Identical? Which one is better for your money? Many people root for the Centrino, what's their reason? Which is better deal for $950? (for Game-playing?): Centrino 1.4Ghz 256MB 30GB or Celeron M 1.5Ghz 512MB 60GB. Im looking to getting a new laptop, since my two year old one is getting out of date.

Dell Inspiron 2650 Pentium4 2.4Ghz 256MB 20GB

From my knowledge this is my two cents in a third person p-o-v:

Many people are thinking that centrino is the way to go, and celerons are the cheap version of pentiums, but what defines "cheap"? In prices, yes, in performance, no, and in hardware, absolutely not.

There are only two differences in the two processors, both through the usage of its identical hardware, the L2 cache and the speedstep unit.

Performance is almost identical at equal clock speeds, and so if I were to get a celeron m at a higher clock speed than a centrino, then the celeron would be just as good as the centrino, yet, at a lower price.

This is because L2 cache is short for Level 2 cache, cache memory that is external to the microprocessor. L2 cache memory, also called the secondary cache, resides on a separate chip from the microprocessor chip. Pentiums have between 256kb to 512kb, while Celeron M's also have 512kb cache, making its performance equal in that sense.

When compared to a Pentium M, though, it does have less L2 cache, or I should say "uses" less cache, because its hardware is exactly identical. Just that half of its cache and its speedstep unit is not functional.

The speedstep unit is where the main difference is, its a hardware that allows for deeper sleep, when the processor is not being used. But how often is that? not very; more often than not, youve got music playing or some program running, which means you wont be utilizing the centrino's "special" speedstep unit, that which the celeron m, sadly, does not have.

This second difference in centrinos is that it has a functional speedstep unit, that celerons cant use, that allows centrinos to go to one level lower of sleep, which is called "deeper sleep" than the celerons.

The processing done by celeron vs centrino at each level of sleep is identical. The voltage used by celeron vs centrino at each level of sleep is only fractions of a watt difference, the thing that people pride over their centrino, is the "deeper sleep" which it can accomplish, and at that stage it uses only about .6 watts, again, how likely will your computer be able to go to deeper sleep? Even if it gets near it and reaches just "deep sleep" the celeron uses only about 7 watts while the centrino uses about 5 watts, 2 watts difference for more of your cash? Not very smart.

So if we look at the performance, pretty much identical. If you do want to play high res games, get a stronger graphics card; if you want to do high end apps, get an apple, haha. If we look at the "batery saving" yea, couple watts, and if you dont plan on just looking at your comp and not using it, then the speedstep unit, is useless; the difference then, in battery saving power? Few measly watts. So watt' so hard about making the decision, get a celeron, save some money, and get your girlfriend a gift instead!

My Dell Inspiron children 1st 2650 Pentium4 2.2Ghz 256MB 20GB / 2nd 8600 CeleronM 1.5Ghz 512MB 60GB

And your question is??

If you already know the answer, then why did you post, please, dont do this again, and wastes peoples time, this is a forum on helping people.

You can be amused by the simplest of things.

The smartest people in the world, over-look the smallest objects.

War does not determine who is right, only who is left.

Just looking at the specs, the Celeron with 512mb RAM should be better than the Pentium M with only 256mb. You'd still have to compare the graphics & chipset though.

As I understand it, "Centrino" is the name given to a specific hardware package which MUST include - a Pentium M, Intel 855 chipset, & Intel Pro/wireless network card. If the laptop doesn't meet those 3 requirements, it can't be called a Centrino. If the CPU is the new "Dothan" version of the Pentium M, the L2 cache is 2,048k.

Asus A7N8X-X
1800+ @8x210mhz
512mb PC3200
Ti4200/8X 128mb
WDC 60GB

David, I could clearly understand Stevenonotrah asking which would be a better buy, the Centrion or the Cel.
I think it was fair and lets not discourage posters ok?

Good Luck and Happy Computing,
Kailas Shastry,

Sempron 2400 underclocked to 1GHz...just for the heck of it! MSI KT266VM
DDR 256MB

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

the centrino is far better than a pentium m or a celeron. go to a store and try it, the celeron i wouldnt recommend to anyone buying any pc. its slow, cheap and sucks so bad at everything. i work retail and lots of customers kick them selves for buying celeron's. centrino i've "heard" is about 800-1200mhz faster than it really says for speed wise. if you dont believe me go to a store and try each one.

Silly northernp, The centrino IS pentium M, it's just Pentium M bundled with 855 chipset and Intel Pro/wireless.

Celeron-M is not the traditional Celeron. It inherits all the new innovations done to Pentium M which, includes Enhanced Branch Prediction, deeper pipeline, optimized 400MHz Front side bus and Dedicated Stack Engine, and more. These are all new stuff.

Do not under-estimate the Celeron M, It's the same as a Pentium M (processor of choice for centrino) with less cache and perhaps burns a little bit more power than the Pentium M. But for the savings you get, you are getting a new generation chipset with awesome power.

Some analyst feel Celeron M should not be branded as "Celeron" because it will probably win the "low-power" CPU competition too easily and that it's really initially produced as a full-power Pentium M!

Hello,

I'm in the process of purchasing a new laptop. My current laptop has such a heat problem that's uncomfortable to use. I tend to leave in on most of the time. I'm wondering if the Pentium M runs cooler than a Celeron M. I would appreciate any ideas you may have. I'd like to spend no more than $1200.00. I'm not sure if that's possible.

Thank you for your help.

Honestly, I'm not qualified to debate Celeron M versus Pentium M, because I don't track the BS terms that Intel has come up with to define their latest "technologies."

I would just like to point out to 'rage' that some of the "enhancements" to the Pentium M that were mentioned aren't really enhancements at all. A "deeper pipeline", for example, is a terrible idea that Intel uses to artificially boost their clock speed ratings. It makes out-of-order execution exponentially more difficult (which, by the way, is what causes your processor to heat up so much 'lilypaddy'), and is actually the main reason an "Enhanced Branch Predictor" was necessary to "innovate" as well. A 24 stage pipeline, as in the Pentium M, could potentially take as many as 3000 times more instructions to complete the same task as an MIPS R8000, or 1000 times as many as a PowerPC 970 core (G5). (*Yes*, Macs are superior, believe it or not) Therefore, "clock speed" isn't as much of an issue as people think. Think of it like a logic tree: if you have one that branches in two directions 8 times, there are many fewer possibilities to consider than a tree that has branched 24 times. (256 vs. 16777216) With a G5, you're looking at an 8 stage pipeline, with a MIPS, 4. Ironically, the Pentium III was actually a much more efficient chip in this regard. A better analogy would be this:

1. A porsche traveling 80mph (clock speed) down a road.

vs.

2. An rocket powered Honda Civic traveling 200mph in the same direction, on a conveyer belt traveling 150mph in the opposite direction. :-)

Intel is more of a marketing company than a chip maker (a "deeper pipeline" is exactly what helps Intel reach the absurd clock speeds they advertise these days)- just think how nice the world would be if everybody ran an UltraSPARC or any other MIPS compatible processor with centralized shared RAM and a dedicated environment. Oh well, until then - buy an iBook "lilypaddy'!

* PS - A dedicated stack engine is, in fact, a good idea. It's also been implemented into better chips for almost a decade. Plus, considering Intel's design, I would think with the massive stacks generated by that chip that one would be as necessary as a better branch predictor. My .02.