CPUs - AMD Athlon, Intel Centrino, Celeron, Pentium M

CrazyChemist_2

I'm a little confused at the differences between various Intel processors, such as Celeron D, Celeron M, Pentium M, Centrino, and AMD Sempron, Duon, and another AMD processor possibly beginning with "T".

Also the business with "Front Side Bus" - what exactly is this in relation to the processor speed and how does it work/what does it do? What speed should this be in relation to the type and speed of the processor?

And finally, the "Cache Size" - what on earth is this and what does it do??

Any help much appreciated! :rolleyes: I'm quite good with computers but recently seem to have turned thick

muddyfox470

Ok Basically the Celeron is the cheapest Intel prcoessor you can get, and its performance reflects this, it is sluggish and not much good for much tbh.
The Sempron is AMDs cheapest processor, and altho it is better than the Celeron there is no real great reason of having one.
Other AMD processors include their 64 bit ones (A64) which are basically the newest ones and they support the new software that is in development. Their older range is the Athlon Range and these are very capable processors, inline with their Intel counterparts, their product codes i.e. 3200+ show that they can compete with a Pentium4 running at 3.2Ghz, but their actual speed is more likely to be 2.2Ghz, however the performance difference between the two processors is negligible.

The AMD 64bit range is their top of the range, and obviously you pay a premium for this.

The M's at the end of the Pentium (Intel) ranges just show that they are 'mobile' variants of the processors, they normally run a bit cooler than their desktop counterparts.

The Centrino is specially designed for laptops, it runs at lower speeds and uses up less power, so it can run cooler and for longer, they are very capable chips.
The pentium 4 mobile is very similar to the AMD Athlon range as discussed previously and well it is just a mobile variant.

The Cache on a processor doesn't mean a lot, pentium (intel) processers tend to have a larger cache and this tends to help with video editing etc, however pentiums really have a large cache because overall they are fairly inefficient processors.

Definition of cache : A small, fast memory holding recently accessed data, designed to speed up subsequent access to the same data. Typically used between a processor and main memory.

That is why AMD processors don't have much cache as they are more efficient processors, they basically can do more work in less 'cycles' and hence the lower clock speed (Ghz).

My advice is don't buy the Celeron Processor it is just a waste of money, and is built on older technology and unless you are just doing word processing etc, it is not worth it.

The Front Side Bus (FSB) is another thing you shouldn't worry about as basically it is a bit too confusing to explain in a small bit of writing. Got to https://www.howstuffworks.com for a more indepth explanation.

Definition of FSB : Front Side Bus. This is the name given to the speed (in Mhz) which different comonents in a computer speak to the CPU. Each slot on the motherboard comunicates at a preset speed. The most important FSB is that of the CPU itself. The CPUs FSB number determins how fast the CPU communicates with all other components, and thus makes a massive difference to the overall performance of the computer. The FSB is also used to work out the overall number of the Mhz the CPU is rated at. See Multiplier for more details.

All the definitions were taken from google.

I hope that helps you out a little.

Ian

lipidicman

muddyfox470 wrote:

The Cache on a processor doesn't mean a lot

The cache has a large impact on performance.

muddyfox470 wrote:

The Front Side Bus (FSB) is another thing you shouldn't worry about...

The FSB is the speed at which the memory and the rest of the machine can operate. It is as important as the processor speed (unless you want to do very small calculations inside the processors cache. All real world applications use the system memory (and other things like the graphics system) and so are influenced by the FSB

muddyfox470 wrote:

My advice is don't buy the Celeron Processor it is just a waste of money, and is built on older technology and unless you are just doing word processing etc, it is not worth it.

The celeron is usually a pentium with reduced cache, so your advice is a little conradictory here

from http://computer.howstuffworks.com/question268.htm

Here are the most important similarities and differences between the Pentium 4 and the Celeron chips coming out today:

• Core - The Celeron chip is based on a Pentium 4 core.
• Cache - Celeron chips have less cache memory than Pentium 4 chips do. A Celeron might have 128 kilobytes of L2 cache, while a Pentium 4 can have four times that. The amount of L2 cache memory can have a big effect on performance.
• Clock speed - Intel manufactures the Pentium 4 chips to run at a higher clock speed than Celeron chips. The fastest Pentium 4 might be 60 percent faster than the fastest Celeron.
• Bus speed - There are differences in the maximum bus speeds that the processors allow. Pentium 4s tend to be about 30 percent faster than Celerons.

So Celerons 'are a waste of money' according to you, because of things 'that you shouldn't worry about'?

wolfman

I think generally speaking muddyfox470 was on the right track.

His comments regarding Cache and FSB weren't necessarily incorrect. When comparing a Pentium 4 and AMD64, the AMD has less cache and a slower FSB yet in most cases outperforms the Pentium. This is due to the different architecture of the chips.

FSB isn't as important as it used to be in the days of Pentium 2 and 3's etc... AMD have shown this by producing a chip that runs at a far lower FSB speed than the Pentium 4. Dual core is on the way too.

I think the point to put across is, just because the Pentium has bigger numbers (regarding cache and fsb) doesn't mean it's necessarily better.

I switched from a Pentium 4 to an AMD64 and haven't looked back. In most cases faster, uses less power, and runs cooler, and cheaper to buy. AMD certainly have the right idea, especially if you look at the power consumption of the Pentium D's due out later this year.


Also, the Celeron is a good cpu, but is a budget cpu, so won't perform as well as the Pentium. The same applies to the Sempron/Athlon and the AMD64. I wouldn't write either the Sempron or Celeron off, but only on an extreme budget would I get either.

Tharweb

Centrino is not a processor. For a laptop computer to be called "Centrino", it should have the Pentium M, an Intel 855 chipset, and an Intel PRO/Wireless 2100 or 2200BG network card.

lipidicman

wolfman wrote:

When comparing a Pentium 4 and AMD64, the AMD has less cache and a slower FSB yet in most cases outperforms the Pentium. This is due to the different architecture of the chips.

Exactly, but you have changed the architecture. When the architecture is the same the FSB and the cache determine the performance. If you build a 'more efficient' chip, it needs less cache. It is valid to compare the cache on a celeron and a pentium, but it doesnt make sense to compare the figures for AMDs and Intels (due to the different architecture) Its a bit like comparing the suspension on your car and an F1 car, ignoring the fact that the engines are so staggeringly different!

shrek101

The new celerons are fine. I have two pcs that run on celerons, both at 2.93mhz and there isnt one piece of software,game that dont run adequately at present. I admit that may be a limiting in years to come.

pealy

I say forget the techy nonsense, I'm pretty sure it's all designed to confuse the consumer and perpetuate the idea that taking a PC to pieces should only be attempted by nerds in darkened rooms. At the end of the day the processor choice should be based on the use to which it will be put, a machine used for word processing and internet surfing has a different requirement to a full-on gaming box or a laptop.

If CrazyChemist is just looking to understand the differences then I'll crawl back under my rock but if it's advice on the right cpu then let's see what he/she wants the little fella to do!

N.

P.S. I'm holding out for the new Pentium with hyper-nonsencicons and extra madeupograms.

lipidicman

Oh I couldnt agree more....

I'm still happy with my PII 400MHz. Now I have installed Win2000 a new 30Gb HD and 320Meg of RAM. Its like a new machine. I program, run excel for data analysis and my scientific modelling software. Its been 100% reliable since 1998. I do have a P4 3GHz at work though.....

...I just couldnt resist arguing a bit...

wolfman

lipidicman wrote:

Exactly, but you have changed the architecture. When the architecture is the same the FSB and the cache determine the performance.

That's my point. The architecture is different. And AMD64's perform better than Pentium 4's, yet with a lower FSB and cache. My argument was that just because Pentiums have a higher fsb and cache, doesn't mean they are better.

lipidicman wrote:

If you build a 'more efficient' chip, it needs less cache. It is valid to compare the cache on a celeron and a pentium, but it doesnt make sense to compare the figures for AMDs and Intels (due to the different architecture).

Why ever not. Of course you can compare AMD's against Intel's. It just validates that with all the fsb speed and cache Pentium's have, the AMD can still out perform them with a lot less. AMD's are built to a performance rating, not a clock speed. Most people when buying a cpu don't think about fsb and cache, they just want a cpu that is the best performer.

lipidicman wrote:

Its a bit like comparing the suspension on your car and an F1 car, ignoring the fact that the engines are so staggeringly different!

That's a poor analogy. An AMD compared with an Intel is barely like a normal car compared with an F1 car.

lipidicman

I was actually agreeing with you

I should have said
'but it doesnt make sense to compare the cache and FSB figures for AMDs and Intels'
BECAUSE the chip is so different - this is in agreement with you (I think)!

and the analogy was a bit flippant.