Dual Core Celeron 1.6ghz or Celeron 2.8

[Dolby]

Which is better as a day-to-day PC ... no games, graphics etc?

 

[JohnnyQ]

D C is based on newer technology, but there are no dual core Celerons. The 4xx series (if you are talking about them) is based on the Conroe-L core but does not have 2 cores. The E2140 (based on the Conroe core) is dual core, running at 1.6Mhz, but is not a Celeron. The 4xx series running at 1.6 should be a bit faster than 3xx series running at 2.8, and will be a lot more overclockable.

Here is a good comparison
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/print/conroe-l-preview.html

.

 

[killadoob]

dont buy celeron buy conroe L if its just for everyday pc use

 

[eitai2001]

Which is better as a day-to-day PC ... no games, graphics etc?

Go for the Dual Core celeron ... but if you can fork out the extra R300 or so ... get the Pentium Dual-Core E2140 or if you can the Core 2 Duo E4400.

Just reply to me with a private message (Don't want to show my e-mail for spam purposes).

The prices will be
Celeron 1.6Ghz - R369
Dual-Core E2140 - R629
Core2Duo E4400 - R1099

Regards

Itai

------------------------------------------------------------------------

www.digitaladdiction.co.za - Addicted to great prices

 

[Sapphiron]

Don't buy any single core stuff

The intel E2140 is a good choice @ 2x 1.6Ghz.

But for the same price you can get a AMD 4200+ running at 2x 2.2Ghz

The AMD boards are cheaper and come with onboard DVI that gives you far better clarity on a LCD display.

I would go for this board
ASUS M2A-VM HDMi , all-in-one with bundled pci-e(16x) HDMi add-on-card ; socket AM2 , AMD 690G + ATi SB600 chipset , 4x dual channel DDR2-800 , 4 x s-ata2 with raid 0/1/0+1/10 , 1 x parallel ata133 , on-board vga ATi X1250 ( hypermemory upto 1024mb ) with dual-output ( DVi-D or D-SUB ) , with tv-out ( RCA+S-Video+1080i HDTV ) , with HDMi AV output ( HD DVD , Blu-ray HDCP compliant ) , iEEE1394a firewire , ALC883-GR 5.1 audio with coaxial s/pdif out + gigabit lan ; 1x pci-e (1x) , 1x pci-e (16x) , 2 x pci - micro atx

Or this board:
Asus M2NPV-MX , all-in-one ; socket AM2 , nVidia geforce6150 + nforce 430 chipset , 4x dual channel DDR2-800 , 4 x s-ata2 with raid 0/1/0+1/5 , 2 x parallel ata133 , on-board vga with dual-output ( DVi-D or D-SUB ) , AD1986A 5.1 audio + gigabit lan ; 1x pci-e (1x) , 1x pci-e (16x) , 2 x pci - micro atx

THen go for the 4200+ CPU and at least 1GB of ram (its cheap now).

This is the spec desktop I am now selling to my clients in office environments

 

[eitai2001]

I would rather go for the Intel over AMD ... they are better performance, and RAM can run faster.

 

[Dolby]

My 3G wasn't working and I missed all tyhe replies

Bought a PC already for R2350,00 including VAT and everything.

ATX CASE BLACK 300W
P4 LGA775 533, 800
320HB HDD
1.6 CELERON E420
512RAM 667MHZ
DVD WRITER BLACK

PC doesn't need to be highend, as it's going to be PC '2' in this diagram http://mybroadband.co.za/photos/showphoto.php?photo=1131&limit=recent - so pretty much a server to run one piece of 2 year old software

 

[Sapphiron]

I would rather go for the Intel over AMD ... they are better performance, and RAM can run faster.

not at 1.6Ghz vs 2.2Ghz, then the AMD is 20% faster.
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=930&model2=884&chart=419


And the memory speeds are the same, but the AMD uses the speed more efficiently (DDR2-800)
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=930&model2=884&chart=417

The fact is that on anything except high end PC's, AMD has got Intel beat senseless

 

[supersunbird]

Not entirely sapphiron, it just that Intel systems can be had for so much cheaper...

 

[eitai2001]

not at 1.6Ghz vs 2.2Ghz, then the AMD is 20% faster.
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=930&model2=884&chart=419


And the memory speeds are the same, but the AMD uses the speed more efficiently (DDR2-800)
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=930&model2=884&chart=417

The fact is that on anything except high end PC's, AMD has got Intel beat senseless

Your current ideal operating speeds for an AMD X2 is DDR2 533 and for a Intel is DDR 667 due to the frontside buses of the processors. Yes, they are both FSB 800 on the entry level, but it is the way those FSB's are broken down into 2 x 400 and 4 x 200. The intel is able to handle faster memory speeds. If you give an AMD a DDR 800 chip running at DDR 800, you have a good chance of Data corruption. That is why most boards will actually down clock the memory.

If there is someone reading this who is a proper technician, please explain it in more detail ... thats as far as my knowledge extends.

 

[Dolby]

Well, one is commenting that I was ripped off which is a good thing How far off my current P4 3.0ghz HT would this be ... ?

 

[Sapphiron]

Your current ideal operating speeds for an AMD X2 is DDR2 533 and for a Intel is DDR 667 due to the frontside buses of the processors. Yes, they are both FSB 800 on the entry level, but it is the way those FSB's are broken down into 2 x 400 and 4 x 200. The intel is able to handle faster memory speeds. If you give an AMD a DDR 800 chip running at DDR 800, you have a good chance of Data corruption. That is why most boards will actually down clock the memory.

If there is someone reading this who is a proper technician, please explain it in more detail ... thats as far as my knowledge extends.

Obviously that problem was solved in the early days of socket AM2. All the PC I am selling now run at full DDR-800 with no problems. 15+ PC's.

I recall that problem when the "modified" chipsets (early 500 series) from Nvidia were the only chipsets that could run DDR2.

Anyway, even at 733 the AMD destroys the Intel's memory performance at 800.

 

[killadoob]

Your current ideal operating speeds for an AMD X2 is DDR2 533 and for a Intel is DDR 667 due to the frontside buses of the processors. Yes, they are both FSB 800 on the entry level, but it is the way those FSB's are broken down into 2 x 400 and 4 x 200. The intel is able to handle faster memory speeds. If you give an AMD a DDR 800 chip running at DDR 800, you have a good chance of Data corruption. That is why most boards will actually down clock the memory.

If there is someone reading this who is a proper technician, please explain it in more detail ... thats as far as my knowledge extends.

can anyone confirm this plz?

i put together pc with an amd and 800 ddr 2 no data corruption and it said memory was running at 800?

i dont know that the above statement is correct

 

[supersunbird]

To my knowledge it is not correct. Now having data corruption with the IDE drivers was a problem some time ago. I guess it belongs with that AMD runs hot and crash all the time crowd...

 

[JohnnyQ]

Both Intel and AMD are really good platforms, fast and stable, and it eventually comes down to a matter of choice. AMD better on the pocket, Intel better on the benchmarks, but when you go sit down in front of a PC, you will not notice the diffs between the two.

All hail Cyrix, hie hie

.

 

[killadoob]

johnny believe me i notice the difference between my core 2 and my 3800x2 a massive difference in everything

photoshop
corel draw

works way faster than any amd i have ever owned

 

[supersunbird]

johnny believe me i notice the difference between my core 2 and my 3800x2 a massive difference in everything

photoshop
corel draw

works way faster than any amd i have ever owned

Depends on what Core 2 Duo you have killa...

I'd bet someone woudl be hard pressed to tell a E2140 apart from a x2 3800+

 

[Pe-Killer]

Stay away from celleron!!!

 

[eitai2001]

What I was describing above is what the techies at Rectron and some other suppliers were telling me. I suppose it won't really make much of a difference on a entry level pc because you aren't pushing it. I set up a system for a client ... and was baffled why Windows randomly gave blue screens on start up. The system was AMD FX62, 2GB Twin2X DDR 800 Corsair Memory, XFX Geforce 8800ULTRA XXX 1TB hard drive, Gigabyte GA-59SLI-S5 motherboard. After a bit of research ... we were told to set the RAM down to 533 ... not sure if my client did that ... but he hasn't complained about that same problem anymore. Its got to do with the way the FSB's are calculated and the practical (not theoretical) performance of the RAM. I still don't completely understand it ... but it made a little bit of sense to me ... but on that PC ... we were pushing all the hardware ... he runs a 30" screen at 2560x1920 ... and data corruptions were happening all the time.

If you look at the benchmarks for Intel and AMD, AMD in the entry level segment generally does better with graphics and intel with office work and stuff.

 

[tian.]

Your current ideal operating speeds for an AMD X2 is DDR2 533 and for a Intel is DDR 667 due to the front side buses of the processors. Yes, they are both FSB 800 on the entry level, but it is the way those FSB's are broken down into 2 x 400 and 4 x 200. The intel is able to handle faster memory speeds. If you give an AMD a DDR 800 chip running at DDR 800, you have a good chance of Data corruption. That is why most boards will actually down clock the memory.

If there is someone reading this who is a proper technician, please explain it in more detail ... thats as far as my knowledge extends.

bs, I might not be the most knowledgeable, but i'm rather certain that isn't the case.

First off, it's basically impossible (AFAIK) to get the full theoretical bandwidth out of memory, so DDR2-667 in dual channel on a 1066FSB still will be slower than DDR2-800 in dual channel.

Then AMD's don't have front side busses. They have HT (HyperTransport) links connecting the CPU to the chipset, BUT it doesn't really matter, since AMD's make use of an on-board memory controller, so the CPU is connected DIRECTLY to the memory, and at whatever speed the memory is capable of.

Lastly, motherboards clocking down and memory corruption at high memory speeds? Never heard of that (unless that involves overclocking), hell, my memory runs just fine at 800Mhz (in dual channel) with a 1066Mhz FSB.

EDIT: Don't believe everything some Rectron techy or salesperson is trying to tell you, I've been tuned that story once before. In your clients case, chances are the motherboard or ram is faulty (or have compatibility issues) but work at lower speeds. There's absolutely no reason why the memory shouldn't run at full speed otherwise.