Can Celeron be overcome with PCI card?

I've been looking at new PC's with 3Ghz processors but are Celerons. The price is very attractive.

My understanding is that Celeron machines suffer in video processing. Can this be overcome if I were to install a PCI card or are there still some issues?

I have an older 64mb nVidia PCI card in my present machine and I would consider installing it if it would help. I'd even consider a newer card if that's a good idea.

Any thoughts appreciated.

 

Seems to me as though your kind of iffy as far as buying an Intel??

Personally, I don't blame you!! I'm an AMD person myself!! I wouldn't consider an intel if my life depended on it!!!!!

If you are intersted...there are alot of AMD system out there for great prices!!!! For example....Tigerdirect.com and Newegg.com have alot of good deals!!!!

Not only that...if you are using it for graphics and gaming...AMD is proven the better in that world!!!!

Roger

 

Another pointer...you have to take into consideration of the FSB (frontside bus) of the processor, and the size and speed of the memory!!

My grandmother has an E Machine with a 2.8ghz Intel processor, and 256mb of DDR266 memory!!

My system WAY out performs hers and I only have a 2.0ghz AMD processor, but it has a 400mhz fsb and I have 256mb of DDR 400 memory!!

Let me know if you need more clarification!!

So, I just wanted to let you know there are many ways to configure performance while keeping the pocketbook in mind!!!!

Hope I didn't overwhelm you!!

Roger

 

If computers you are looking at are from Dell they are attractive for a reason,they are crap,they use cheap parts and are impossible to upgrade.As rogvalcox said You can get much more performance from an AMD system for the same price.A celeron can be overcome with a pci card,sneek up behind it and smash it with the pci card.

 

Don't be hypnotized by clockspeeds. In this era, they are nearly insignificant--even intel has started naming their new pentium 4's instead of just stating the clock speed.

simply put, Clerons are fine processors for users who do little more than browse the internet and do email, or some random funny videos on websites.

the problems arise with celerons when trying to decode video codecs like DivX and Xvid, or when trying to encode music or video. The architecture of the chip (including its low FSB and onboard cache) are just not up to multitasking or processing a lot at once.

so, if you're into gaming or editing, or even watching movies on your computer, its best to go with a real Pentium 4 or an AMD chip.

 

OK, so a Celeron is slow doing certain processes ... understand. My question is still ... If I were to put a good video card in does that not eliminate the problem? I take it it's not a similar get-around as bypassing onboard sound?

Frank

BTW it's not a Dell.

 

it is, and it isnt. where sound is mainly processed in the audio chip, it is still CPU dependent. However, adding a nice soundcard seems to solve this problem (while ONLY for playback) because sound is relatively small and easier to process.

Video and Graphics on the other hand are more strongly dependent on the CPU than just the GPU. while a nice GPU will give much better video processing, a celeron will be the bottleneck in sending the data to the GPU to be precessed to begin with.

i hope that makes some sense, i've been writing essays all day and things are mightly cloudy right now .

question for you, what do you use your system for?

 

I'd love to play guess the company,in fact I wouldn't.LOL.If you could post a link to the computers you'v been looking at and how much you would like to spend,it would be much easier to recommend something.

you have to think of a computer as a chain,it starts in the harddrive and ends up on your monitor any weak link will drag it down.The cpu feeds the video card,if there isn't much being fed to it"celeron",it can't live up to its potential.If your interested in playing games you have to look a bit more upmarket.

 

Here's the specs on what I'm considering ...

eMachines (now Gateway) T2984 Intel Celeron-D 2.93GHz / 512MB DDR / 80GB HDD / DVD-ROM / CD-RW / Flash Media Reader / Intel Extreme Graphics 3D / 10/100Mbps LAN / Windows XP Home / 256KB L2 cache & 533 MHz FSB

Priced at $600 (Can) if I bump to 1 gig memory.

I don't do gaming. Mostly internet and a fair bit of photo editing/Photoshop of my own digital pix.

It doesn't have an AGP slot so it would mean using a PCI video card. Since I've been getting by with a 5 year old 1gb Athlon and 256 Mb I thought it was a reasonable step up. Maybe not huh?

Appreciate the replies guys.

 

Even Dell sell pentium 4's for that much $650 with $150 off,whatever that is it also has hyper threading,supposidly to help run a few apps at once faster but I havn't researched it.

http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/featured_dp_desktop2_1?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs

they even have a 2.8 p4 for $399 that can be upgraded,memory,harddrive ect,I'm recommending a dell,I feel dizzy,but they have better cpu's and everything else is as good as your's,if its just for video editing and surfing its fine,I would recommend a gig of ram though for editing.remember though if you built the pc yourself it would cost you half as much and you would have an agp slot,a good video card,a better cpu and it would all be upgradeable.

If you want peice of mind dell/gateway will give it to you untill the end of the warranty,then your stuck with them.

 

Keep in mind that you are reading ADVERTISEMENTS!!!! Ofcourse they are going to read as the best thing out there!!!! Any advertisement would!! Otherwise, it defeat the purpose of trying to sell a particular product!!

Being that you said you are going to use it for graphics (photo editing) I would still strongly recommend AMD!!!! Amd is modt definately more bang for the buck!!!! AMD is allowed to sell a better cpu for less money, for one reason...if you notice...AMD doesn't spend a GOD AWFUL amount on advertising like Intel!! You never see a commercial on tv for AMD!!!!

For example...the XP 3000 (2.0ghz w/400 fsb) that I have, out performs the intel 2.8 celeron that my grandmother has!! AMD is just SIMPLY a better chip than intel!! Especially when you get into the graphics and the mutli-tasking!!!! If look further...you'll notice that EMachines also sell AMD based systems!!!! Another good one is Systemax, which is built by Tiger Direct!!

Check out the link below!! This is just an example of how much more you can get out of an AMD based system!! Keep in mind that this one is an AMD Athlon 64, which is one of the latest in cpu technology!! It is only 1.8 ghz BUT...It IS a 64 bit chip and it has a monsterous FSB (off of the top of my head, I want to say it is a 1600mhz fsb), AND...it comes with an SATA harddrive, which is also faster than your typical hdd!! Anyway you can read and see all the specs!! This system will eat the other for breakfast!!

Check it out...keeping in mind...there are alot of ways to adjust the cost, but see if this puts a twinkle in your eye!!!!

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1212373&CatId=0

Roger

 

Had a look at the Systemax (same place as I'm looking at the eMachine ... TigerDirect). It's a lot for the money too although 50% more.

As I said, I'll mull it over a bit longer. I have to balance budget with needs ... retired on a pension.

Thanks

 

Understandable!!!! I just hate to see anybody fall over to the Intel world!!! LOL

If you need more help with specs or information, or even help finding something, then feel free to ask!!!!

By the way...are you looking to get a moniter with it??

Roger

 

I cant see a monitor with your link roger and I still dont think it will have an agp port,woodencarguy,didn't know you are from canada,If you go into user cp,top left you can adjust your location to canada. I think an agp port in a system like this might be too much to ask,It doesn't seem too much to ask though when you consider they have been aroun for about 8 years,your not exactly asking for new technology with your brand new pc. On the right track though rog.

 

Celerons arent too bad...they are just reject pentium 4's. I have a Celeron 2.4 in my notebook with 512 mb of ram and it beats my friends athlon xp 3000 w/ 512 in all the benchmarks! We also rar-ed an archive on both machines (180mb) and it took 49 seconds on my celly and 66 on my friends...We did a Seti@home test too (work with angle range: 0,418) took my system 1:08, took my friends system 2:16. Then, we tried SiS Sandra Multimedia and CPU test. The results for my system were: 10733 and 16738. My friends were actually a little close this time: 5994 and 14357. Needless to say, he trashed that computer and built himself a new one, with the new dual core pentium 4 system w/ ht and this time a gig of ram...and needless to say, it surpassed my system like you wouldnt believe...so in conclusion...celerons are NOT bad choices. I do my video encoding/decoding on it and while seti@ home is running (i leave it run all the time) and i dont even get a hiccup. AMD's are usually cheaper, but do not have the R&D that intel has, even though intel owns a small percentage of them...Support who you want to,...just my 2 cents...put one more mark under the celly column. ;-)

 

i had a p4 2.8 compaq pesario 2500 and my Athlon xp 1900 felt like a rocket ship,boot times,games,file opening,game installing,encoding,I think he should have checked his harddrive out!

 

this one goes to rikky about my friends harddrive: it was a Seagate SATA 80 GB, he then replaced that and went for a WDC Sata 120 GB...i beat him with both...i also beat my brothers A64 FX...thats not justifiable thought as we cant test the 64 bit part...I will admit, even as a die hard intel fan, i have a place in my heart for the a64's...

 

the claims you have made about your celeron performing better than both an athlon XP and an Athlon 64 FX are not sitting right at ALL...

were your friends using laptops as well?
were you using an outrageously superior video card and RAM? did they build the computers themselves--and if so, do they have any knowledge of drivers and tweaking?

my stock XP 2800+ was slightly lower than my friends P4 2.8C, yet it was significantly betterthan a 2.4C with a similar test setup.

my Athlon 64 3500+ is easily superior to a p4 3.2ghz and on par or superior to a 3.4ghz Intel system.

either you are far more advanced in tweaking your setup than your friends, or the rest of your system had much better RAM, or perhaps the AthlonXP kid was using an old chipset not designed for a 3000+

I'm not meaning to flame or offend, just point out that those are not likely or realistic results-- both of the chips you claim to have beaten have proven time and again to outperform your celeron in benchmarks AND real performance (which is what counts)

 

I have to side with years to come. Here is a link to a benchmark between a 2800 sempron and the top of the line celeron. The sempron out performs the celeron in almost all test and it is a socket a chip . The socket 754 sempron blows the celeron away. So in i think ther is no way a celeron could out perform a 64 athalon http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040728/sempron-08.html

 

And just think....the Athlon Xp's are better than the Semprons!!!!

Roger

 

Actually, there are at least two different Semprons, one of them is the same exact thing as the AthlonXP and the other is a 754 A64 w/o the 64bit feature. So Semprons are equal or better than the AthlonXP.

irt woodencarguy, If all you do is video editing and internet surfing, I think a P4/Celeron would be more cost effective. As generally speaking, Intels chips outperform AMDs in most video editing benchmarks. As demonstrated with the following chart:

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041221/cpu_charts-18.html

 

oh ... BTW .. be sure and go w/ a 865/875 chipset or greater or VIA equivelent

 

...checked it out...he was using a -very- old chipset... my next door neighbor had just bought a Soyo Mb, with a VIA KT600, we popped his chip and hdd and ram in there (no tweaking on my lappy and no tweaking on his system) and i didnt massacre it AS BAD...still quite a gap in the results...the only thing he beat me on was hard drive read/write. but thats to be expected because my laptop drive spins at 4500 rpm's. I have generic ram and generic everything else...so i dont know..haha

 

No. the Sempron has taken the place of the Duron as the budget CPU.
Socket A Semprons are very closely related to the Athlon XP, but are slower.

of course the socket 754 Sempron can be faster than an athlon XP, but thats not a fair comparison (nor is it always true). 754 Semprons are naturally slower than their superior 754 Athlon64, which have more L2 cache and 64-bit extentions.