Pentium/Athlon/Celeron

Besides the cost-- what is the difference between them?
Anyone have any experiences-horror stories they can tell to educate me!!!
:shrug: Thanks

No problem with any of them.

There's no appreciable difference.

Any processor over 1.5 gHz is going to do any routine task a user could ask for without bogging down.

If you're constantly using huge media files, burning tons of disks, etc., an Intel Pentium MIGHT give a slight boost.

If you're worried about performance, double the RAM.

I've installed and used all of them for years.

Stay away from Celeron chips, they are nothing more than scaled down Intel chips.

AMD chips consistently outperform Intel on all tests.

I've run every single AMD chip out there and have never had a problem.
I can't say that about Intel chips.

One caveat: The motherboard you choose for your chip will make a bigger difference than the chip itself. Read up on the latest boards and find the one with the best rating.

www.motherboards.org
www.tech-report.com
www.tweaknews.net
www.legitreviews.com

Choose wisely, grasshopper.

'cause they SUCK. i prefer athlons, personally...decent performance and cheaper than pentiums.

:yourock:

against intel a while ago for their use of trackable id numbers on the cpu, but i think they stopped using them. so it's probably pretty much the same to buy amd/intel now.

:7

I had one, I hated it. If movies and graphics are your thing, you DO NOT want a celeron.

When I was shopping for my PC, I was told more than once that Athlons are superior to Pentiums (I'm not a real computer techie though so I don't know exactly how true that is, but I do know my Athlon has been very good to me!) The same model of my computer with the Pentium was actually more expensive than the one with the Athlon, too.

I would highly recommend the Athlon based on my own comp's great performance. :thumbsup:

This is why Intel decided to create MMX and SSE; to circumvent the FPU.

Of course, MMX was hilarious - originally you couldn't use it with the FPU at the same time or else the CPU would hang... Not to forget the original Pentium's FPU bug, the 80387 bug, how until the Pentium that Intel's CPUs were quite technologically inferior to AMD and Motorola...

The Pentium 4 was also originally designed to be better but in order to release it on time, they skimped big-time on features - as a result, performance was pitiful. They've made improvements, but I'm not convinced. Indeed, for the longest time Intel would onbly couple the P4 with RDRAM. RDRAM was an expensive joke; DDR SDRAM is virtually as fast and costs considerably less.

I dunno. AMD seems to do a better job with research, backward compatibility, and implementation of new features. Intel's so sloppy they made it possible so their CPU's microcode can be flashed and replaced. :scared: Intel's a big business trying to stifle competition. Their constant price wars in an effort to cause AMD to go under disgust me.

Celerons? They cost more than the Athlon and perform infinitely WORSE... They're a joke.

Best price/performance ratio goes to AMD with its Athlon.

Thanks! :toast:

AMD concentrates a more on quality, not quantity.

Pentium sucks.

Celeron is "pentium-light"; still sucks, and has less cache.