Anyone encoding with hi power celerons

[jntaylor63]

Looking to upgrade my 950 mhz AMD with new CPU and Mother board.

I would like to save some cash and get 2.4 celeron for 80.00 vs 2.4 P4 for 200.00.

Is anyone encoding with the high power celerons?

[Faustus]

You would be much better off with a cheaper Athlon XP then a Celeron CPU. Of course a full P4 would likely be best, but there is nothing wrong with an Athlon for good price/performance. Its what I use. I picked up a XP 2000+ and cheap system board at a local discount store on sell for $70 the other day, upgraded my PIII 1ghz with it. Of course thats an example of extreme pricing but you get the point. If you have the right ram you could upgrade for a little over $100 if your in the US at least.

[LanEvo7]

I second that. Celerons are poor choices for computers that wish to do anything heavy, like gaming, video encoding, etc. Get Athlon 2400+ Retail for around $80. It will perform MUCH better than any celeron on the market right now. If you are lucky, you might not even have to replace your motherboard.

[jdizzy40]

Sorry, there is no such thing as a high powered Celeron! Celeron's are just that a celeron. Budget processor. You're not saving anything going this route. If you want to throw your money away, send it to me. But really, take the time and do it right.

[JHMac]

All hail the Pentium 4! With its high clock speeds, a wide selection of compatible platforms and a dearth of rival AMD models, Intel has successfully defended its title as the champion in the processor business. Now the low-cost Celeron model has joined the party in the lower-clock-speed segment (up to 1.8 GHz), in order to beat out AMD's models with low prices and high clock speeds. However, in doing that, isn't Intel competing with its own products?

This question deserves some consideration, as Celeron models have always been based on the latest Pentium technology. Prior to the latest model based on the Willamette core, there was a Celeron based on the Tualatin core and one based on the Coppermine core - both processor types were given more cache and a higher FSB speed, and then marketed as Pentium III processors.

The Celeron Mendocino was a different story, since it was the first mainstream processor to have an integrated L2 cache. Intel's first attempt to integrate the L2 cache directly into the processor failed, because the sheer mass of processor rejects drove the manufacturing costs for the Pentium Pro through the roof. While its successor, the Pentium II, also had an integrated L2 cache, the same difficulties prevented it from being integrated directly into the processor core. Instead, Intel integrated the processor onto a small circuit board, added memory components for the L2 cache, wrapped it all up in a plastic box, and dubbed it the "Slot 1." The processor had morphed into a clunky plug-in board that was more expensive than its socket-based rivals.

Once 0.25 µm manufacturing methods were introduced, though, Intel was able to integrate the L2 cache into the core, stepping up performance considerably. The first processor to benefit from this then-innovative technique was the Celeron Mendocino (128 KB L2 cache). It was not until many months later that the second one, the Pentium III with a Coppermine core (256 KB), came out.

Not only did past Celerons have to get by with a smaller L2 cache, but their FSB clock speed was also slower (first 66, then 100 MHz). That's all changed now, with the latest model based on Pentium 4 architecture. So does that, plus its low price tag, make it a viable alternative to the Pentium 4?

[Triple_Helix]

A little off topic, aren't we?

LTA

[Faustus]

Not to knock the Celeron, its a good processor for some uses.. but there no way it compairs to an Athlon XP. They are not even in the same league. Ok maybe Imissed the point of what was just posted but thats what I got out of it. Celeron vs. Duron, Pentium 4 vs. Athlon XP.

The long and the short is the P4 would be a better encoder then the Athlon under most programs, but the Athlon is cheaper. The Celeron is a crippled CPU to keep its cost down and thus can't do the big big number cruching required of Encoding as well.

[Northstar]

You cant go wrong with an AthlonXP for the price, if you want to pay a lot more for a cpu thats a little bit better for encoding (but not for gaming), then get a P4, as you are talking about getting a Celeron obviously price is an important point to you, so get something decent, get an AthlonXP.

[Gazorgan]

So many uninformed opinions.

Encoding speeding is pretty much based on equivalent CPU speed. the variations come from SSE/SSE2/MMX/ETC speciality instruction sets. This is my P4's encode faster than P3's, for the same clock speed. An why the new Athlons smoke the old ones(the original Athlon 950's....those). You can get a 2+9 Ghz Athlon for the same money as the celeron, shop around.

A celeron 2.4 Ghz will encode about the same as a P4 2.4 Ghz. As long as you have at least 256 MB of RAM, it won't really matter ( and no, having 512 MB of RAM makes no difference in speed). In Fact, I've tested 133 SDRAM versus 266 DDR and had no speed improvement.

Now, if you want to do more than encode, then the P4 or an Athlon is a much better choice. I've seen a few 'encoder' boxes for under $250, basically a celeron and an all-in-one mobo. Add a NIC and a HD, DVDROM drive and a 256 MB stick of SDRAM.

[vric]

the Celeron P4 is very slow.. the 2.4Ghz will be about the same speed as a P4 1.5Ghz. I will not buy one. AMD Athlon is a good choice for cheap ppl that don'T care about the noise..

I have a P4 2.5Ghz and an AMD Athlon 1800+. IC7 encode in about 90minutes on my P4 ans 100 minutes on my Athlon.. so it's a nice buy.. but as I say, athlon are veny noisy and usualy my client don't like that when i sell them.. they usualy chage there mind and pay the extra 120$ for a silent P4.