New Member Here... Q Re: P v. Celeron
Discussion
Greetings,
I've read a previous thread regarding the debate between the Intel Pent chip and the Celeron, but it still leaves questions unanswered. So, please indulge me in another discussion. Here is my scenario, which is reality.
I am the Senior Systems Admin for a manufacturing firm. I administer a Windows network on a Novell server. We have had a few issues in relation to the Novell Client, currently 4.91 SP2, some are on 4.92 where we suspect the celeron procs. When a user is logged onto their workstation, rather than logging them off and using the "admin" account, we merely log onto the network with the Novell client. Machines with the C proc crash with a data dump error pointing to the client. Apparently the celeron proc cannot handle that type of instruction. That is only one issue, however.
My Finance Manager insists there is NO difference between the two processors aside from name and being less expensive. Despite our many discussions on the matter, explaining in layman's terms the differences and, in my opinon, the P4 being more efficient, hence more suitable for an office environment running the Novell client, AS400 sessions as well as MSOffice apps and a proprietary asp program called DocLink. Not to mention Blotus Chokes (what we have lovingly dubbed Lotus Notes). It is my opinion that the Celeron is the primary source of our headaches where certain workstations are concerned.
My contention is that the Celeron is indeed an inferior processor, built with lesser quality and smaller cache size rendering it inappropriate for office use. Wasn't this either based upon the Cyrix proc or actually purchased by Intel when Cyrix went belly-up? If memory serves, the advent of the Celeron was right around the time of Cyrix's demise. It seems to me that Intel intended systems with this processor for the casual home user, hence the lower pricing. Please correct me if I am wrong because my FM intends to save a bundle of cash by buying the lesser expensive systems with the C chip.
That being the case, would beefing up the RAM make any difference? Rather than using 512, bumping it up a little to, say, 768M?
In my 12 years as an IT Professional, I have experienced more issues with the C proc than the Pentium or even AMD. Are the newer processors better these days?
Input greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your time,
Jesse
I've read a previous thread regarding the debate between the Intel Pent chip and the Celeron, but it still leaves questions unanswered. So, please indulge me in another discussion. Here is my scenario, which is reality.
I am the Senior Systems Admin for a manufacturing firm. I administer a Windows network on a Novell server. We have had a few issues in relation to the Novell Client, currently 4.91 SP2, some are on 4.92 where we suspect the celeron procs. When a user is logged onto their workstation, rather than logging them off and using the "admin" account, we merely log onto the network with the Novell client. Machines with the C proc crash with a data dump error pointing to the client. Apparently the celeron proc cannot handle that type of instruction. That is only one issue, however.
My Finance Manager insists there is NO difference between the two processors aside from name and being less expensive. Despite our many discussions on the matter, explaining in layman's terms the differences and, in my opinon, the P4 being more efficient, hence more suitable for an office environment running the Novell client, AS400 sessions as well as MSOffice apps and a proprietary asp program called DocLink. Not to mention Blotus Chokes (what we have lovingly dubbed Lotus Notes). It is my opinion that the Celeron is the primary source of our headaches where certain workstations are concerned.
My contention is that the Celeron is indeed an inferior processor, built with lesser quality and smaller cache size rendering it inappropriate for office use. Wasn't this either based upon the Cyrix proc or actually purchased by Intel when Cyrix went belly-up? If memory serves, the advent of the Celeron was right around the time of Cyrix's demise. It seems to me that Intel intended systems with this processor for the casual home user, hence the lower pricing. Please correct me if I am wrong because my FM intends to save a bundle of cash by buying the lesser expensive systems with the C chip.
That being the case, would beefing up the RAM make any difference? Rather than using 512, bumping it up a little to, say, 768M?
In my 12 years as an IT Professional, I have experienced more issues with the C proc than the Pentium or even AMD. Are the newer processors better these days?
Input greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your time,
Jesse
Whatever your problem's source, it is highly unlikely to be down to intrinsic differences between the Celeron and Pentium 4 processors (neither of which were derived from Cyrix processors). The Celeron is a P4 core with smaller caches.
For general home and office use I'd say that a Celeron processor would be suitable. Users who require computationally intensive applications such as CAD, scientific tools or games should look toward a P4.
However, if you're at the buying stage, it's worth bearing in mind that you get a lot more bang for your buck on the AMD CPU platform.
For general home and office use I'd say that a Celeron processor would be suitable. Users who require computationally intensive applications such as CAD, scientific tools or games should look toward a P4.
However, if you're at the buying stage, it's worth bearing in mind that you get a lot more bang for your buck on the AMD CPU platform.
Hello 
You're kinda right and your finance manager is a c0ck. I assume he drives a dawoo rather than a BM, as the only difference is name and price.
There a four major differences between P's ands C's
Cache - The amount of L2 cache memory can have a big effect on performance.
Clock speed - Not so significant performance wise, but C's are never clocked as high. This along with less cache (hence simpler layout) and slower busses has a major effect on production yield and is the primary reason for the price difference.
Bus speed - both system and memory are also slower. (see above)
Hyperthreading - The simulation of two cores at OS level. Because it's not genuinly Dual core, very few apps can take advantage of this feature, but the OS can and it makes a difference if you're running multiple apps, I'd say rare on the typical office desktop.
I would consider a modern celeron with 512Meg o' RAM, more than sufficient for most office workstation requirements.
The cores however (and hence the available instruction set), are identical, so I'd be surprised if these crashes were an instruction issue. Have you submitted these dumps to Novel? Are these machines getting on a bit, or all the same age? could be a dodgey batch of RAM all flaking at about the same time, or some equally unlikley red herring type thing.
You're kinda right and your finance manager is a c0ck. I assume he drives a dawoo rather than a BM, as the only difference is name and price.
There a four major differences between P's ands C's
Cache - The amount of L2 cache memory can have a big effect on performance.
Clock speed - Not so significant performance wise, but C's are never clocked as high. This along with less cache (hence simpler layout) and slower busses has a major effect on production yield and is the primary reason for the price difference.
Bus speed - both system and memory are also slower. (see above)
Hyperthreading - The simulation of two cores at OS level. Because it's not genuinly Dual core, very few apps can take advantage of this feature, but the OS can and it makes a difference if you're running multiple apps, I'd say rare on the typical office desktop.
I would consider a modern celeron with 512Meg o' RAM, more than sufficient for most office workstation requirements.
The cores however (and hence the available instruction set), are identical, so I'd be surprised if these crashes were an instruction issue. Have you submitted these dumps to Novel? Are these machines getting on a bit, or all the same age? could be a dodgey batch of RAM all flaking at about the same time, or some equally unlikley red herring type thing.
I've used the 4.91SP2 client on a couple of Celerons without issue, if that helps. Does the MS client have the same problem?
Could you swap a celeron for a P4 chip just to help rule it out?
Ps: Your finance guy sounds like a cock I built similarly clocked and otherwise identical P4 machines and a Celeron D machine last week, just for giggles I started the s/w installs off at the same time - the P4 finished about 1 minute faster on an XP install, not bad when both are spending 99% of their time waiting for the CD-ROM!
Could you swap a celeron for a P4 chip just to help rule it out?
Ps: Your finance guy sounds like a cock
I built similarly clocked and otherwise identical P4 machines and a Celeron D machine last week, just for giggles I started the s/w installs off at the same time - the P4 finished about 1 minute faster on an XP install, not bad when both are spending 99% of their time waiting for the CD-ROM!mattley said:
I would consider a modern celeron with 512Meg o' RAM, more than sufficient for most office workstation requirements.
This is the key point.
Most office users will NEVER get anywhere near using the performance afforded by a P4 chip. A CAD user on the other will.
I wouldn't be splitting straws at this level as you really need to concentrate on the scalability of you equipment. Can you upgrade to more memory? If so I'd do this - more memory makes a whole world of difference.
I'm not entirely convinced by the performace increase 'in the real world' by a P4 over a Celeron. Sure I've got Celeron desktops out there with my users, and I wouldn't have one, but will they notice - not a cats chance in hell.
Appease your manager and save the brownie points for later when you really need the hit.
Just my tuppence worth...
Neil
>> Edited by neil_cardiff on Sunday 18th December 16:53
Everyone's input is appreciated and will consider the upgrade in memory for a proposal to my FM. By the way, bean-counters are just that, bean-counters. That's the bottom line with them. He certainly is no cock as a couple have said. Yeah, he's a hard-ass and I've told him as much, to which he merely chuckles at me and goes back to counting his beans. 
mattley said:
Oh, if he's proper in that respect then just give him the numbers. Any workstation downtime can be costed and as soon as it looks like new workstation money over four weeks, (which shouldn;t be difficult) then you can upgrade and the reason doesn't really matter.
But why should there be downtime?
Theres no quality difference between the two?
You could argue about time wasted waiting for things to load, but this would be negligible.
Either way, if the FD's a hardass (like mine) he'll appreciate an agreement to disagree, and will happily listen to ways of compromising (i.e. extra memory which'll make a bigger difference).
Neil
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff