What is a Mobile Celeron equivalent to?

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
I overheard a Mac dealer telling a customer it the Toshiba 1.8 GHz Mobile Celeron processor was basically a pumped up Pentium II.

He went on to say that it wasn't any match for the G3 800mhz iBook's processor.

Is that pure salesmanship or is there any truth to that?

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 10
    wmfwmf Posts: 1,164member
    A 1.8 GHz Mobile Celeron is basically a Pentium 4, so it will crush any G3 for most purposes.
  • Reply 2 of 10
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    no it isn't, and no it won't...



    [ 12-07-2002: Message edited by: New ]</p>
  • Reply 3 of 10
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    The Celeron is a weaker P4, and the Mobile line is significantly weaker than the desktop line.



    I don't know how it would compare to an 800MHz G3, but it's nowhere near a 1.8GHz desktop P4.
  • Reply 4 of 10
    g4dudeg4dude Posts: 1,016member
    [quote]Originally posted by satchmo:

    <strong>I overheard a Mac dealer telling a customer it the Toshiba 1.8 GHz Mobile Celeron processor was basically a pumped up Pentium II.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I think the Celeron used to be a re-branded Pentium II. But when the P4 came out, that changed.
  • Reply 5 of 10
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    Yes, G4Dude, you're right. The main differences are the 400 MHz bus speed rather than 533 MHz on a P4, and it also has half the L2 cache.



    I am guessing a 1.8 GHz Celeron-M would be about the same as an 800 MHz 750fx. The G3, however, would have twice the L2 cache, full speed, on chip, which helps it a bunch. It also has a five step pipeline, making it super efficient. The 20 step pipeline on the P4 and Celeron (at least, I think the Celeron also uses a 20 stage pipeline) is very bad for performance.



    Celerons might not support DDR either. I'm not sure on this one, though.



    [ 12-07-2002: Message edited by: Luca Rescigno ]</p>
  • Reply 6 of 10
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,454member
    Here's what Tom's Hardware Guide has to say about it.



    [quote]The conclusion to be drawn is that the Celeron, in its present form, can no longer keep pace with the Athlon XP and Pentium 4 by means of higher clock speeds. The Pentium 4 is considerably faster - but also much more expensive. AMD's Athlon XP does not, as a rule, cost any more, but offers significantly higher performance in some respects (including with DDR333). Anyone making a carefully considered purchase would be better advised to go for an Athlon XP or a Pentium 4. <hr></blockquote>



    So regardless of the clockspeed, the thing is pretty slow compared to regular PIV. The mobile version is even slower still.



    Nick
  • Reply 7 of 10
    Ive built a couple of celron systems, and they are totally pants, for the novice user they wont see anything wrong, but to the advance user the problems appear straight away. Video is slow and poor quality and game quality is slowed down. This is because the celron have fewer instructions than its P3 or P4 master and isnt optimised for games or video. It was basically an attempt by intel to steal back AMD's share of the budget processor market.

    Any X86 chips are both flawed and slow compared with the risc chips of a mac.
  • Reply 8 of 10
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    The celeron is a low end P4 : with 128 KB of L2 cache. This little cache brings little performance to this chip.

    The only advantage of this celeron P4 is his 478 pins socket. You can replace it by a P4 on any mobo.



    As amorph said , this chip brings poor performance, even it's sufficiant for most basic use. I think that the performance of a 1,7 celeron are close than a 800 mhz G3 750 fxe with 512 KB of L2 cache.
  • Reply 9 of 10
    I just think its important to state, niether the G3 or te Celeron can whipe the floor with the other.
  • Reply 10 of 10
    klinuxklinux Posts: 453member
    [quote]Originally posted by trumptman:

    <strong>Here's what Tom's Hardware Guide has to say about it.







    So regardless of the clockspeed, the thing is pretty slow compared to regular PIV. The mobile version is even slower still.



    Nick</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Wrong. Read the entire article plus benchmarks. For things that require cache, of which Celeron has only 128K, P4/AMD will kick its butt. For any other stuff, sysmark, MP3 encoding, the difference is negligible.



    This applies to the 2ghz 13nm Celeron. The 1.x ghz Celerons vis-a-vis P4 have a wider performance gap.
Sign In or Register to comment.