Is a Celeron OK for me?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Hello

I'm a part time IT student (studying to be a programmer) and I'm trying to
start up an IT business (as well as working full time).

I'm currently using a Pentium 2-350 with 448 mb PC-100 SDRAM and an ATI
Radeon 64mb video card with a SoundBlaster 64 card. I'm using ColdFusion MX
to develop a sample web application with. Will a Celeron make a big enough
difference or should I look at Pentium 4? I've looked at prices of AMD but
I'm concerned about not being able to upgrade to a Pentium if I get an AMD
machine.

I was thinking of maybe getting a Celeron for now and upgrading it to a
Pentium 4 later on.

Thanks

Peter Mount
info@petermount.au.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Peter Mount wrote:
> I'm currently using a Pentium 2-350 with 448 mb PC-100 SDRAM and an ATI
> Radeon 64mb video card with a SoundBlaster 64 card. I'm using ColdFusion MX
> to develop a sample web application with. Will a Celeron make a big enough
> difference or should I look at Pentium 4? I've looked at prices of AMD but
> I'm concerned about not being able to upgrade to a Pentium if I get an AMD
> machine.

That is true. If you get an AMD machine, you will not be able to
upgrade to a Pentium without switching out the motherboard. Though I'm
not sure why that ability would be a priority for you.

The P4 based Celerons are never, ever a good buy. Add the price of your
P4 motherboard, Celeron CPU, and P4 "upgrade" CPU, and compare that to
an AMD board + CPU (which would be fast *right now*).

The latest "D" models are the first P4-based Celerons with performance
that isn't embarrassing.
http://anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=2093&p=6
But even then, they're outperformed by an AMD chip that costs half as much.

All this Celeron bashing aside, let it be known that I do own a Celeron
2.0 GHz machine. The system it was used for is a dedicated MythTV
machine. I knew I wanted an Asus Pundit for the box (cheap, small,
quiet). The Pundit is P4-based, but since I was using a hardware MPEG2
encoder, I didn't need much CPU power. So I went with the Celeron.
(Cheapest chip for a P4 motherboard). Yes, the performance is pretty
poor, but the application doesn't require anything better.

If you are locked into having a P4 system for whatever reason, then the
Celeron may prove to be acceptable, depending on what you plan to do
with the system. For developing a web application, sure, it's OK.
But you can do better.


-WD

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

PM>> I found a local computer shop has something called
>> "Transmeta" though I have no idea what they are like.

<http://www.vanshardware.com/> has a review of the
recent "efficeon". Learn about "thermal throttling"
<http://www.vanshardware.com/reviews/2004/04/040405_efficeon/040405_efficeon.htm>

Alan> ... the current upgrade path for 32bit AMD is
> completely dead. ... With a celeron you could
> upgrade later to a P4 depending on the motherboard.

But you'd still have the old (slow) RAM, and old
(slow) graphics.

For someone planning to swap the CPU later this year,
planning for Parts-is-Parts upgrade might make sense.

I always consider PiP at upgrade time, but since I
upgrade every 3 years or so, it's always the case that
too much has changed, and I build a whole new PC (and
trickle-down the old one).

Anyone buying an economy PC today, with plans to
upgrade it in 18 months, is apt to be facing then:
- DDR2 (and faster DDR2)
- PCI Express graphics
- 64-bit

Unless you have recent experience with upgrade-in-place,
and a definite component plan, just buy whatever does
the job for the least dollars. That might be a
remaindered Duron, or low-end Athlon, or last year's
P4 from your neighborhood hardware enthusiast, or even
a Celeron (suitably priced, of course).

The Microtel PCs sold web-only by SamsClub are often
an attractive deal. I used a bare-bones one to help a
neighbor rebuild after a lightning strike fried just
enough of his motherboard to make the PC unusable.

--
Regards, Bob Niland mailto:name@ispname.tld
http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.

 

[mygarbage2000]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

If you really are an IT student, shame on you for thoughtlessly
swallowing Intel's marketing pitch about "superiority" of Pentium (I
presume it to be P4) architecture. You should 've known better that
even Intel admitted it to be dead end technology by deciding to drop
future development of this line. Or shame on your school for feeding
their students these marketing gimmicks. This, in part, explains the
difficulties AMD has in penetrating corporate market, even though, at
least at times, AMD products are clearly superior.

If your main concern is upgradeability, you should go with AMD socket
940 or 939. If we believe Hector Ruiz (and he must be informed since
he's the CEO), these sockets will receive dual core processors next
year. Neither current Intel socket 478, nor AMD socket 462 (older K7
architecture) are getting it. As for the upcoming Intel socket 775,
you will pay an arm and a leg for the board, not mentioning matching
video card and RAM, and there's no Celeron for that socket yet, you'd
have to get full-fledged P4, and the highest end one at that, priced
accordingly.

If you want good performance on a cheap right now (but with not much
of an upgrade path), you should go with Athlon XP. Priced at (or even
below) Celery level, but performs, for most apps, just as well as P4.
Or even, if you are ready to pay P4-level price, get yourself Athlon64
(non-FX). Beats equally priced P4 in most apps, and you can upgrade
the software to 64 bit later this year - try this with Intel.

Finally, if your goal is to save a buck, just get yourself a P3 and
stick it in your existing board (you may need Slot1 to Socket370
adaptor, but it's cheap). A quick Pricewatch check shows $39 for
p3-750, and it will be quite adequate for your development needs. I
did recently some ASP.NET development on client's site, and the P3-550
they supplied, while sluggish, was good enough to do the job. I would
be surprised if ColdFusion needed more resources than .NET.


On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 21:41:29 +1000, "Peter Mount"
<info@petermount.au.com> wrote:

>Hello
>
>I'm a part time IT student (studying to be a programmer) and I'm trying to
>start up an IT business (as well as working full time).
>
>I'm currently using a Pentium 2-350 with 448 mb PC-100 SDRAM and an ATI
>Radeon 64mb video card with a SoundBlaster 64 card. I'm using ColdFusion MX
>to develop a sample web application with. Will a Celeron make a big enough
>difference or should I look at Pentium 4? I've looked at prices of AMD but
>I'm concerned about not being able to upgrade to a Pentium if I get an AMD
>machine.
>
>I was thinking of maybe getting a Celeron for now and upgrading it to a
>Pentium 4 later on.
>
>Thanks
>
>Peter Mount
>info@petermount.au.com
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Peter Mount <info@petermount.au.com> wrote:
> I'm currently using a Pentium 2-350 with 448 mb PC-100 SDRAM and an
> ATI Radeon 64mb video card with a SoundBlaster 64 card. I'm using
> ColdFusion MX to develop a sample web application with. Will a
> Celeron make a big enough difference or should I look at Pentium 4?
> I've looked at prices of AMD but I'm concerned about not being able
> to upgrade to a Pentium if I get an AMD machine.
>
> I was thinking of maybe getting a Celeron for now and upgrading it to
> a Pentium 4 later on.

If upgradeability is the priority, then you shouldn't even consider Intel.
In the past four years, Intel has had three different socket formats the
Pentium 4/Celeron line, whereas AMD has kept steady with a single format for
Athlon XP/Duron line.You could have conceivably started with a 700Mhz Duron
about 4 years ago and upgraded it to a 3200+ Athlon XP today using the same
motherboard. (Mind you a motherboard from four years ago, may not have had
all of the voltages and front-side bus speeds needed for the latest Athlon
XPs, but socket format has stayed exactly the same since then.)

Intel started with Socket 428, then it migrated to Socket 472, and now it's
got Socket 775 all for different sub-generations of the Pentium 4. As you
can see, upgradeability is not part of the Intel equation. In fact, the
whole Pentium 4 line is now coming to an end, Intel has decided that the
current Pentium 4 sub-generation is going to be its last Pentium 4
sub-generation. It is now going to migrate to a core that is derived off of
its older Pentium 3 line again.

AMD is also undergoing a major generation change, it's old Athlon XPs are
going to be retired to make way for the Athlon 64 line. This does use
totally different motherboards from the old XPs. But as you can see, the
track record for AMD architecture stability is higher than Intel's in recent
years. It's likely that AMD will maintain stability within its newest
generations on a par with its older Athlon XP generations.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 14:41:02 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
wrote:
>Peter Mount <info@petermount.au.com> wrote:
>> I'm currently using a Pentium 2-350 with 448 mb PC-100 SDRAM and an
>> ATI Radeon 64mb video card with a SoundBlaster 64 card. I'm using
>> ColdFusion MX to develop a sample web application with. Will a
>> Celeron make a big enough difference or should I look at Pentium 4?
>> I've looked at prices of AMD but I'm concerned about not being able
>> to upgrade to a Pentium if I get an AMD machine.
>>
>> I was thinking of maybe getting a Celeron for now and upgrading it to
>> a Pentium 4 later on.
>
>If upgradeability is the priority, then you shouldn't even consider Intel.
>In the past four years, Intel has had three different socket formats the
>Pentium 4/Celeron line, whereas AMD has kept steady with a single format for
>Athlon XP/Duron line.You could have conceivably started with a 700Mhz Duron
>about 4 years ago and upgraded it to a 3200+ Athlon XP today using the same
>motherboard. (Mind you a motherboard from four years ago, may not have had
>all of the voltages and front-side bus speeds needed for the latest Athlon
>XPs, but socket format has stayed exactly the same since then.)

I can assure you that a 4 year old Socket A motherboard would
absolutely NOT support an AthlonXP 3200+, even if the socket is the
same. Heck, my two year old board (that recently committed suicide)
was not capable of handling such chips, it was limited to 266MT/s bus
speeds. Only socket A boards built in about the last year have been
able to handle the latest and greatest chips.

Long story short, you're screwed when it comes to upgradability no
matter who you chose. No matter what motherboard you buy now you're
upgrades are going to be VERY limited, no matter how much sockets may
change.

Buying a system now with plans for upgrades more than 6 months in the
future is a sure fire way to waste your money!

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> I can assure you that a 4 year old Socket A motherboard would
> absolutely NOT support an AthlonXP 3200+, even if the socket is the
> same. Heck, my two year old board (that recently committed suicide)
> was not capable of handling such chips, it was limited to 266MT/s bus
> speeds. Only socket A boards built in about the last year have been
> able to handle the latest and greatest chips.
>
> Long story short, you're screwed when it comes to upgradability no
> matter who you chose. No matter what motherboard you buy now you're
> upgrades are going to be VERY limited, no matter how much sockets may
> change.
>
> Buying a system now with plans for upgrades more than 6 months in the
> future is a sure fire way to waste your money!

Well, regardless about the finer details of the Socket A platform, it looks
like AMD is going to keep it around for a couple years at least. Looks like
Sempron is going to be extending its life some more.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Will Dormann <wdormann@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> If you are locked into having a P4 system for whatever reason, then the
> Celeron may prove to be acceptable, depending on what you plan to do
> with the system. For developing a web application, sure, it's OK.
> But you can do better.

For developing web applications, a Tualatin-compatible Slotket and a
Tualatin Celeron 1.4ghz would probably be the cheapest option, and offer
quite acceptable performance.

--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

"Wanted: One .Sig-quote. Must work cheap."

 

[rush]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) wrote :

> For developing web applications, a Tualatin-compatible Slotket and
> a Tualatin Celeron 1.4ghz would probably be the cheapest option,
> and offer quite acceptable performance.

cheap tualatin ? are you kidding ? they go >50$ on the second hand
market + require SDR memory (also expensive)


Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://pulse.pdi.net/~rush/qv30/
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

RusH <logistyka1@pf.pl> wrote:
> archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) wrote :
> > For developing web applications, a Tualatin-compatible Slotket and
> > a Tualatin Celeron 1.4ghz would probably be the cheapest option,
> > and offer quite acceptable performance.
>
> cheap tualatin ? are you kidding ? they go >50$ on the second hand
> market + require SDR memory (also expensive)

Clearly local markets vary; they were, as of last I checked (early June)
still available for $40-45 in the surplus-retail channel here in the states,
and slotkets were ~$10 or so on ebay.

That's about the same cost as an inexpensive P4-based Celeron or one of the
cheaper Athlon XPs; to go cheaper, you're pretty much in Duron 1.6-1.8
territory or the cheapest Northwood Celerons (and the Tualatin 1.4 will
probably outperform a Northwood 1.8.)

As for the SDR (PC100 or PC133) memory, there's a lot of it left over on
eBay etc, so while the retail channel stuff is getting pricey it's hardly
all that bad.

Plus presumably his motherboard already has some; the big question is
whether an older MB will take enough total memory to keep someone happy
today. A lot of older slot 1 boards only take 128mb chips -- but if it
takes 256mb chips, you're likely OK.

--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

"Wanted: One .Sig-quote. Must work cheap."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Tony Hill wrote:
>
> On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 14:41:02 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
> wrote:
> >Peter Mount <info@petermount.au.com> wrote:
> >> I'm currently using a Pentium 2-350 with 448 mb PC-100 SDRAM and an
> >> ATI Radeon 64mb video card with a SoundBlaster 64 card. I'm using
> >> ColdFusion MX to develop a sample web application with. Will a
> >> Celeron make a big enough difference or should I look at Pentium 4?
> >> I've looked at prices of AMD but I'm concerned about not being able
> >> to upgrade to a Pentium if I get an AMD machine.
> >>
> >> I was thinking of maybe getting a Celeron for now and upgrading it to
> >> a Pentium 4 later on.
> >
> >If upgradeability is the priority, then you shouldn't even consider Intel.
> >In the past four years, Intel has had three different socket formats the
> >Pentium 4/Celeron line, whereas AMD has kept steady with a single format for
> >Athlon XP/Duron line.You could have conceivably started with a 700Mhz Duron
> >about 4 years ago and upgraded it to a 3200+ Athlon XP today using the same
> >motherboard. (Mind you a motherboard from four years ago, may not have had
> >all of the voltages and front-side bus speeds needed for the latest Athlon
> >XPs, but socket format has stayed exactly the same since then.)
>
> I can assure you that a 4 year old Socket A motherboard would
> absolutely NOT support an AthlonXP 3200+, even if the socket is the
> same. Heck, my two year old board (that recently committed suicide)
> was not capable of handling such chips, it was limited to 266MT/s bus
> speeds. Only socket A boards built in about the last year have been
> able to handle the latest and greatest chips.
>
> Long story short, you're screwed when it comes to upgradability no
> matter who you chose. No matter what motherboard you buy now you're
> upgrades are going to be VERY limited, no matter how much sockets may
> change.
>
> Buying a system now with plans for upgrades more than 6 months in the
> future is a sure fire way to waste your money!

Luckily, motherboards are around £100 these days, not the £300 I paid
for an AT board some years ago.

 

[ME]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
news:2MdGc.18$Hrq.17@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Peter Mount <info@petermount.au.com> wrote:
>> I'm currently using a Pentium 2-350 with 448 mb PC-100 SDRAM and an
>> ATI Radeon 64mb video card with a SoundBlaster 64 card. I'm using
>> ColdFusion MX to develop a sample web application with. Will a
>> Celeron make a big enough difference or should I look at Pentium 4?
>> I've looked at prices of AMD but I'm concerned about not being able
>> to upgrade to a Pentium if I get an AMD machine.
>>
>> I was thinking of maybe getting a Celeron for now and upgrading it to
>> a Pentium 4 later on.
>
> If upgradeability is the priority, then you shouldn't even consider Intel.
> In the past four years, Intel has had three different socket formats the
> Pentium 4/Celeron line, whereas AMD has kept steady with a single format for
> Athlon XP/Duron line.You could have conceivably started with a 700Mhz Duron
> about 4 years ago and upgraded it to a 3200+ Athlon XP today using the same
> motherboard. (Mind you a motherboard from four years ago, may not have had
> all of the voltages and front-side bus speeds needed for the latest Athlon
> XPs, but socket format has stayed exactly the same since then.)
>
> Intel started with Socket 428, then it migrated to Socket 472, and now it's
> got Socket 775 all for different sub-generations of the Pentium 4. As you
> can see, upgradeability is not part of the Intel equation. In fact, the
> whole Pentium 4 line is now coming to an end, Intel has decided that the
> current Pentium 4 sub-generation is going to be its last Pentium 4
> sub-generation. It is now going to migrate to a core that is derived off of
> its older Pentium 3 line again.
>
> AMD is also undergoing a major generation change, it's old Athlon XPs are
> going to be retired to make way for the Athlon 64 line. This does use
> totally different motherboards from the old XPs. But as you can see, the
> track record for AMD architecture stability is higher than Intel's in recent
> years. It's likely that AMD will maintain stability within its newest
> generations on a par with its older Athlon XP generations.

What do you do with all those CPUs that you "upgrade"? I'm finally going to
put in the "scrap heap" an old P100 board that I've been using to test the
latest
versions of FreeBSD on. I'm glad I don't also have a number of processors that I
was
tempted into buying that would be hundreds of more dollars in the heap.

"Upgrading" ain't all it's cracked up to be. Don't "upgrade" until it hurts.
Save your
money to buy a "complete" (motherboard, memory, hard disk, cpu) system instead
(is my opinion). Find something to do with the old PC (give it away, sell it,
put it out
on the LAN, make it the kids' PC .. whatever). Also, don't buy the high end or
bleeding
edge stuff if you don't need it.

AJ