| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 86212 | 2008-01-08 18:21:00 | Pentium Comparison | bk T (215) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 628421 | 2008-01-08 18:21:00 | P4 2.0 GHz vs Celeron 2.4 GHz, which gives a better performance, given that all other specs are identical? Cheers |
bk T (215) | ||
| 628422 | 2008-01-08 18:22:00 | Pentium 4, by far. | pcuser42 (130) | ||
| 628423 | 2008-01-08 18:37:00 | P4 (en.wikipedia.org) And Celeron (en.wikipedia.org) Celerons are the budget versions of P4's. |
Speedy Gonzales (78) | ||
| 628424 | 2008-01-09 00:00:00 | P4, hand's down. | beeswax34 (63) | ||
| 628425 | 2008-01-09 08:06:00 | It seems we all agree that P4 2.0 GHz is far better than Celeron 2.4 GHz. But I don't quite understand the 'logic' that 2.4 GHz is NOT better than 2.0 GHz. | bk T (215) | ||
| 628426 | 2008-01-09 08:19:00 | Read the links I posted. | Speedy Gonzales (78) | ||
| 628427 | 2008-01-09 08:43:00 | P4 would likely have a faster FSB and certainly has more L2 Cache, an extra 400mhz on the main clock doesn't matter, and if you really wanted to you could OC the P4 to 2.4 which would be even better, but not nessecary. I don't quite understand the 'logic' that 2.4 GHz is NOT better than 2.0 GHz. Clock speed is not an end-all measure of a processor's capability. a better-designed processor can run slower speed in mhz and still process faster or better than a 'faster' one. Depends on a lot of things really, the type of data being processed, and others, but if you were going to get either CPU, definitely the P4 |
Agent_24 (57) | ||
| 628428 | 2008-01-09 09:46:00 | Celerys are a bit of a poor relation in processing speed, it used to be that they could be wildly overclocked and so get a pretty speedy (though sometimes very brief) performance. Maybe they still can, by those cunning in the black arts. (Black for the colour of the motherboard under a "slightly too much" overclocked chip.) It is a bit like someone running at a very fast pace but with extremely short legs. The strides per second don't necessarily translate directly into kMH. |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 628429 | 2008-01-09 10:57:00 | It seems we all agree that P4 2.0 GHz is far better than Celeron 2.4 GHz. But I don't quite understand the 'logic' that 2.4 GHz is NOT better than 2.0 GHz. Its the same with a 2.0 Ghz Dual Core Processor and a 1.8 Ghz Core2 Duo Processor. The Core2 is always going to be faster and more power efficient. |
beeswax34 (63) | ||
| 1 | |||||