Multitasking - Pentium 4 or Celeron D???

double b26

New Member
my pc's...

dell dimension 3000
xp media center edition
celeron d @ 2.66ghz
512mb memory
integrated video, sound, etc. (no upgrades)
160gb hard drive
cd/dvd burner combo only

compaq presario 6454nx
xp media center edition
pentium 4 @ 2.50ghz
512mb memory
integrated video, sound, etc. (no upgrades)
120gb hard drive
cd-r burner
dvd-rom
3.5 floppy drive

:confused: in plain english, can anyone explain the difference between the celeron and pentium processors? (ive heard that the celeron is better for single program running, and the pentium is better for multiple programs running at once. is that true? i also read something about the L2 cache being bigger on the pentiums, thus it runs smoother and/or faster?)

:confused: which computer would you use as your main one? (ive had the dell for a few years and have been using it, but it gets bogged down when doing heavy multitasking. i recently inherited the compaq from my dad and havent used it much at all, so i cant really judge it as far as multi-tasking performance. im wondering if the pentium would do better at multiple tasks than the celeron)

:) as far as the differences in hard drives and disc drives, it doesnt really matter because i have them networked and can share the drives between the two. im just wondering which would perform better when multitasking. im usually running a web browser, windows media player, a bit-torrent client, ms word, picture editing software, etc. not all of those at once, but sometimes 3 or 4 of them at a time. i know i need to upgrade the memory in them, but right now work is slow and i dont really want to spend the money on it. what do you think?
 
i would use the second one because i would assume that the pentium 4 was faster.

im not sure why.
 
Based on Tom's Hardware charts, the P4 is better, but I am unsure about multitasking because I can't really find any test that means multitask to me. But of course, increase the RAM. I got a P4(rig in sig) and I upped my RAM by 512mb not so long ago and it helps a lot.
 
Well this isn't as cut and dry as it looks! Generally anything over a Celeron running at roughly the same Mhz is better. But this also depends on what version you are talking about.

A Celeron D should be a Prescott and may in fact be faster than the P4.

Can you download cpu-z and take screen shot on both computer's so we can see exactly which chips is in either of the computers?

Or just tell us the "Code Names" :)

btw, I agree about more ram... Bust the piggy bank open! ;)
 
celeron D in no way faster than a pentium 4, i was running a celeron d prescott, with 1gb and it sucked, games lag even with a great video card, so i trashed the celeron d prescott 2.4ghz and moved to a pentium 4 2.2ghz and everything worked better inlcuding games.

but now i have the pc thats in my sig and i say **** p4 and Cel. D
 
alright, here are the CPU-Z reports:

Compaq

CPUTab-1.jpg
CacheTab-1.jpg


MainboardTab-1.jpg
MemoryTab-1.jpg


SPDTab-1.jpg
AboutTab-1.jpg


LatencyReport-1.jpg

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dell

CPUTab.jpg
CacheTab.jpg


MainboardTab.jpg
MemoryTab.jpg


SPDTab.jpg
AboutTab.jpg


LatencyReport.jpg

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
most of this makes no sense to me :D. like i said, i know i need to upgrade the memory in them both, but with it being winter and all, work is pretty slow these days. not to mention christmas coming up real soon :eek:. i figure that i will upgrade at tax time, or later in the spring when work picks up. believe me, i want to, but priorities... anyway, hope this stuff helps you guys help me out.
 
The Celeron is a superior chip to the P4 in almost all aspects. The L2 Cache is half the size, but they should actually be pretty close to the same. Another way to improve performance is to just make sure you're not running a lot of memory hogging applications in the background.

But it's kinda like picking which piece of poo stinks less... :D:P

SadisticalActs said:
celeron D in no way faster than a pentium 4, i was running a celeron d prescott, with 1gb and it sucked, games lag even with a great video card, so i trashed the celeron d prescott 2.4ghz and moved to a pentium 4 2.2ghz and everything worked better inlcuding games.

Yeah, I highly doubt you downgraded to a northwood, so yes, a 2.2 Ghz P4 vs a 2.4 Ghz Celeron D (given the same architecture) would be better.

All in all, if you do plan on upgrading, Don't invest more than $50 for 1 GB of ram. Basically anything you buy either of them is investing in dead technologies. Personally, I would pick up a set of 512's (for 1 GB) and then start saving to build a brand new machine. You should get more life out of the Compaq once it's running a 1 GB of memory. And for the 6 months it might take you to save up 400-600 for a new computer it will be tolerable.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820161627
 
so i guess the real test will be to start using the pentium pc for a bit and just see if it seems to do any better.

not much is running in the background. ive checkd it with msconfig, and other than a few things that i knew about, its all windows stuff. plus i just did a fresh windows install on both a few weeks ago. after a couple years or so of use, they needed it. since then they have been running better than they did for a long time.

i was reading that its better to install memory 2 at a time, is that true? as far as the memory price, $50 isnt bad for 1gb total. (a week or so ago i was looking on the dell site and they wanted $100 for a single 1gb stick. after a quick google, i found many options that were cheaper, like what you linked to above.)

as far as investing in the dead technology goes, right now its fine for me. i dont use them for anything other than web surfing, music and movie storage/burning. i wouldnt mind getting something new, of course, and have been checking prices, but its not a big priority at the time. if i can spend $100 and have two decent running pc's that play and burn music and video, i am fine with that for a while. plus, i have read a lot about bugs with the new vista os, so ive been biding my time until that gets smoothed out.

well, thanks for the advice. its much appreciated!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top