celeron vs. pentium 4

Intel Intel pentium 4 1.3ghz 400mhz fsb...
July 10, 2009 at 19:15:48
Specs: Linux i686, 1.3ghz pentium4/256mb rdram
i am wondering if there would be a difference in a Celeron processor rated at 1.5ghz and a Pentium 4 processor rated at 1.5ghz.

i would guess the Pentium 4 would be better because it is newer....

i am wanting to build a new computer out of used parts and want to know which processor to go with.

my end motherboard and processor will probably be much better than the example i used.

the motherboard and processor in the computer i am using right now could do with an upgrade.

i am using a dell dimension 8100 which has a 1.3ghz Pentium 4 and a 100 MHz fsb (which i think is killing the speed)

i would decrease the multiplier and increase the fsb if i could, but i cant do anything with the processor or anything related to it.
i was thinking about downloading a overclocking program, but i am running ubuntu 9.04(i think)
and it doesnt let me install programs.(or at least i haven't figured out how to)

i am open to all ideas about everything i mentioned above.

See More: celeron vs. pentium 4

Report •

July 10, 2009 at 19:19:16
i forgot to mention i would also be willing to buy a amd processor to.

and would that be better than a pentium 4 or celeron processor?

Report •

July 10, 2009 at 19:39:58
A 1.5GHz P4 is much better than a 1.5GHz Celeron. Even your 1.3GHz P4 is better than the Celeron. But your problem isn't the CPU, it's the RAM...you only have 256MB. Have you looked at the system requirements for Ubuntu 9.04? 256MB is the MINIMUM. And if your system uses onboard video rather than an actual video card, you're losing a portion of that 256MB to the graphics, so that would hurt the performance even more.

"i forgot to mention i would also be willing to buy a amd processor"

Would you be willing to buy a new motherboard & RAM to go along with it? Because that's what you'd need to do to be able to use an AMD processor.

As I see it, you have two choices:

1. upgrade the RAM to at least 512MB...more would be better

2. dump Ubuntu & replace it with one of the Xfce distros. Xubuntu or Mint Xfce *should* run much better with your current hardware. Personally, I prefer Mint.


Report •

July 11, 2009 at 07:07:52
" I'm a big believer in keeping the old crap as long as possible, but the problem with your machine, is the type of ram it uses.

I also think you have an AGP slot. If it wasn't for the type of ram used, I would say add, a stick of 512 & a cheap AGP card, keep the deal under $50 and stop there.


Report •

Related Solutions

July 11, 2009 at 07:22:22

looks like it needs to be installed in pairs and crucial, doesn't even carry it.


Report •

July 11, 2009 at 12:47:25
thanks for the links.
i think i will try to buy an additional 512mb of ram of ebay.

but i want to find out amd processors are better than intel's processors.
if they are, i might buy a motherboard and processor combo off ebay.

i do have an agp slot with a nvidea geforce4 card in it that is in use.

Report •

July 11, 2009 at 14:40:11
that's like asking if apples are better than oranges. It depends on which apple you are comparing to which orange. Buying ram on ebay is a risk, even for an experienced computer tech.


Report •

July 11, 2009 at 15:32:00
You have one of the early socket 423 P4's w/RDRAM. Of course a newer CPU (Intel or AMD) would be better. But you don't just need a board & CPU, you'll also need RAM & you'll most likely need a new power supply too. You'd be vrtually rebuilding the system. You're looking at $250 at least.

Report •

July 11, 2009 at 17:51:32
i have 2 computers that aren't in use, one with a p3 (800mhz) and the other with a Celeron(1.1ghz). none use rdram.

i got them all free, with no passwords, so i installed Ubuntu on all of them.

thanks to Larry's link i know i have a 250 watt power supply.
i forgot which one, but one has a 300 watt power supply. would that be enough for a good setup?

Report •

July 11, 2009 at 18:18:59
No, you still don't get it. The old machines you have probably use SDR-SDRAM. Modern machines use either DDR2 or DDR3-SDRAM. There's also DDR1-SDRAM which falls between SDR & DDR2, but it's old news too. And your power supplies won't work either - not just because of the low wattage, but because they have a 20-pin main ATX plug. Modern systems require a 24-pin main plug. Also, older systems relied much more heavily on the +5v rail...modern systems rely on the +12v rail. Like I said, you're looking at $250+/-. Here's a conservative estimate:

CPU - $75
motherboard - $75
4GB DDR2-SDRAM - $50
400W power supply - S50

And being a bit of a Linux fan, I'm fairly sure your systems don't run all that well with Ubuntu 9.04. Try Mint-Xfce as I suggested. You'll be glad you did.

Report •

July 11, 2009 at 19:47:38
wich version of linux mint do you recomend i get?
the site has 3 different downloads....
it looks like fluxbox would be the way to go....

Report •

July 12, 2009 at 06:28:16
Mint-Xfce, for the machine with 256mb, maybe fluxbox if the other machines have less. might have a look at this distro,

How much ram does the P3 have??


Report •

July 12, 2009 at 09:02:23
the p3 has 384mb sd ram in 3 cards of 128.
the celeron has 768 mb sd ram (1 card of 512 & 1 of 256)

i had the larger amount of ram in the celeron because its 300 mhz faster...

but is it really faster than the p3?

Report •

July 12, 2009 at 10:49:53
"but is it really faster than the p3?"

I doubt it. The P3 is/was an excellent CPU. The P4 was actually a downgrade. As much as Intel pushed it & tried to get it to work, the netburst architecture was a bust. The Core 2 Duo is actually based on the P3 design.

Mint linux is based on Ubuntu, but it works better. It's been called "the Ubuntu that should have been". I've never tried the Fluxbox version so I can't really comment on it, but I'm very happy with Mint-Xfce.

Report •

July 13, 2009 at 17:38:07
I have that same computer a Dell Dimension 8100! I have upgraded it to a 1.7GHz Pentium 4, 512MB of RAM, added a Raid card, and a 250GB SATA hard drive. It is a lot faster than it used to be with all those upgrades. It plays flash slow though, the CPU maxes out doing simple tasks, and 512MB of RAM isn't always enough for running multiple programs at once. If you leave open Internet explorer, Myspace IM, limewire, and yahoo messenger at once it will be too slow to do anything.

I did the above upgrades for $60 but the SATA hard drive is a good investment because it can be used in a new PC.

The main things that suck about this computer are..... It uses socket 423 CPU's only, RD RAM, and the case can't hold any other motherboard. No matter how far you upgrade the CPU you won't notice any good performance unless you buy the Powerleap 423 to 478/N converter or the PCChips 423 to 478/N converter and a Pentium 4 2.4GHz CPU or a 2.8GHz Celeron.

The price to upgrade the Dell dimension 8100 to a decent PC would be $45 for the PCChips 423 to 478/N converter, $7.99 for a used celeron 2.8GHz CPU on ebay, $15 for a new heatsink and fan because you can't use the old one, and $50 to upgrade to 1GB of used RDRAM on ebay if you're lucky.

Total price to upgrade to something decent: $117.99

On the other hand you could buy a PC with a Pentium 4 3.0GHz HT, 1GB DDR 2 RAM, and a CD ROM drive for $88 on ebay including shipping and $65 without shipping. Then you could buy 1 GB more DDR2 RAM for $9.99 and a 400GB Hard drive for $35. Or You could use your old hard drive and save $35. And then you could sell the Dell on ebay for at least a good $40 if you wanted.

Which is better?

CPU: Celeron 2.8GHz 128KB L2 cache
Hard drive: Probably 40GB
Price $117.99


CPU: Pentium 4 3.0GHz HT 1MB L2 cache
Hard drive: probably 40GB
Price: $97.99


CPU: Pentium 4 3.0GHz HT 1MB L2 cache
Hard drive: 400GB
Price: $132.99

Report •

July 13, 2009 at 17:59:14
Your last choice but it sure ain't worth that kind of money; none of the choices are.

That's pretty substantial money and needs to be tucked away for a new system. I wouldn't upgrade anything unless the parts come your way for free or nearly free.


Report •

July 13, 2009 at 18:12:29
Actually a pentium 4 3GHz system for less than $100 would be well worth it in my opinion. If you're like me you can't save money because you're always broke at the end of the month. But sometimes you might have a few dollars to spare and that money would be well worth it to me at least to get a PC that good. I know it's not the best but I could get by happily on that until I could afford a dual core system.

Report •

July 13, 2009 at 18:22:20
There is almost NO difference in terms of performance when comparing a netburst celeron to a P4 at the same speed. THere is only something of a 5% difference at that. The celery has less cache and does not have as good branch prediction as the P4, or something similar( I can't remember the details, it's been years).

PowerMac 9600(1 ghz G4)
512mb RAM
50gb SCSI
ATi 9200 PCI

Report •

July 14, 2009 at 13:40:16
so should i build a new computer? knowing that mine is already slow, and that it doesn't get much better, it sounds like i should build my own from scratch. i have been thinking (more like dreaming) about doing this for a long time.

i will soon have the money, so i think i should build my own good, fast computer that is already fast before overclocking. (i don't want to need to overclock to get good performance)

and i found an old windows ME disk, so does anyone recommend putting that on this computer? (it originally came with it when it was first purchased)

Report •

July 15, 2009 at 15:39:00
so much for windows ME....

the disk must be bad because it comes to a blue screen when installation is supposed to start.

and just finished installing linux mint. i think me and my computer will like it much bettter.

thanks for recomending it.

Report •

July 17, 2009 at 23:00:07
"so much for windows ME....

the disk must be bad because it comes to a blue screen when installation is supposed to start."

It's ME, thats supposed to happen, lol.

PowerMac 9600(1 ghz G4)
512mb RAM
50gb SCSI
ATi 9200 PCI

Report •

December 31, 2009 at 11:32:51
I just wanted to come back and say that now you can get a Pentium 4 3.2GHz, 2GB of RAM, 120GB HDD, and DVD burner with lightscribe system now on ebay for $50 if you're lucky and I was that lucky. I got it as a christmas present for somebody! Just last year in 2008 systems like that sold for a good $250! Think about that! By just waiting 1 year I saved 80%.I don't care what anyone says Pentium 4 cpu's are still good cpu's unless you play PC games.

Report •

December 31, 2009 at 14:54:12
"I don't care what anyone says Pentium 4 cpu's are still good cpu's"

They're just not as good as the Pentium D, Pentium Dual core, Core 2 Solo, Core 2 Duo, Core i5, Core i7, Athlon 64, Sempron 64, Athlon X2, Phenom, Phenom II or Athlon II.

There have been a lot of advancements in CPUs since the days when the P4 was king. Oh wait, the P4 was never king...the A64 was king back in those days.

Report •

January 2, 2010 at 17:26:19
Back in 2005 up to 2006 all I had was a celeron 433MHz, 128MB of RAM, and a 3GB hard drive and I hated it. I was jealous of people who had Pentium 4's and windows XP. I remember looking in the dell catalogs my uncle would get in the mail seeing all those 3GHz Pentium 4 cpu's and wishing I could have one. I still remember what it's like having a slow SLOW computer and a Pentium 4 isn't like that still to this day.

Report •

January 2, 2010 at 19:18:23
Yeah it is. Unless you are surfing the internet and doing basic computing with it, the Pentuim 4 compared to today's standards is SLOW when it has to deal with today's graphics audio and video rendering programs. Even a 35 dollar AM3 Sempron 140 @ 2.7ghz based on the Phenom II Core Logic will run circles around a Pentuim 4.

Iron Sharpens Iron.

Report •

January 2, 2010 at 22:03:18
Yes by today's standards a pentium 4 is slow but it can run windows xp at the same speed as a new computer. When using Windows XP I notice no difference between a 3GHz Pentium 4 and a Core 2 duo. All explorer windows seem to open at the same speed and even Internet explorer opens and looks like it goes just as fast on a Pentium 4 3GHz as it does on a core 2 duo computer. Can I say the same about a Pentium 4 1.7GHz computer? No! I notice a big difference doing those same things on an older pentium 4 vs. a 3GHz pentium 4 cpu but I don't see the same difference doing those things between the Pentium 4 3GHz vs. a core 2 duo or better. I do have a better computer though I have a new one with a Pentium E5200, 6GB of RAM, and Windows 7 but do I play games on it? No! Do I do anything that uses up all my RAM? No! I don't do anything too intensive on it. But I just like knowing that I can do it if I want to. I think that I could happily use a computer with a Pentium 4 3GHz because I don't presently need anything better. There are a lot of people who are like that but they still want a new computer. But why? My guess is that they just like getting new things. I like new things too.

I am a gamer by the way but only on consoles. It's cheaper that way.

Report •

January 2, 2010 at 23:14:47
That's because Windows XP Pro can't take advantage of multi-cores in its OS and Windows XP Home Edition doesn't even see multi-cores at all. Apply that to Windows Vista or Windows 7 where both OSes can advantage of multi-core cpu's and you will start to notice real diff between a Pentuim 4 and a Core 2 Duo in operation times.

I don't see a lot of avg computer users running out and buying a pc just because its new. The avg computer user buys a computer when they need to, which is why a lot of your avg computer users hang onto their pc for 3 or 4 years or longer before going out and buying another pc.

Iron Sharpens Iron.

Report •

Ask Question