Super Geek Question!!!!

[Plaidfish]

first off, congradulations on being secure in your self and being able to click this secretly admiting you are a super geek thinking you might have the answer to my question.....
ok I'm too lazy right now to google and thought this might be a fun topic to hear different answers on......
What is the difference between a Pentium 4 / Celeron / and AMD processors??
what are the advantages or purposes that each were created for?
what do you have and why?

 

[jetmechG550]

My name is Frank, and I'll admit, I'm a geek! Outside of price I'll start with what I know or have been told. The Celeron was a cheap processor created to make cheap computers for an office type environment where processor power wasn't a requirement. Basic office apps like Word, Lotus Notes, crap like that. There's a ton of programs out there that will not run on a machine with a Celeron processor, many including proggy's you yourself would use with you job Plaid. Now AMD has different levels of processors as well but but I think early on the Athalon was comparable to a P4 (don't quote me on that) and I can't remember which AMD I am running. BUT, IMO, the only difference between AMD and Intel is price. I have been running AMD procs for probably the last 5-6 years in the last three computers I have built and have never ever once had a problem outside of one being DOA out of the box. Could have been bad handling on my part but don't believe it was. When I was buying the MOBO and Proc the AMD set-up was much cheaper than the same clock speed P4 set-up. I'm about due to build a new machine and need to start looking into what's out there again so my reasoning for having what I have may be a little dated in computer years.

 

[beason]

yes i am a geek.. hey its better then being a nerd..

from what i have heard celerons are p-4's that didnt make the cut. (meaning they are made the same but something is stoping the celeron die from pulling the ghz the p-4's do.) so basicaly a celeron is a slimed down cheepo p4, basicaly the same as the athlon and duron chips. now on to amd vs intel.

the best i can describe it is like this. an AMD is like a corvette (insert favorite fast car here) and a intel is like a semi truck.

the AMD does a little REALLY fast (corvette can carry two people and a handbag thats about it.) but the intel does a whole lota poop all at once but does it slower.

intel is designed and suited for the business environment, multitasking, office suits, photoshop, any time it has to move ALOT of data. (big chuncks at a time.)

AMD is designed and suited for a gaming environment.. doesn't have as much data but has to do it realy fast in order to render it so you dont see chop. ( small chucks real fast)

both amd and intel have different levels with different ghz ratings and hz for hz they preform pretty close in a real life test (if you tested them on a game test or processing test one would outpreform the other)

then you step up to AMD 64 .. the mother of proc's ATM
basicaly AMD took 2 proc's and shoved them into one chip, on one bus, in one machine. this is a good thing for load sharing, gaming, and so on. these chips flat out preform.

Intel took a different approch and made one proc in the chip but made it run and 800mhz bus. then they introduced "hyper threading" which made the machine see it as say instead of 1 3.0ghz 800fsb chip. it "sees" 2 3.0ghz 400fsb chips.

its like a virtual dual core chip.

thats about all i can think of right now.. any other questions ill be happy to help.

 

[Plaidfish]

yeah that's sort of where my knowledge of them is too.....I was wondering if anyone knows real nitty gritty geek type stuff.....I understand how processors work on the super basic level of dividing data into "x" ammount of sections and using binary code...I have to program certain types of controllers and disect the counts of resolution and define what that data means, but how does each of the name brands do that in theirs....I guess I'm looking for more hardware related detail......anyone in that field here can give a nice esplaining to me???

 

[FastEddy]

The biggest non geek answer for the Intel P and C chip is the amount of cache th chip has on it. Processing speed is just that, but the cache holds in memory "Stuff" that has already been processed and will deliver it faster. There are many more differences but this is the most noticed.

Yes, there are many programs that need the P- chip to operate properly and IMO is good money spent.

Going back a few years the A chip had many compatibility issues with other hardware. Most of the internals of a computer were developed with the P chips in mind and wouldn't always function properly. In this day and age I believe this isn't an issue.

There is still a large amount of upper end software that gets Quirky with the A chip. Most of them being Microsoft Server Products. I recienty have been warned about this in my quest of a POS software. Any of the products that run Sequel Server demand the use of a P chip.

The P chip takes a lot more power to operate making it less desirable for laptops. Because of the power needed, it also take a lot more to keep it cool.

Which one is "Better"? What RC is the best?

 

[retarded pilot]

jetmech has it about right, the celeron is basicly a p4 without the cache on the chip or much less cache ...meaning it can't store as many completed calculations, witch the computer uses instead of haveing to recalcutate for recuring situations (like if playing a driving game for example the background is often repetitive) thats how i understand it i could be wrong though
i belive the curent celerons are not that bad and would run most if not all programs rated for its speed range

amd is just another company that came out to rival the big boys intell ...in the begining they were inferior chips .....nowadays there are completely equal to p4
with the exception of video processing where the p4 has a slight paper advantage to amd of the same speed

i wear the name geek like a badge

 

[FastEddy]

 

[Plaidfish]

Any of the products that run Sequel Server demand the use of a P chip.

I didn't know exactly what I needed to know about them all, but this is exactly what I was looking for.....

 

[FastEddy]

I have no idea if its a hardware issue with the chip or if the developers of the software just want to make sure that the performance of their software is optimal.

I have no clue, Just spewing info that was given me. All my computers run newer P-4s above their recommended speed. This requirement issue for me was a non-issue so I didn't ask any questions and moved forward.

 

[jetmechG550]

Plus you gotta like AMD for putting their sticker on "the Prancing Horse" go SCHUMI!!!!!!!!

 

[markallen]

yes i am a geek.. hey its better then being a nerd..

from what i have heard celerons are p-4's that didnt make the cut. (meaning they are made the same but something is stoping the celeron die from pulling the ghz the p-4's do.) so basicaly a celeron is a slimed down cheepo p4, basicaly the same as the athlon and duron chips. now on to amd vs intel.

the best i can describe it is like this. an AMD is like a corvette (insert favorite fast car here) and a intel is like a semi truck.

the AMD does a little REALLY fast (corvette can carry two people and a handbag thats about it.) but the intel does a whole lota poop all at once but does it slower.

intel is designed and suited for the business environment, multitasking, office suits, photoshop, any time it has to move ALOT of data. (big chuncks at a time.)

AMD is designed and suited for a gaming environment.. doesn't have as much data but has to do it realy fast in order to render it so you dont see chop. ( small chucks real fast)

both amd and intel have different levels with different ghz ratings and hz for hz they preform pretty close in a real life test (if you tested them on a game test or processing test one would outpreform the other)

then you step up to AMD 64 .. the mother of proc's ATM
basicaly AMD took 2 proc's and shoved them into one chip, on one bus, in one machine. this is a good thing for load sharing, gaming, and so on. these chips flat out preform.

Intel took a different approch and made one proc in the chip but made it run and 800mhz bus. then they introduced "hyper threading" which made the machine see it as say instead of 1 3.0ghz 800fsb chip. it "sees" 2 3.0ghz 400fsb chips.

its like a virtual dual core chip.

thats about all i can think of right now.. any other questions ill be happy to help.

Hyper threading doesn't do a damn thing..The newest AMD 64's are true dual core processors..and they are badass..I have ran AMD and Intel and I was pleased with how both performed...It's all about what you are used to..I started with AMD then built a Intel and now I'm back with AMD...I just like supporting the underdog..

Mark

 

[psunitro]

Just a little info...Gates screwed ADM many years ago, that is why they were inferior years ago. Do a search and read how Bill got REALLY rich, and not just rich.


I do know that the ADM's dont like running certian math intensive programs like Matlab.