Question:
AMD versus Celeron - I'm hopelessly confused
I was all set to buy a Compaq V2000 with a celeron M 380 for around 550 and was quite happy until I read another post on here that said that Celeron's aren't really well designed for battery management in the way that other processors are. the thread suggested the AMD Turion 64 ML-32 (or 34) was a much better alternative. Then I read another thread that did a comparison of battery life and found that the V2000 actually outperformed the V2000Z (among others - although both were taken by the Gateway NX200S). So what's the deal? Is the celeron better? should i spend the extra little bit to get the AMD because of the 64 bit tech? Or is it just going to eat up battery? Can someone help me out here? I'm not into gaming, I'm really just interested in the internet and word processing mainly. So, I suppose all things being equal, I'd assume have the computer that had the best battery life/usage.
Answer:
Re: AMD versus Celeron - I'm hopelessly confused
Celerons Ms are basically older Pentium Ms without the ability to slow the battery life to save on battery life. It is called SpeedStep. So if you get a 1.4Ghz Celeron M, it runs at 1.4GHz all the time whether you need it or not. From a battery life standpoint, this is bad. If all you are doing is office and internet you don't need to run full bore. It also creates heat and noise issues. For office and internet, I would suggest the v2000z with the Sempron CPU. Unlike the Celeron it can slow the CPU to conserve the battery. Semrpons run at very low voltages, even lower than the Turions or Pentium Ms. Battery life probably won't be as good as a Petnium M based machine, but you'll pay a lot less and there is a larger battery if you need more time. Invest the money you save in a faster hard drive which will give you a bigger performance boost than the CPU. Good Luck.
Answer:
Re: AMD versus Celeron - I'm hopelessly confused
If you don't use processor intensive applications, and just use the computer for normal stuff ie word processing, internet, small excel files and the like, the Sempron would be fine. The Celeron is also a good budget processor but as mentioned earlier, it does not have SpeedStep. I would go with the Sempron.
I would invest in more ram at least 512mb preferably 1gb and a 5400rpm hard drive.
Answer:
Re: AMD versus Celeron - I'm hopelessly confused
So, just to be clear, the Sempron is more ideal in terms of battery life and power optimization than the Turion is? And I won't regret not spending the extra hundred or so to get the 64 bit processor (I'm assuming such a thing is totally useless to me, but you know, when the newest technology is dangled in front of me . . .)?
Answer:
Re: AMD versus Celeron - I'm hopelessly confused
oh, sorry to add another question onto this, but the Sempron processors have 128K L2 caches. given that there's no other option on the Sempron I'm assuming this is standard, but the Turion has a 512 and a 1MB, and I definitely read a review or two of the V2000z where the reviewer spoke about the merits of a larger cache. Is this another one of those things that I don't really need to worry about given my lack of game playing/super computer intensive tasks?
Answer:
Re: AMD versus Celeron - I'm hopelessly confused
Yea you probably don't need to worry about the catch if you aren't doing anything too intensive.
I personally would recommend finding one with a Pentium M, as the prices on these are really reasonable, they're being replaced by Core Solo's.
Answer:
Re: AMD versus Celeron - I'm hopelessly confused
Let me put it this way. Celeron is ok but Sempron is better. Turion and Pentium M both beat the Sempron. Turion and Pentium M are roughly within 10% of each other. Some benchmarks say the PM is superior and some say Turion wins. I think its a toss up.
Answer:
Re: AMD versus Celeron - I'm hopelessly confused
Even though Sempron only has 128kb cache vs 1MB's celeron M has, but remember sempron has integrated memory controller inside the CPU. Assuming sempron 3000+ vs Celeron M 1.4/1.5/1.6GHz, sempron would beat celeron M as it has faster real clock speed.
Answer:
Re: AMD versus Celeron - I'm hopelessly confused
A lot of people believe that the best processor is what they have, simply because they have it and it works, without really owning and comparing computers with other processors (having the equal remaining part of hardware).
There is also a huge doctrine of power-saving Pentium M's, but again, with hardly any official studies or direct test comparisons.
In terms of your choice. If your option right now is either Celeron 1.6 or Turion, having all other components equal, and your priority to have a good battery life, and using computer to surf the web and using office software primarily, the answer should be straightforward: Compare the power consumption ratings of each processor and choose one with least consumtion. This info should be available on the manufacturer's website.
My experience with Celeron M370 was nothing but great. It is quite and cool (compare to computers on display in electronic stores (idling!!!)). The 6 cell battery lasts me at least 2.5 hours, and if i dim the screen, the time goes up to 3+ hours (of normal web browsing).
In terms of performance, the celeron is quite decent! The time to calculate the P to 2 mil digits is 2 minutes 16 seconds, which is better than many desktops. The idling temperature is between 41 and 43 C on my machine. Many other chips run hotter, around 50 C.
The windows starts in under 40 seconds and everything else is quite fast!
So, I would definitely recommend getting the celeron and spending the extra money on such goodies as mouse, carrying case, etc.
Answer:
Re: AMD versus Celeron - I'm hopelessly confused
If I'm not mistaken the Compaq with the Celeron M had a better battery life than the Compaq with the Sempron...