”, but otherwise there is traditionally nothing interesting: after all, all the tested processors are very similar to each other, differing only in small things.

Games

The superiority of the new microarchitecture over the old one is relatively great - even the lack of cache memory (which is very important here) did not interfere. However, the superiority is due, in fact, to one single game: F1 2010. Which “slows down” on all low-threaded processors, but slows down on Ivy Bridge to a lesser extent than on Sandy Bridge. As we have already written, all other things being equal, this “handbrake release” increases the frame rate by as much as 30% or more, which significantly exceeds the average increase in Ivy over Sandy. But where there are enough computing threads (Core i3 and higher), the absolute level of performance itself is much higher, but such breakthroughs are not observed. In general, as we can see, architectural improvements can work differently in different programs and on processors of different classes, so they need to be assessed as a whole, and not based on one example (whatever it may be).

Multitasking environment

Dual-core - it is dual-core. Any progress is observed only in younger families, i.e. where productivity was lacking to the maximum extent. Why is this interesting? And the fact that the frequencies of younger Celeron/Pentiums are comparable to the frequencies of mobile and (to an even greater extent) ultramobile processors. And it is precisely in such conditions that microarchitecture optimizations have the greatest impact. That is, the thesis is once again confirmed that Ivy Bridge is primarily for the mobile market. That’s why the older models looked so pale a year ago compared to their predecessors - the latter were already doing well. But lower power consumption and higher operating efficiency at low clock speeds in low-end processors are what laptops need. And, of course, the dramatic improvement in the built-in video core is from the same area: a desktop user is free to choose a video card, but in a more compact systems using anything powerful is already problematic.

Total

Of course, the final summary chart looks exactly like most of the ones in this article, but... Doesn't quite paint the picture. Simply because in all “three-digit” lines we took the older models, i.e., the latest ones at the time of the official transition of these lines to Ivy Bridge. However, they appeared as a result of more than a year of development of the corresponding families, and not all at once, so in retail you can also stumble upon older representatives - up to the Celeron G530 and Pentium G620. Therefore, let's try to take a look at the general state of affairs in the camp of old and new budget processors.

In general, it is indicative: at equal frequencies, Pentium is always better than Celeron of its generation, but the new Celeron is better than the old Pentium. And among the various sub-lines of the latest family, the transition to a new architecture also provides more than extensive little things, such as a slight increase in memory speed. And at the very top of the segment, everything is also clear: the transition to a new microarchitecture provided a greater increase than a simple increase in clock frequency, but Intel did not abandon the latter either. Moreover, Ivy Bridge is more economical than Sandy Bridge, so the only thing that can restrain creeping progress is the reluctance to arrange intra-company competition with more expensive families. But as clock speeds increase in expensive models, it is possible to move forward in the budget segment.

Actually, this is what modern price reductions look like “Intel’s way.” In the summer of 2011, 110 final points (Pentium G840) of our method were estimated at $75 wholesale, but now the Celeron G1620 gives almost the same amount with a wholesale price of $52 (well, we can already conclude that after the release of the G1630, inevitable as the collapse of capitalism, this processor will displace the G1610 from the $42 price bracket). Moreover, if we talk about the cheapest computers, then they involve the use of an integrated video core, and in this area the advantage of the third generation HDG over the second is generally noticeable to the naked eye. It is clear that this still does not make integrated Intel graphics a gaming solution, but the user will experience less inconvenience. In general, in a nutshell, the situation can be characterized as follows: it has become a little better and a little cheaper. There are no hints of revolution, but no one promised it.

13.7.2005, 20:28

The problem is that I can’t decide which percentage is better to take: Pentium 2.4E or Celeron D340, the price is about the same, but what should I take??? I don’t know) I want it for games!!!
Yes, and advise which mother to take for such a process, mine can’t handle it anymore, I need to change it so that it’s not expensive but tasteful)) (and not for free, of course)

13.7.2005, 21:09

I read this) thank you Xandras! I'm interested in the following point:
As I understand it, for games you need a larger L2 Cache, which is what limits Celeron (if I understand correctly). I'm wondering if Celeron 2.9 will have any advantages over Stump 2.4, if there are any of course)????

13.7.2005, 21:27

A Celeron is a Celeron, no matter what frequency it operates at.
they probably cost the same (selm 2.9 and stump 2.4), the choice is definitely up to the stump
maybe for AMD64 we're talking about games

Take a Pentium, you won't go wrong. Just watch what kind of stump you take.
First I took a Pentium 2.4E 533MHz, 1024Kb. There is no Hyper-Threading, memory is not supported at a maximum frequency of 400MHz (the maximum was 333MHz).
I decided to change to Pentium 2.4C 800MHz, 512Kb. The cache is 2 times smaller, but the bus is better.

The result can be seen in the performance test in SiSoftware Sandra Professional 2005. The characteristics of the reference are the same - blue in the diagram. Red - current system under test.

Top: Pentium 2.4C 800MHz, 512Kb
Bottom: Pentium 2.4E 533MHz, 1024Kb

14.7.2005, 18:33

Artist, 2.4E will most likely be on the 533 bus, if you can’t find it on the 800, then you can look at the 2.8; the price seems like the difference is not big. Well, the Celeron D is not critical either... But the Celeron 340 will be faster in video encoding.

14.7.2005, 18:40

Utter, well written, I still don’t understand from these diagrams which is better, C or E?? (either everything is so complicated or I’ve just never seen anything like this)

Added:
FrK!~!~!, well, I don’t know, I was guided by hard drive prices and there is almost $44 difference between 2.8E and 2.4E

14.7.2005, 20:33

The blue color in the charts is essentially the same size
The red in the diagram at the top of the three indicators is much wider than at the bottom, which indicates greater performance of the Pentium 2.4C 800MHz, 512Kb.

By the way, I completely forgot. I also did other tests. Here are the results:

First column: Pentium 2.4C 800MHz, 512Kb
In brackets: Pentium 2.4E 533MHz, 1024Kb

3DMark 2001: 7808 (7766) +0.54%
3DMark 2003: 2136 (2053) +4.04%
3DMark 2005: 828 (803) +3.11%
AquaMark3: 16561 (16148) +2.56%
Well, the performance on these tests is not much different, because the test is mostly video.

SiSoftware Sandra 2004 SP2:
CPU arithmetic test: 10297 (8129) +26.67%
Multimedia CPU test: 42686 (29561) +44.40%
Test bandwidth memory: 5949 (5006) +18.84%
But here the difference is significant. The Pentium 2.4C 800MHz, 512Kb is up to 44% better.

14.7.2005, 21:40

IMHO Celeron from Intel is the same as OKA from KAMAZ....
The stump has better performance.....

14.7.2005, 22:00

Thank you people with the stump, I understood everything) And if you compare the same stump with
AMD ATHLON 64 2800+ ??

14.7.2005, 22:03

That's IMHO better than athlone... I can’t give reasons for my opinion, but I fell in love with altlons and that’s it....

14.7.2005, 23:33

Artist, If atlon64 3000+, then on socket 939 - approximately 130
Well, a motherboard for it with nforce 4 or 3. And the system will be much more promising than Intel on socket 478.

It's better to close this topic now...

Why is it necessary to help a person decide what to take...

If anyone has an AMD ATHLON 64 2800+, let them run processor tests in SiSoftware Sandra 2004 SP2 or 2005 and display the results here, as I did.

I remember there was another video from TomsHardware.com, where Pentium and Athlon 64 were tested on various applications.

Well, in games the Pentium was faster, and in most applications the Athlon 64.
In addition, as far as I understand, there will be compatibility problems with some older games on 64-bit platforms.

just the opposite

the result will be known in advance, the Pentium will win in this test, as well as in a bunch of others tailored for it

need to compare in game tests

Hemp is of course the best, but Celeron will be cheaper. I have a Celeron and I'm quite happy with it.

15.7.2005, 10:20

That's why I asked to close the topic. Even because the topic is off-topic. Let me start arguing too? Sandra, by the way, nothing is designed for Intel, if anything. It's just synthetic - it's synthetic in Africa too. On Athlone it is better to cut into the second half, on p4 the video is coded better, but how does this reflect the essence of the problem? Maybe we can also discuss dual-core processors?!
No, it's all bullshit.
Pentium is better than Celeron at higher frequencies. It is more pleasant to work at a computer when, under high load, it does not start to slow down, but behaves responsively. The blue and red Intel Inside label also looks nice, although the blue and white is also good, but not as good. Probably, the Celeron will chase better, but there are three BUTs here. Firstly, this is only probable; secondly, on higher frequencies The small cache has an even greater impact, but thirdly, is it even necessary?
A couple of comments to Utter’s post.
Northwood (and this is what was designated as Pentium 2.4C 800MHz 512Kb) today is more than impossible to find on sale, unless it’s super lying around somehow, because they haven’t even been making them for almost a year. Point two. Prescott just has an NT, the one that you can now find on sale. Third point. Yes, Prescotts heat up more, yes, not always faster, and sometimes slower than Norfwoods... but talk about speed in games indicators in Sandra.... you know, my old Celeron 600@945 in terms of indicators in synthetics very often outperformed the 1Ghz Athlone... and in real applications say who was always in the lead?
And here is a screenshot of the finishing move...
And finally, let’s assume, after all, that the “northern forest” is better. But let’s still think three times, not abstractly “which percentage is better,” but still concretely. We have 2005. There will be no new video cards for agp (at least from brands), nothing new will be released for any old architecture. Don't you think it's stupid to buy a "new" computer that is obviously already "old"?! Especially considering that the SAME IN SPEED AND IN PARAMETERS (I especially paid attention to the word the same, then I’ll come back here) will cost even more, then 200 rubles, and in most cases even cheaper!!! Don't believe me? Let's count? Let it be Celeron 2.66. both here and there cost ~2600. +/- 20 rubles. (By the way, there are options when at 775 it’s even 100 rubles or more cheaper.) Motherboard. 2700 b 2900 for P4P800SE and P5GPL respectively (yes, GPL is a lower class... the problem is that the functionality in the lower class remains the same...). And a video card. Naturally 6600. 3800 and 3300 for AGP and PCI-E options, respectively. We got a saving of 200 rubles per mb, and a loss of 500 rubles on video!!! Those. THE NEW PLATFORM WAS RUB 300. CHEAPER!!!
But a little about the sad thing... I return to the beginning of the comparison... it was not in vain that the celeron 2.66 was taken - the lowest for 775... there is no less, accordingly, if you buy something weaker, then at 775 this is something to take already will not work...
At all, Artist, in my opinion, these articles are more than suitable for you.