Celeron vs. P4

[Crazy Horse]

In article <mWB9c.103$Me.96@newsfe1-win>, you say... There is a benefit to P4-Celerons however: o Upgradeable -- socket-478 allows plug-in P4-3.4-800-fsb someday

I've read all the articles in this thread and they've left me thinking I
may have made a big mistake with a recent purchase; i.e., the new DELL
Inspiron 1000, which (I think) uses the P4-Celeron under discussion. I
don't know if anyone reading this thread is at all familiar with DELL
laptops in general, or the Inspiron 1000 in particular, but could anyone
venture a guess as to whether or not I might be able to upgrade this
laptop's processor?

BTW- my decision to get this laptop was made (albeit with less pre-
purchase research than might have been advisable) on the basis of the
following criteria in order of prioritiy:
1. low price
2. reputable manufacturer
3. reliable customer support

All in all, it appears (from this thread) that the P4 Celerons are
relatively inefficient in terms of both CPU and price performance.
Still, I wonder if it's worth getting worked up about, given what I'm
upgrading from (get ready for some laughs):
-----------------------
Processor: Cyrix 486 Chip (comparable to a Pentium-I/150-MHz)
DRAM: 48 MB
Harddrive: 2.4 GB
O/S: Win'95
------------------------
On the other hand, if anyone thinks I could make a better decision by
spending, say another $300 (max) on top of the $800 already spent, I'd be
interested to hear your suggestions.
___________
-Joseph

[Never anonymous Bud]

Fresh from an Iraqi prisoner interrogation Crazy Horse <nospam@all.is.best> smirked:
I've read all the articles in this thread and they've left me thinking Imay have made a big mistake with a recent purchase; i.e., the new DELLInspiron 1000, which (I think) uses the P4-Celeron under discussion.


Yes, it uses a Celeron 2.2ghz.

Street price for that CPU is about $70.

For about twice that, you could have gotten a P4 2.4ghz CPU,
but replacing a CPU in a notebook isn't someone for the
faint-hearted or technically-challenged.






--

The truth is out there,

but it's not interesting enough for most people.

[Tony Hill]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 17:42:38 GMT, Crazy Horse <nospam@all.is.best>
wrote:In article <mWB9c.103$Me.96@newsfe1-win>, you say... There is a benefit to P4-Celerons however: o Upgradeable -- socket-478 allows plug-in P4-3.4-800-fsb somedayI've read all the articles in this thread and they've left me thinking Imay have made a big mistake with a recent purchase; i.e., the new DELLInspiron 1000, which (I think) uses the P4-Celeron under discussion. I

Yup, it does indeed seem to use a Celeron.
don't know if anyone reading this thread is at all familiar with DELLlaptops in general, or the Inspiron 1000 in particular, but could anyoneventure a guess as to whether or not I might be able to upgrade thislaptop's processor?

You can almost never upgrade laptop processors, and as best as I can
tell this model of Dell is no exception.
BTW- my decision to get this laptop was made (albeit with less pre-purchase research than might have been advisable) on the basis of thefollowing criteria in order of prioritiy:1. low price

Fair enough
2. reputable manufacturer

So you chose Dell?!? :>

Actually I'm not sure that there are any reputable manufacturers of
notebooks left, except maybe IBM and their extremely expensive
notebooks (typically 40-75% more expensive then the competition for
the same features).

I'm still not sure that I'd pick Dell as a reseller. Note: Dell
doesn't make the notebooks, much like HPaq and Gateway they contract
out all their notebooks to the lowest bidder, Arima, Compal and Quanta
make the vast bulk of the world's notebooks. This doesn't necessarily
mean that Dell is any worse than the others, more just that they're
usually the same laptops with someone else's badge thrown on the
cover. Generally speaking though the quality has suffered pretty
badly in this lowest-cost outsourcing war.
3. reliable customer support

From what I've seen, about the only company left with good customer
service is Apple.
All in all, it appears (from this thread) that the P4 Celerons arerelatively inefficient in terms of both CPU and price performance.

Well, they are cheap chips, but when you look at it from a whole
laptop view of things, they do rather stink. A Mobile Celeron might
get you a $700 laptop vs. a $850 laptop with a Mobile P4, but it will
probably be about 30-50% slower.

The upside to this is that at least the maximum power consumption of
these things is only 35W. Compare that to the Mobile P4, with a
maximum power consumption of 70W+ for the top-end models and you
should see slightly longer battery life. Mind you, that 35W of power
is still rather pathetic, especially when you consider Intel has
disabled the dynamic power saving features from this chip (the "Mobile
P4" has this deficiency as well). Sadly the "Mobile P4-M" has
basically disappeared from actual products, as it offered respectable
power consumption, good performance and decent price along with
dynamic power management, but I guess the extra $20 wasn't seen as a
worthwhile cost vs. the "Mobile P4".... but I digress.


The long story short is that I'm not at all impressed with the current
state of low-cost laptops. Clock speed and price seem to be the only
two considerations, things like actual performance, power
consumption/battery life and most of all quality have been TOTALLY
thrown out the window in this market. A Pentium4-M 2.0GHz chip should
cost less, consume less power and perform MUCH better than a Mobile
Celeron 2.6GHz. However, while everybody+dog seems to be selling
those Celeron 2.6GHz laptops, no one is selling laptops using 2.0GHz
P4-M chips. The Pentium-M chip is a good solution for the high-end
and is being sold a lot, but it hasn't been pushed down into the lower
cost market and the fairly respectable Celeron-M chip is almost
impossible to find. Worst of all though, AMD's rather excellent
line-up of low-cost mobile processors are pretty much a no-show.
Still, I wonder if it's worth getting worked up about, given what I'mupgrading from (get ready for some laughs):-----------------------Processor: Cyrix 486 Chip (comparable to a Pentium-I/150-MHz)DRAM: 48 MBHarddrive: 2.4 GBO/S: Win'95------------------------

As you can probably guess, you're new laptop should be a couple orders
of magnitude faster than what you've got now! Talking about this
Celeron as being "slow" is a very relative term. It's quite a bit
slower than all it's current competitors, particularly the AthlonXP-M.
A similarly priced AthlonXP-M will perform 25-50% faster than a Mobile
Celeron in most applications. However as compared to what you're
coming from, this Celeron is a HUGE step forward.
On the other hand, if anyone thinks I could make a better decision byspending, say another $300 (max) on top of the $800 already spent, I'd beinterested to hear your suggestions.

As mentioned above, upgrading a processor in a laptop is almost never
an option, even if you can manage to find someone selling a laptop
chip to begin with. Usually they are rather inaccessible and
sometimes are soldered onto the board.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

[Nate Edel]

Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote: On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 17:42:38 GMT, Crazy Horse <nospam@all.is.best> wrote:don't know if anyone reading this thread is at all familiar with DELLlaptops in general, or the Inspiron 1000 in particular, but could anyoneventure a guess as to whether or not I might be able to upgrade thislaptop's processor? You can almost never upgrade laptop processors, and as best as I can tell this model of Dell is no exception.

Manufacturers rarely support it, but it's usually been doable since the
later Pentium-classic models. I've upgraded several laptops; notably
including a Toshiba Tecra 8000 and a Dell Inspiron 4150.

Both, however, were to processor models at the high end of the range when
the machines were purchased (P-II 266mhz to 400mhz, P-4M 1.7ghz to 2.4ghz)
so neither one was pushing the thermal designs of the machines.
P4" has this deficiency as well). Sadly the "Mobile P4-M" has basically disappeared from actual products, as it offered respectable power consumption, good performance and decent price along with dynamic power management, but I guess the extra $20 wasn't seen as a worthwhile cost vs. the "Mobile P4".... but I digress.

And the additional competition for the (presumably) higher-margin
Pentium-M/Centrino systems.

--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

"Elder Party 2004: Cthulhu for President -- this time WE'RE the lesser
evil."

[Malam]

Can you plug-in a P4 3.4 with FSB @800MHZ into a mboard that is
designedwith an FSB of 400/533MHZ ??

Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:<h79lc059i9pj71u7qh8p4k0vlj39sql0qq@4ax.com>... On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 17:42:38 GMT, Crazy Horse <nospam@all.is.best> wrote:In article <mWB9c.103$Me.96@newsfe1-win>, you say... There is a benefit to P4-Celerons however: o Upgradeable -- socket-478 allows plug-in P4-3.4-800-fsb somedayI've read all the articles in this thread and they've left me thinking Imay have made a big mistake with a recent purchase; i.e., the new DELLInspiron 1000, which (I think) uses the P4-Celeron under discussion. I Yup, it does indeed seem to use a Celeron.don't know if anyone reading this thread is at all familiar with DELLlaptops in general, or the Inspiron 1000 in particular, but could anyoneventure a guess as to whether or not I might be able to upgrade thislaptop's processor? You can almost never upgrade laptop processors, and as best as I can tell this model of Dell is no exception.BTW- my decision to get this laptop was made (albeit with less pre-purchase research than might have been advisable) on the basis of thefollowing criteria in order of prioritiy:1. low price Fair enough2. reputable manufacturer So you chose Dell?!? :> Actually I'm not sure that there are any reputable manufacturers of notebooks left, except maybe IBM and their extremely expensive notebooks (typically 40-75% more expensive then the competition for the same features). I'm still not sure that I'd pick Dell as a reseller. Note: Dell doesn't make the notebooks, much like HPaq and Gateway they contract out all their notebooks to the lowest bidder, Arima, Compal and Quanta make the vast bulk of the world's notebooks. This doesn't necessarily mean that Dell is any worse than the others, more just that they're usually the same laptops with someone else's badge thrown on the cover. Generally speaking though the quality has suffered pretty badly in this lowest-cost outsourcing war.3. reliable customer support From what I've seen, about the only company left with good customer service is Apple.All in all, it appears (from this thread) that the P4 Celerons arerelatively inefficient in terms of both CPU and price performance. Well, they are cheap chips, but when you look at it from a whole laptop view of things, they do rather stink. A Mobile Celeron might get you a $700 laptop vs. a $850 laptop with a Mobile P4, but it will probably be about 30-50% slower. The upside to this is that at least the maximum power consumption of these things is only 35W. Compare that to the Mobile P4, with a maximum power consumption of 70W+ for the top-end models and you should see slightly longer battery life. Mind you, that 35W of power is still rather pathetic, especially when you consider Intel has disabled the dynamic power saving features from this chip (the "Mobile P4" has this deficiency as well). Sadly the "Mobile P4-M" has basically disappeared from actual products, as it offered respectable power consumption, good performance and decent price along with dynamic power management, but I guess the extra $20 wasn't seen as a worthwhile cost vs. the "Mobile P4".... but I digress. The long story short is that I'm not at all impressed with the current state of low-cost laptops. Clock speed and price seem to be the only two considerations, things like actual performance, power consumption/battery life and most of all quality have been TOTALLY thrown out the window in this market. A Pentium4-M 2.0GHz chip should cost less, consume less power and perform MUCH better than a Mobile Celeron 2.6GHz. However, while everybody+dog seems to be selling those Celeron 2.6GHz laptops, no one is selling laptops using 2.0GHz P4-M chips. The Pentium-M chip is a good solution for the high-end and is being sold a lot, but it hasn't been pushed down into the lower cost market and the fairly respectable Celeron-M chip is almost impossible to find. Worst of all though, AMD's rather excellent line-up of low-cost mobile processors are pretty much a no-show.Still, I wonder if it's worth getting worked up about, given what I'mupgrading from (get ready for some laughs):-----------------------Processor: Cyrix 486 Chip (comparable to a Pentium-I/150-MHz)DRAM: 48 MBHarddrive: 2.4 GBO/S: Win'95------------------------ As you can probably guess, you're new laptop should be a couple orders of magnitude faster than what you've got now! Talking about this Celeron as being "slow" is a very relative term. It's quite a bit slower than all it's current competitors, particularly the AthlonXP-M. A similarly priced AthlonXP-M will perform 25-50% faster than a Mobile Celeron in most applications. However as compared to what you're coming from, this Celeron is a HUGE step forward.On the other hand, if anyone thinks I could make a better decision byspending, say another $300 (max) on top of the $800 already spent, I'd beinterested to hear your suggestions. As mentioned above, upgrading a processor in a laptop is almost never an option, even if you can manage to find someone selling a laptop chip to begin with. Usually they are rather inaccessible and sometimes are soldered onto the board. ------------- Tony Hill hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

[Thomas Womack]

In article <ad6e3c56.0406161141.4980e9c8@posting.google.com>,
Malam <malamilia@hotmail.com> wrote:Can you plug-in a P4 3.4 with FSB @800MHZ into a mboard that isdesignedwith an FSB of 400/533MHZ ??

No

Tom

[Nate Edel]

Malam <malamilia@hotmail.com> wrote: Can you plug-in a P4 3.4 with FSB @800MHZ into a mboard that is designedwith an FSB of 400/533MHZ ??

Short answer: no.

Long answer: Probably not, but even if it worked, you'd end up with a very
expensive 1.7ghz or 2.26ghz CPU. Why bother?

--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

"Elder Party 2004: Cthulhu for President -- this time WE'RE the lesser
evil."