Metropol

Another part in my long series of computer questions now continues. I am looking at computers from Aries at Savastore (http://www.savastore.co.uk) as they are the cheapest configurable shop I can find online. My current computer runs on an AMD Athlon XP 1800+ processor which, by reading up on and comparing to todays computers, is crap.

As Intel is more popular and more well known (I think) than AMD, I am looking for a reasonable processor from Intel from this website, being either Celeron D or Pentium 4.

Celeron D seems the cheaper option, and the simplest one, and according to Intel's website:

The Intel Celeron D processor delivers a balanced level of proven technology and exceptional value for desktop PCs.

Pentium 4 seems more expensive but more reliable. I've heard it is designed to do more, like video editing, which I do alot. Intel also say:

The Intel Pentium 4 Processor is designed to deliver performance across usages - such as image processing, video content creation, games and multimedia - where end-users can truly appreciate the performance. With a PC based on the Intel Pentium 4 Processor with HT Technology you get advanced performance and multitasking capabilities for today's digital home and digital office applications.

Now with these two processors being newer and faster than my Athlon XP 1800+, I'm trying to find out which is the best option. I'm a heavy computer user, and do alot with it, and that makes me choose Pentium 4. However, i'm trying to go for the cheaper option, being Celeron D. Even though it's a more basic option, it's bound to do alot more than my Athlon.

So, what is your opinion? What is the more reliable processor, and which one would you lot recommend for me?

Thanks

You forgot one important thing:

Bum... bum bum bum buum.

Anyway, Intel seem to be the most popular and my Pentium III still works perfectly. It really depends on what you're using your computer for - if you're a heavy user go for the more advanced.

In my experience, Celeron is shite, and you won't see a lot of difference between equivalently specced Athlon and P4 aside from the price. AMD is no less known than Intel. They're favoured amongst gamers in fact.

It's a CPU, so reliability isn't a problem except if it overheats (Intels are known for this I believe) though either way you'll need to buy a new motherboard and perhaps new ram. Depending on how new the system is you'll probably need to beef up the PSU too.

I've got an AMD 64, and it's far superior to Intel I find. I do a lot of heavy duty audio and image editing, and it hasn't let me down!

It's a CPU, so reliability isn't a problem except if it overheats (Intels are known for this I believe) though either way you'll need to buy a new motherboard and perhaps new ram. Depending on how new the system is you'll probably need to beef up the PSU too.

Well, AFAIK Intels actually slow down and behave oddly when overheating, whilst AMDs continue to run at full pelt and burn out. So yes, if you don't get your heatsink on properly first time with an AMD, you are, quite frankly, screwed. [excuse the dodgy "carry on" style references ].

All the more reason to be fab!

i've got an AMD Athlon X2 dual-core 64bit thingy, and it's FAB

Reeves wrote:Another part in my long series of computer questions now continues. I am looking at computers from Aries at Savastore (http://www.savastore.co.uk) as they are the cheapest configurable shop I can find online. My current computer runs on an AMD Athlon XP 1800+ processor which, by reading up on and comparing to todays computers, is crap.

What is considered as "crap" is only considered crap by the available standards. If all you use your computer for is a bit of internet surfing and a spot of word processing, your Athlon XP would be considered overkill.

As Intel is more popular and more well known (I think) than AMD, I am looking for a reasonable processor from Intel from this website, being either Celeron D or Pentium 4.

Celeron D seems the cheaper option, and the simplest one, and according to Intel's website:

Celerons are shit. All a Celeron is is a cutdown Pentium 4 and sold as a chip for those who want Intel but can't afford a "proper" P4. They're quite common in PC outlets that want to sell P4 machines but are ultimately aimed at those who don't know any better and won't know that they're paying a bit of money for what will be a crap machine regardless of the rest of the hardware. PC World is quite good at doing this.

Pentium 4 seems more expensive but more reliable. I've heard it is designed to do more, like video editing, which I do alot. Intel also say:

P4's are bloody expensive and they're all about raw clock speed. Because of this, they also generate a ridiculous amount of heat which means you need a whopping great fan to help cool the thing down.

They may be considered better for video editing but unless this is the only thing you use the PC for, the extra expense may not be worth it, plus Intel have gone down the "own memory" route with DDR2, which I reckon could end up going the same way as RAMBUS/RIMM memory did.

Now with these two processors being newer and faster than my Athlon XP 1800+, I'm trying to find out which is the best option. I'm a heavy computer user, and do alot with it, and that makes me choose Pentium 4. However, i'm trying to go for the cheaper option, being Celeron D. Even though it's a more basic option, it's bound to do alot more than my Athlon.

Get another AMD, as any 64-bit AMD processor (including the 64-bit Semperon) will wipe the floor with any Intel Celeron processor. Plus the AMDs are a lot cheaper as well. I've seen 64-bit AMD processors start from just over £50 on eBuyer.

Chris wrote:Well, AFAIK Intels actually slow down and behave oddly when overheating, whilst AMDs continue to run at full pelt and burn out. So yes, if you don't get your heatsink on properly first time with an AMD, you are, quite frankly, screwed.

Intels might support auto-throttling and hyperthreading and all this stuff, you'd be surprised at the number of people who see their great P4 processor cruising along at just 500Mhz and panic. Then they wonder why the temperature goes sky high when the thing actually runs at 3Ghz.

AMD heatsinks are a piece of piss to get on now (they did use to need quite a bit of pressure on the Socket A boards to get it over the lug if you were unfortunate), but the 64-bit ones are dead easily and just clip straight on, lock the arm and there you go. Intel 478s were virtually the same, the new 775's seem to want all manner of thing going everywhere in order to get the bastard thing on.

Thanks for all the clear details, Neil. I understand that you are saying Intel processors are hopeless, but alot of people are talking like I am buying just a processor. I am simply choosing options from a website so the shop build it and deliver it (a bit like Dell but not Dell).

Anyway, as alot of you are recommending AMD processors, take what I have said in the first post, and replace Celeron and Pentium 4 with AMD Sempron and Athlom 64. Which is best for me?

Another part in my long series of computer questions now continues. I am looking at computers from Aries at Savastore (http://www.savastore.co.uk) as they are the cheapest configurable shop I can find online. My current computer runs on an AMD Athlon XP 1800+ processor which, by reading up on and comparing to todays computers, is crap.

Do you honestly feel the need for an upgrade? The boon period of the mid-late 90's, where things moved so fast that everyone would feel the benefit of upgrading, and not doing so would leave you genuinely feeling restricted by your machine's spec are well and truly over (200Mhz machines were high end powerhouses which left geeks drooling in 1996, by 1997 they were commonplace, by 1998 they were old hat and discontinued).

My desktop machine is driven by a 1.3Ghz AMD Thunderbird Athlon, on the now obsolete socket A platform - an even older chip than yours. It might appear crap when compared to modern kit, but it still does everything I want it to do - there is no need for me to change it until that changes.

Also, from your discussion it appears that you simply want a faster processor in order to get a better system. Again, those days are over. Adding more memory and replacing a graphics card will usually deliver a noticeably better increase in performance than going for a faster processor - in my case changing from 256 to 512MB RAM and from a 16 to 64MB graphics card a couple of years ago delivered far greater gains than I would have got by changing to a 3Ghz processor.

Stop worrying about the numbers game - thankfully, those days are over.

cwathen, sorry if you got that impression. This computer just irritates me sometimes due to it's intermal contents, and i'm not one of those people who modify the insides of computers. Besides, somebody else needs a computer, so they could just use this one, as the person isn't a heavy computer user like me.

I'm simply asking about processors because there is the choice of processors, and I am asking which one is recommended by you lot.