Celeron processors

I am thinking about getting a Celeron processor in my laptop. My main reason is for increased battery life. The other reason is I am only using the laptop for MS Office and casual web surfing so I am not sure it's worth paying the premium for a C2D. Will I be pulling my hair out because of performance issues if I go with a Celeron?

 

I have never had a celeron, but I don't think it would be too bad.
You should be able to upgrade the CPU if you ever want more performence.

My question is, does a celeron really give more battery life?

Because my T7300 idles at 600mhz with 0.8500V. Does the celeron you're looking at have speedstep?

 

all of the powersaver tech of "celerons" (say, from 5+ years ago) have been slid into the current generations of chips.

Properly speaking, there is no such thing as a Celeron cpu. Celeron is a platform originally consisting of Pentium M and WiFi capabilities along with the early GMA 9xx GPUs.

Remember why Celeron was 'invented'. To give Intel come kind of mobile platform advantage at a time when AMD was seriously kicking their butts. The initial designs of Pentium M was so successful (compared to the Pentium IV and NetBurst architecture) that the Pentium line pretty much died with the P4 and NetBurst.

C2D/Q are direct descendants of Pentium M.

 

Wow, I'm sorry, but are you that cheap tht you can't even afford a Pentium dual core laptop or something?

Celeron's are terrible. They run hot, they run slow, and Pentium dual core offers better battery life than Celeron's do.

 

You're talking about Centrino.... right?

 

Yes, looks like a mistake there.

Back on topic, I still think the celeron will not give better battery life than a C2D.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

I would get a low voltage or super low voltage C2D.

 

the price difference between a celeron and pentium dual core is more than justified.

the pentium dual core processors are really good value for money, i'd skip the celeron and go with a pentium dual core unless you're really really stretched for cash

there are ULV variants of celeron processors.

 

yah, centrino<>celeron. my mistake

 

I have it in my D520..

Its not bad, for youtube, Word, Mail and online forums.

Once you open a program or 2, the CPU likes to max out.

Its not bad, but i am upgrading the CPU. It is in the mail now.



White line is CPU %

 

There are actually three distinct varieties of processors that Intel brands "Celeron". Why they do so makes little (if any) sense, but...

Here are the three basic varieties-

ULV (Ultra-Low Voltage)- Celeron 723 and 743- 1.2/1.3GHz single-core, used mainly in 11.6" systems from Dell, Acer and Gateway; slightly better performers than the Atom processor in netbooks; Celeron Dual-Core SU2300- 1.2GHz Dual-Core processor used in thin-light notebooks.

Celeron 900- 2.2GHz, 800MHz FSB, 1mb L2 cache (basically half of a Core 2 Duo T6600), often the base processor in budget/value laptops (Inspiron 15, HP G60t, Toshiba Satellite L505, etc.); may be adequate for basic tasks, but doesn't multi-task well; uses MORE power/battery than the Pentium Dual-Core and Core 2 Duo (lacks power-saving features such as Enhanced SpeedStep).

Celeron Dual-Core- T3x00 (1.8Ghz T3000 or 1.9GHz T3100 are the current models)- they share the same Penryn 45nm architecture, 800MHz FSB and 1mb L2 cache with the faster-clocked Pentium Dual-Core (2.0GHz+); BUT they also lack Intel's Enhanced SpeedStep technology to minimize power usage; Pentium Dual-Cores have that power saving feature.

In general, most of the Celeron processors are less energy-efficient than their Pentium Dual-Core and Core 2 Duo counterparts. While the ULV chips are very efficient, they are only found on 11.6" notebooks (to the best of my knowledge).

If you're interested in the most efficient Intel processors, I'd recommend looking for any of these-

Single-Core
Pentium SU2700- 1.3Ghz/800MHz FSB/2mb L2 cache
Core 2 Solo SU3500- 1.4Ghz/800MHz FSB/3mb L2 cache

Dual-Core
Celeron SU2300- 1.2GHz/800MHz FSB/1mb L2 cache
Pentium SU4100- 1.3GHz/800MHz FSB/2mb L2 cache
Core 2 Duo SU7300- 1.3GHz/800MHz FSB/3mb L2 cache
Core 2 Duo SU9400- 1.4GHz/800MHz FSB/3mb L2 cache

 

It's not about being able to afford it, it's about being smart with my money. I don't mind shelling out as long as it is justified, which funny enough, is the reason why I created this thread.


As to everyone else, thanks for the input. I think I'll go with the C2D.

 

go for the pentium dual core but if i were you , get a P7350 at least... its runs cooler than the pentium dual core... but if is like $150 more , then not worth it.. get the pentium dual core one then...

 

The P7350 has become much less common lately. The 2.13GHz P7450, 2.26GHz P7550/P8400, 2.4GHz P8600 and 2.53 P8700 are all very good choices among the 'medium' voltage Core 2 Duos.

afitzwater- Do you know what brand/model of laptop you want yet?

 

Seriously, what do you do with your notebook, or what are you going to be doing with it? Because Celerons can not handle more than simple word processing, and light internet browsing. Hell, these things even get bogged down playing flash games. Intel ATOMS perform almost as well as the lower end Celerons.

If you are seriously considering a Celeron, I pity you.

 

There is no reason to get a Celeron, as others have stated. The Speedstep feature (where the CPU dynamically adjusts clock speed according to demand) is an absolute must-have feature in a laptop. Otherwise, you will have a machine that runs at 100% even while its not doing anything. It defeats the purpose of a laptop. Be a man. Do the right thing.

 

the correct terminology is

"pee a man, too the light ting"

 

I don't think I mentioned this earlier, but there is one Celeron processor that does include Enhanced SpeedStep Technology-

1.2GHz Celeron SU2300 ULV Dual-Core

And while we're discussing Intel.....Does anyone else think they've created more confusion than anything with their inconsistent naming and numbering scheme (or LACK THEREOF) lately??? A Celeron here, a Pentium there....and they don't differentiate (by name) between single and dual-core versions. The Celeron 743 and SU2300 are both simply "Celeron" (even though one is single and the other dual-core)....same goes for the Pentium SU2700 and SU4100, one single and one dual-core....I have a headache trying to figure it all out at times!

 

and it doesn't help any when I get celeron and centrino mixed up.

Sorry bout that folks....

 

No need to apologize...I blame INTEL, not you!

There are millions of people out there who think that Centrino is actually a processor. The marketing hype (B.S.) made the Centrino brand familiar but most people never understood what it was/is- a marketing initiative (aka- B.S.)!

Then there was Centrino Duo (Santa Rosa) and, more recently, Centrino 2 (Montevina)...I ordered my Dell Latitude E6400 with a Dell Wireless card instead of Intel just so I didn't have to pry that dumb 'Centrino' sticker off the palm rest....

...not that I have strong feelings about it or anything.

 

Celerons run hot?

Celerons run at the temperature their similar family runs at (e.g., a Northwood P4-based Celeron is similar in temperature to a Northwood P4. A Merom-based Celeron runs at similar temperatures to Merom Core processor, etc.)

Your statement is a blanket one. Some models of Celeron run hot, just like their high-end counterparts using the same core do. Hoever, a Celeron based on a 45nm Penryn core will run just as cool as its Penryn Core counterpart, provided they have the same number of cores.

As for performance, it depends on what you're going to do. Personally, I think it's worth getting a basic Pentium Dual Core over a Celeron; you get more efficient handling of multiple threads, and today, even running a web browser, word processor, and antivirus software simultaneously can account for that. To the OP --if you want battery life, look at a 6-cell or 9-cell battery, and a low-voltage dual-core processor, based on the newest 45nm Penryn cores.

Remember also that efficiency plays into battery life. If a modern processor completes a job faster, it can go back to a low-power state sooner. Dual-core doesn't always mean less battery life.

 

The latest Celeron T3xxx are exactly the same as Pentium Dual Cores with the exception of Speedstep.

If you use undervolting battery life will be fine.

Any Celeron T3xxx will be more than adequate for normal usage.

 

Yeah, they'll run the same temp alright, just as long as you disable speedstep on the C2D...

You're not reading what another poster just said, majority of Celerons DON'T have speedstep. I think there's only one exception. The celeron 900 will always run hotter in the same laptop as a T6600 as it's STUCK at 2.2 ghz and max voltage even at idle, while a T6600 can downclock to a 1.2 ghz and 0.950 volts when at idle and vary speed/voltage as processor need arises.

Don't you need speedstep to undervolt?

Honestly, the lack of speedstep makes the celeron line a travesty as Intel is purposely killing a power-saving feature that is already on-die, meaning they're not saving any money by doing this. Somebody should do a case study on the Kw wasted on these celeron bottom-feeder laptops. I'm not joking, as several laptops I've upgraded from celeron 900 to C2D usually gained up to 30-40 minutes more of battery life. That's quite significant.

 

I did forget about that, I'll admit, although more than one Celeron has speedstep.

http://processorfinder.intel.com/List.aspx?ParentRadio=All&ProcFam=58&SearchKey=

Note: Not every one of those Celeron CPUs are current, I know, but several of them are very modern. I do agree with you that it IS a travesty that Intel has not made this standard on the mobile Celeron line. Still, I don't think the modern 45nm Celerons will be all that hot, though battery life certainly won't be as nice as an equivalent CPU with SpeedStep.

 

I use my Acer Extensa 5230E laptop as a desktop and it hasn't been unplugged since I got it.

I am very pleased with the Pentium Dual-Core T4300 over the Celeron 900. I might have been able to use a C2D instead, but I spent only $309 (free shipping) on the laptop. I got the processor on eBay for $42.66 with free shipping. For about $350 I have the equivalent of what would cost me $588 new from say, Dell or HP.

So I may not be able to tell you what my battery life is. I can tell you it runs cool. 48C is the max temp recorded under a full load for an hour. It runs 30-32 at idle and typical reading during moderate usage (Excel, Word, Firefox, iTunes, Yahoo messenger, AVG all at once) is usually 37-38C.

The T4300 runs cool enough for me. And I have my laptop sitting on a keyboard shelf, slid under my desk. Not a lot of airflow under there either. My fat arse is covering most of the opening most of the time. So I'd say that on this laptop with this chipset (GL40), the T4300 is the best bet. Most of the other Celeron 900 computers with GL40 (HP has one, I think Toshiba does as well) would probably benefit nicely from a T4200/T4300 upgrade. T4400 and T4500 are supposed to be out over the next couple of quarters, too. Those might be even better. And good luck finding a cheap T4300, I don't see many under $100, mine was a fluke because it was listed in the wrong category, I got LUCKY.

 

For those really desperate for battery life you can buy a low voltage processor over ebay (UXXXX or SU9300) and put it in your computer for less than 100USD

 

Nope, just will be clocked at max clock the whole time. If you can undervolt it a decent amount the speed-step is not really necessary.

 

not all processors are perfect. when they harvest the processors they sort them. the ones that are unstable at high speed/faulty cache/faulty speedstep etc end up being streamed into the celeron and PDC lines.

 

I'm with ya here. NVidia got blasted with the same criticism under their old naming scheme.

 

Exactly so.

 

While I agree that the OP should definitely go with C2D since they are superior to Celerons in every capacity, I also disagree with the statement that Celerons cannot handle more than 'simple word processing'.
I was playing both Flash games and regular ones on my Celeron M (1.6 Ghz ... overclocked to 2.1 Ghz) notebook with an old Intel integrated gpu that was extremely low on the 'bar' as far as performance goes, and did 3d art on it without too much trouble really.

The cpu's in question (and the gpu's) are capable ... there are of course limits, but at the same time I don't agree that they should be treated as 'trash' and not being able to do anything, when in fact they handle all of the basics and more just fine (so long as you know their limits).

 

who told u that? These processors are all soldered to the motherboard usually....

 

You're debating semantics here when you consider that all Celeron CPUs run hot and slow relative their respective architectures. It's not the architecture that is behind the abysmal quality, it's the fact that they're essentially junkyard CPUs that are plucked from the production line. It is because of this and the current market prices for Pentium-based notebooks that there is absolutely no reason to buy a Celeron. It's like opting for the worst of the bunch when there are better and similarly priced alternatives available.

 

These days, Intel's yields on Penryns are extremely high, so there's a very good chance that a Celeron in a computer sold today was originally a fully functional C2D that Intel purposely crippled to meet demand at the low end, rather than something defective that was harvested.

Still, a Pentium T4200 or T4300 is a much better choice.

 

Agreed.

The only difference between the Celeron T3100 and Pentium T4200 is 0.1Ghz and Speedstep.

If you use undervolting the lack of Speedstep is no problem.

 

Yes, perhaps at this stage, but with previous processes they most likely never crippled them on purpose, Celeron's were just their higher end counterparts that did not meet voltage expectations, which is why many Celerons have horrible battery life because the VID required is so high. Intel does sell mobileprocessors also for their power conservation features, which an avid notebook enthusiast will pay for. It's like the Core/2 Solo processors, to me they are more closely related to the Celeron line because in tests a single core was not up to snuff, so it was disabled on purpose and sold as a Solo. Good thing Intel did not apply confusing names to these like the wireless naming crap (agn-n disabled). Good that they weren't just like "Core 2 Duo-Multi Processing Disabled" in their marketing.

 

Yeah, Speedstep is what I was considering. For us enthusiasts who don't mind tweaking our systems for optimal performance, the Celeron is a good choice, but undervolting isn't for everyone.

The Mendocino-based Celerons from a decade ago had performance on par with a then state-of-the-art Pentium II, for a fraction of the price...

Granted, many Celerons, like the Willamette-based ones, were abysmal, which is probably why the Celeron has such a bad reputation today, but it still doesn't change the fact that there's a long history of Intel making decent Celerons dating back to the earliest days of its existence.

Then again, this discussion is purely philosophical because the TC is considering buying a laptop with a Penryn-based Celeron, and what I said holds true for what the TC is looking for.

 

Nothing wrong with an SU2300, celeron isnt the cache crippled POS it was many years ago, theyre capable chips.

 

I agree, unless you are always doing something, the C2D/CD will almost always get better battery life than a Celeron without Speedstep. I upgraded to a T3400 from a M575, not only did I pick up a huge boost in performance (and I'm talking basic multitasking: Outlook, Word, FF, PDF viewer, etc) but I also grabbed a good 30mins + of battery life.

 

I think I'd die if I had a notebook with a Celeron. Sorry...

Hell, some of the really old computers at my school have Celeron D processors, and some have Pentium 4 HT's. They are so slow they make my eyes water...

Luckily most of the computers have E8400's.

 

u'll cry... lol some of my comps in school are pentium D's ... and the newer ones are crappy AMD Dual core ones... my own home one is a slow intel P4 HT which i used for years untill i got this laptop... i can't imagine how much more i've cried compared to u... couldn't even play HALO properly on pc untill my laptop came...

 

Hey, I'm at work on my P4 HT with an Intel 915 doing AutoCAD and 3d modeling. I don't wanna hear NONE of your whining!

 

Once again, you're comparing Pentium-4 based Celerons to Core 2 Duo processors. It's not even close, let alone accurate.

If you buy a boxed Celeron processor today, it isn't based on a (slow) Pentium 4 core, it's based on Intel's Core architecture, which is leaps and bounds ahead. If you are going to judge the Celeron processor, judge it for what it currently IS, not what it was.

P.S. I'm guessing the problem with your Celeron D's and P4 HT's isn't the CPU --it's either lack of RAM, or an antiquated hard drive that doesn't compare with today's stuff. Those are usually the bottlenecks in P4 systems.

 

I'm betting you were crying of joy when you got your laptop.

 

NetBurst architecture is horrible and performs worse clock for clock than a Pentium 3 at equivalent speeds, thus why the Pentium-M (P6 architecture based on Pentium 3) was able to deliver the same if not more power than a Pentium 4 of many times the Pentium-M's clock speed. I hate NetBurst, has anyone noticed that the Pentium 4 commercial with the blue man group playing the pipe, then the pipe is elongated is a metaphor for what the NetBurst philosophy was, to extend pipelines to attain higher frequencies but with more errors?

 

Netburst architecture is an example of what happens when you have marketing have too much hand in designing a processor when the task should be left to engineering. The "clock-speed is everything" argument was a bad one, I agree.

That said, my SO is still using a P4 2.8 HT (Northwood core) that I built for her. It's not as fast as today's stuff, but it has a real video card, a fast hard drive, and 2GB of RAM, and for those reasons, it performs quite well for her everyday needs.

Most of the systems I work on that perform poorly do not do so because of the processor. The biggest reasons I find (not in any order)

-Lack of RAM (256MB or 512MB in a system that really needs 1GB or more for the applications being used)
-A slow hard drive (older with low rotational speeds, small cache, or just poor seek algorithms compared to more modern drives)
-Half-baked integrated graphics. Sometimes this can be related to a processor with a slow frontside bus speed, as this will determine the memory bandwidth integrated graphics will have due to shared RAM. Modern integrated graphics are fine for everyday (non-gaming) tasks, but your earlier Intel 845-type stuff is often limited.
-Poor system optimization. Bloatware, three years worth of added browser toolbars, auto-update plugins for various programs, malware infections, Norton Antivirus, and a hard drive that hasn't been defragmented since the Clinton administration all tend to contribute. Out-of-date drivers and BIOS can sometimes add to this as well.

Netburst is an extremely inefficient architecture for many reasons (and moreso on Celeron processors, where lack of cache often leads to increased pipeline stalls) but even so, I find the blame for poor performance lies many other places than the processor. I am thankful though, that the age of Netburst is over.

 

of course i did... i could play proper computer games at last and wasn't stuck with Medal of Honor allied assualt... which is a 2002 game...

 

Clockspeed was negated by the longer time instructions had to travel, and that there were more branch mis-predictions, and when the introduced HyperThreading, that was a bunch of crap since if they did a good job on developing it, theoretically it should have a 50% performance gain, probably less however since HT made the processor split ressources between two threads.

 

Hmmm... this has been an interesting thread. I think that I may actually go with a Celeron. I mean, I am coming from a laptop that has an Athlon 4 600 MHz and 256MB RAM so it still has to be light years better. And again, I'm just running Microsoft Office.

My only question, I can choose between:

Intel® Celeron™ 900 (2.20GHz, 1M L2 Cache, 800Mhz FSB)
Intel® Celeron® M Processor ULV 743 (1M Cache, 1.30 GHz, 800 MHz FSB)

Suggestions?

 

Celeron 900 for more power, 743 for more battery life.

 

Both are crap...but celeron 900 for more power... although it is not much more...