1. Computer problem? Tech Support Guy is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations. Click here to join today! If you're new to Tech Support Guy, we highly recommend that you visit our Guide for New Members.

why is amd/celeron so cheap?

Discussion in 'Hardware' started by Kerri Ann, Oct 1, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement
  1. Kerri Ann

    Kerri Ann Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2003
    Messages:
    995
    when i browse the auctions on ebay, i notice that amds and celerons are noticably cheaper than pentiums. ive always known this, but is it because people feel more comfortable with the name "pentium", or is there really that big of a difference?

    (i have an athlon myself, but ive never had a pentium that was close enough in speed to compare it to.)
     
  2. Squashman

    Squashman Trusted Advisor

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2003
    Messages:
    19,783
    The Celerons are cheaper because they have less onboard cache.

    Not real sure on the Athlon or Pentium dilema. I think Intel charges more because they can. They have a 78% market share so they can charge what they want. AMD tries to counter act that by offering lower prices.
     
  3. Couriant

    Couriant Trusted Advisor

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2002
    Messages:
    32,264
    First Name:
    James
    Pentium(r) has been around since I can remember and so it is known to be the best. Then AMD shows up and offers the same (if not more) for less.

    Now Celeron is a cut down version of the Pentium. It's design is different to the Pentium so it's relatively cheaper. The equalvant to the Celeron is the Duron I think. I have used both AMD and Pentium and I gotta tell ya, AMD always seemed to be the better performer. You might want to check in the Computer Shopper (or other computer mags) to give you some idea on what is better.

    If I can find the link for the comparision of the CPUs I will paste it.
     
  4. buddhafabio

    buddhafabio

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2002
    Messages:
    2,246
    celerons are cheaper because they have less cache memory and that is what makes Pentiums fast pretty much mentioned above. some of the celerons are actual Pentiums that haven't been made correctly. so Intel sold them as celerons.

    amds are cheaper because they usually have slower CPU speeds but out perform Pentiums in benchmarking tests. i have seen an 1.8 ghz amd out perform a 2.2ghz Pentium.

    most people make the mistake of getting the fastest CPU clock speed CPU and don't research how it compares with other CPUs.
     
  5. Anton Wan

    Anton Wan

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    287
    I read an article one time that said the easiest way to explain the difference between AMD and Intel. They were compared to two runners in a race. Intel is the faster one and will take the long way to win the race, but AMD takes shortcuts to do the same thing and thats why it performs better.
     
  6. buddhafabio

    buddhafabio

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2002
    Messages:
    2,246
    huh????? are you talking archtecture being smaller and more efficent?
     
  7. McTimson

    McTimson

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2002
    Messages:
    5,577
    Since Intel sells their processors at higher speeds, they can afford to sell them for higher because people assume that the faster it is, the better. However, this is not usually the case, Intel CPU's typically do less work per mhz then AMD's. So AMD does more with each mhz that it has, but the problem is, there aren't as many mhz's. If an AMD processor were to come out that were truly 3 Ghz or something, it would blow away Intel. But due to the architecture of the AMD chips, it's very difficult to get them that high.

    Celerons are cheap because they have less cache...they're great for general computer use, but once you try and play a game, you realize why they're so cheap.
     
  8. Kerri Ann

    Kerri Ann Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2003
    Messages:
    995
    thanks so much ,all of you, for your replies, i couldn't have hoped for anything more informative.
    my reason for asking is i have become very intersted in building computers, and i seem to have alot of luck in finding extremely cheap (or even free) parts. the two systems i have in progress right now are a celeron 1 ghz and a pIII 933mhz. i can't wait till theyre finished so i can compare my computer and the two.
    then, i guess i'll find out which sells better (duh!).
     
  9. StillLearnin'

    StillLearnin'

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    1,742
    The PIII 933(if assembled properly) will TOTALLY destroy the 1 Gig Celerystick. An AMD 1.2Gig(when assembled properly) will beat the PIII933. Anything smaller in AMD(1 Gig, 1.1Gig) may/may not be even or beat the PIII(although I doubt it). The PII 350(Deschute) cpu and the PIII's were the BEST cpus Intel EVER made. Even the current P4s don't offer in proportion the speed attained by these predecessors. This is what gave(along with lower prices) AMD the edge.
     
  10. compilerxp

    compilerxp

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,629
    The Pentium4 was designed for running at a higher clock rate (MHZ)... not for actual work. Intel was embarrased to have LOST to AMD for the 1Ghz Race.

    So, the P4 has a longer pipeline than AMD, twice as long. Which means the CPU has to finish "muching" on data before moving on.
    Hence, the P4 was actually slower than the P3. But once the P4 hits 2Ghz, it becomes a "good" running chip. It was designed for Speed. Not efficency. Because it does LESS work (Its IPC "Instructions Per Clock") its easier to get it to run at higher clockrates.

    Hence, P4 is BEST at MEdia encoding (not decoding) such as MAKING DIVIX files, Video files for video ouput, 3D Rendering - these are single tasks jobs. Hence, HT (HyperThreading) has been a big boost to the P4 in some areas. While the AMD runs games about the same as the P4 (Some games run better on the AMD than intel or the otherway around) and in Office applications - the AMD is faster... even the AMD2500 (1.8ghz) is typically faster than the P4 3.2Ghz (A 1.4Ghz difference in speed).

    If the AMD ran at 3Ghz, it would burn itself out... it generates more heat... but it would Smoke the P4. Remember, when comparing the AMD to the P4, there is about a 800~1200Mhz lower Mhz clock rate!

    The AMD XP3200 is about 2.2Ghz and is typically slower than the 3.2Ghz Pentium4.

    The AMD 64 3200 is 2.0Ghz and is a LOT faster than the AMD XP3200 and is typically faster than the P4 3.2Ghz.

    other notes: You know Intel's new "Centrino" CPU, that is the BEST power house notebook CPU on the market. If you look at the design, its Simular to the AMD XP CPU... and in many benchmarks ITS FASTER THAN THE P4... but it has the exact same "weakness" as the AMD. hmmmmmmm :)

    So, for most people - the AMD is the better chip for the job for a lower price. Unless you ONLY play tht one game that runs better on intel (like Quake) and you make DIVX files every day, theres not much point to saying "P4 is better"... you will not notice the differnce.

    All these chips: AMD XP, 64bit, PIII, Centrino,P4 , Xeon III, Xeon(P4) have their advantages depending on the job. Even with the P4s on the market, the PIIIs were still more popular for workstations and servers (and XEONS with P3 cores).
     
  11. Kerri Ann

    Kerri Ann Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2003
    Messages:
    995
    ok, compilerxp, you sound like you know alot about overclocking, and i'm starting to learn a little about it. i want to get a good cpu to experiment with, something that will be satisfying but not too hard. is a pentium 450 good for the job?
     
  12. Morania

    Morania

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    401
    Intel spend gobs of cash on advertising. Blue Man Group ain't a cheap gig. AMD doesn't. The consumer has to pay for that.
    It works the same way with transmission shops. AMOCO= hi$. Independent= reasonable. Up to 50% less.
    Just one reason. There may be more.
     
  13. compilerxp

    compilerxp

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,629
    Blueman group canceled their contract with Intel... apparently they were not happy with Intel anymore... but they were good ads. The latest Intel Ads have been a complete stupid joke. With the "Aliens" being impressed by the "power" of the P4.

    Like the P4 is supposed to make MP3s sound better, Videos look better, 3D Games play better. So the "general" user buys that $800 P4 system... that does all that no BETTER than the P3 systems LOL!!! My last P3 system was still BETTER spec than todays typical $500 Intel P4 systems. I had better Audio, better video, high end motherboard, etc.


    "is a pentium 450 good for the job?" What job is that? Typical computer usage (MS Word, email, web) - sure yeah... stick only Windows98se on it and it'll be fine for that. (Windows98 runs pretty good my AMD2500 system too... noticable speed increase).

    heheh
     
  14. Sponsor

As Seen On
As Seen On...

Welcome to Tech Support Guy!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.

Join over 733,556 other people just like you!

Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Short URL to this thread: https://techguy.org/168732

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice