IT Employment

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Celeron versus Pentium III

0 helpful
45 replies

by nettek 1 view

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

My company is planning a Windows 2000 Pro rollout. Our present desktop OS is Win9x. We have already determined that in order to achieve at least the same level of performance (in terms of end-users noticing a difference in speed), W2K Pro requires more processor and memory than does Win9x. While our PII's and better will be okay with perhaps a memory upgrade, we know that will have to replace our Pentiums. This has caused a debate between the techs in the IT department and the CFO. It has already been determined that we will go with PIII's or IV's for those staff who run apps that require extra processing. The debate lies in determining what kind of processor to use for the majority of staff who simply are using their PCs for word processing and email.

The techs' view is that we should go with PIII's or better. They argue that PIII's will give better performance, allow for potenial growth in the event we need the PC for future processor-intensive software packages, and that thedifference in price is only $100-150 per machine.

The CFO wants to go with the less expensive Celerons. He believes that there really isn't that large of a performance difference between a Celeron and PIII when the PCs are only to be used mainly for word processing and email. He also is looking at the budgeting big picture. While the cost difference between the a Celeron and PIII is only $100-150, he sees it as $10,000-15,000 if you're talking a hundred PCs.

I personally am leaning towards the PIII's, but I need ammunition to take to the CFO. Has anyone had any experience utilizing W2K Pro on a both a Celeron and a PIII? Is there a noticable difference? I'm also trying to find some performance benchmark tests on the Internet.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

45 replies

by sbworks

...I'm afraid I have to side with the CFO. We have two admin types running W2k on Pentiums and two running W98 and they actally prefer the 2000, mainly for lack of lockups. They are Celeron 500MHz with 128 Meg RAM - not quite barebones machines.

by rhicks

I wouldn't waste the extra money for the pentiums if your users are only doing email and word apps. If they are working in graphics apps and things like that then buy the pentiums. Another reason why not to buy the pentiums is that you are already upgrading "old" equipment that may only have a shelf life of another year. Sure pentium has some nice commercials but who do you think pays for them?

by gsharpjr

I have run both of these operating systems. Win9x and Win2x on a Celeron and Pentium. I would have to say that I am totally satisfied with my less expensive Celeron. I feel it runs as smooth and as good as the Pentium.

by rnesher

While a celeron processor will do the job ,why not go to the AMD duron or athelon? you are paying for the name and in fact the duron is better than the pentuim an dmuch more cheaper.I am using the Duron 650mhz. and I can tell you that my mechine is flying with no problems with the win2K.

by donnyr10

I understand both sides of the fence
on one side the Techs are lobbying for more power at a differential of $150.00

the CIO is looking at the Bottom Line
like all Management do

The Solution in this case is quite simple
for you, but will require input from both Sides...

The Fact is that for e-mail and Word Proc
a Celeron with Ample RAM works splendid..
We have both sets here and no problems for normal users, Power users require PIII's
and PIV's...

The issue here is that you need to "safeguard" your company's Investment
and to do that you need to understand the Company's long term goal , i.e if you
need to upgrade to XP and whatever after..
PIII's may be a good Idea as the requirements
no doubt will increase from W2K, this way you
reduce the TCO, for your company..

If upgrading isn't even on the cards for the next two years, and your budget needs to be trimmed, definetely the Celeron's for 2000.
But always keep future planning at the forefront on any Hardware acquisition...

by pallan

Although I don't use Celerons, I'm typing this on my test machine. It's a Duron 700 with 64MB RAM and W2K Pro. While I can't use it for everything I do, it is certainly sufficient for the apps you mentioned. With more RAM, it'd be better than my regular machine (PIII 700, 256MB RAM).

Your argument seems, as written, to indicate that you're going to buy 100 PIII machines because one or two might someday, possibly, maybe run something processor intensive. That's pretty weak.

by jimhm

I am a Tech - and I side with the CFO, why spend the $100K or more, for the slim possiblity of someone needing more power in the future. Buy it, when they need it.
Today with the configuration changing daily and the costs dropping why spend the extra on staff that will be doing word and excel. From my comparsions and tests, there is no noticable difference in response between the two (chips), if all they are doing is word processing or spreadsheets. The extra memory (256Mg our standard) and better harddrives will make a bigger difference.
My Vote - CFO - Is right on the Money - I can't see the tech's justification for the added expense. Ask them if they wouldn't mind paying the extra out of their bonus and see what the answer is.

by operatorx

I know you dont want to hear it, but the cfo is probably right. I dont think youre going to see that much difference between the celeron and the pIII's since all the work stations your talking about are going to do is word processing, email etc..

by nettek

For general computing, I've always felt that I'd rather spend the money on memory than processor. Perhaps I can argue that point. I could probably get a Celeron with 256 Mb of RAM for the same price as a PIII with 128 Mb RAM.

by skkzarg_death

these folks are using Word and Outlook, or similiar applications. Tell me...is a onboard cache going to make Outlook beep all that faster to notify an end user that he/she has mail? Is spell check really going to run that much faster? C'mon. As a SA, my first instinct is to go full P3, but then you have to figure, its not worth the extra. The response above mine asks if you want the extra taken out of your bonus.... I got another way to ask the same thing... You know all those things we SA's always ask for, like a spare router, or specific software package, or another server, or a data storage rack? Well, go ahead and spend the cash on full P3 chips... and then remember that you did when the CFO looks at you and your CIO and says "sorry, you can't have that because we spent the extra 100K on those P3's you wanted."

Makes you think eh?

Skkz

by northwolf

of the time the CPU will idle when you use a wordprocessor. If you HAVE to upgrade I would look at AMD Chips. You get more bang for the buck. I recently set up 10 boxes with Duron 800 CPUs to replace very aging P200. You safe at least $200 per box vs. PIII 800.

by jerman

AMD's a great chip... better than Celeron. Gives the performance without the price.

by mikeconn

I agree with the AMD chip ussage. But, you
had better make sure that moboard is capable
of running an AMD (new style) chip. Some BIOS
will not allow them to perform well. Some
moboards have upgrades that will allow you to run some AMD chips.Other ten that I agree with the AMD and additional RAM would be the most cost effective (and performance) way to go...

by pandadude

Bean counters like your CFO are real pain in the ass. It's dull accountants like him that
think systems people just love to burn money. So they want to control IT spending though they wouldn't know it if a PC falls on their heads.

by pallan

Did you list any reasons why the CFO is wrong? No.

The original poster *is* just burning money. No one has yet put forth a valid argument for the more expensive systems.

by jimhm

I can see any cost justification for a faster system for someone to get Email and do word processing. Gee - lets spell check at the speed of light, now there's a productivity gain and cost justification.

Just bigger toys for smaller boys -

If you want it faster and cheaper - Try an AMD chip - works great - cost less..

by vertex

...he's a techie. Every tech would want the best and the fastest, anything less than that is not acceptable. Then again this kind of thinking is not rationale. The CFO is 100% on the money in this matter. Performance Vs. Cost, an increase of 5% performance for 50% more cost. Anyway they didn't explore other possibilities where they can combine both performance and cost with both parties coming out the winner like what most of the postings above are suggesting such as the Duron or Athlon systems. Perhaps they are bias against AMD.

by a4u

We are not running W2K, but the two Celerons we have are bad. I currently support 50 machines. 48 varing degrees of Pentiums 2 Celerons. When I look at my logs I work on the two celerons three times more than any other machine. We have rebuilt both from scratch once each. Maybe we just got lemons, but I tend not to like the Celerons.

A question I have is: Do you always use the PC for what they are purchased for? We buy a machine for one "job" then the users 'job' changes and they needmore machine.

Our CFO chopped sound cards out of the Cust. Service PC's, which was fine at the time. Now we have an intranet that they want all CSRep's to view training 'videos' on and no one can hear them. Just keep the future in mind.

Aslong as they are used as planned you might get by okay, but keep change management in mind when purchasing.

$.02

by nettek

We did have a couple of Celeron's in our inventory at one time, and I agree they were horrible, but it was at a time when they first came out. The first Celeron's, the 266 and 300, had no built in L2 cache and suffered greatly from performance problems. Based on that past experience, we have since only ordered PIIs and PIIIs. After some research though, I discovered that they now have built in L2 Cache, and don't do too badly in benchmark tests when compared to similar mhz PIIIs.

As far as change management, I whole-heartedly agree. Too often my company has been penny wise and dollar foolish when it comes to technology. We once installed a client/server app where some of the clients would be on the other side of a WAN. The softwarevendor assured us that a 56k frame relay connection would be fine. Our techs said, "No way" and that we would need a higher speed connection. The CFO went with the vendors recommendation due to costs. After a couple of months of clients staring at an hourglass more often than actually using the app, we upgrade to 256k. Runs great now, but we had to pay for a second connection install, a new WIC for the router, reprogram the router, and how much time was lost in productivity in those months? Sometimes techs have a good idea about what they're talking about.

by hooknpawn

my two cents worth...... and for the record, I agree with the thinking of the CFO also. I want the hottest machine too but for word processing and e-mail............ errr one question, do these machines that we're talking about have the same bus speed?

by uh

I used to run OCR software at work on Compaq PIII/450. When I had to do it on my home computer Celeton 450 - the remaining bits are the same.

I was stunned, It took me 0.5 hour (Celeron) insted of 10 minutes (PIII) to process the same text using ABBY Fine Reader.

But if you consider only wordprocessing - it is the same.

Cheers

by xavierg7

I am a software developer and i need the ultra-fast-newest-cpu of the market because i need high performance to develop with Databases, Visual Tools, Sample Data, Install tools and so on.
But, my co-workers do not need the "extra" performance. They write and save documents (memo, letters, responses) in a daily basis (and sometimes spreadsheets). They use celeron processor because it best fits their requirements.
Obviously, if i have a power user i ask for a better pc for him.

by landman

Folks, I may be missing something here, but some of the posts seem to make the assumption that the upgrades are chips only. The CFO is right, but the motherboards should be spec'd to allow upgrades to PIII processors if and when needed.

by tonyp_fno

I have to agree with the majority. get added ram and you will see the best performance enhancement for the apps that will be used. However, having been burned in the past by buying more towards the minimum needed I would think about buying a few better performing PC's for those users who roals and needs change. Also I would think that of the 100 or PC's there has to be a few that have more processor intensive needs than most of the other users.

by dealer21

Get some dirt cheap celeron 566's, you can easily overclock them to 900 mgz. They will run rock stable. Quality ram is $90 for a 256 meg stick cas2 133. Invest in a good motherboard for future upgrades such as an asus cusl2 with the 815 chipset.

by angsax

It's difficult to know how much RAM to install as some older BIOS amd boards don't support the use of "more" RAM. That is according to some sources, ie ZDNET. I know that NT and 2000 clearly benefit from an increase, but I'm not sure how much RAM can be utilized by 95,98,ME, or what the benefits might be contingent on. I'd like to know!

by edward clint

When price/performance is what you are looking at.. AMD beats Intel hands down every time. Durons even outpace P3's in some areas.
There is no upgrade path for P3's either. Look at Intel's roadmap. Intel is going to kill off the P3's faster than any of their CPUs in history to force movement to P4s.
Any if you ever want to upgrade a P3 system to the very peculiar P4, you need a new motherboard.

-Ed

by buddy

Take a good look at AMD's Duron, it is cheap, and it gives P3 a good run for it's money. If price and performance is what you are after then definitely go with AMD.

by s_joe

I have a home puter running on a Athlon 750. It performs as well as pIIIs of similar MHz in very cpu intensive apps (graphics, etc). You could start with a duron of your choice and if the user needs an upgrade: buy a athlon chip for cheap!

by mayuresh

in my opinion, AMD ofers a much better solution then Intel...a much better solution. Firstly there is no great technology upgrade from the P2 to the P3...it's just a shot in the rear. You buy a P3 today, u may not even be able to upgrade to maybe even another P3...they'll make you buy the complete expensive set again.
Also when the P4 was tested against the Anthlon, therotically it was obviously faster, but when compared to using real world appz, negligible. So certainaly not worth the extra cash.And when the thunderbird is available in the mainstream market, intels p's won't stand a chance.

regards
mayuresh

by weaponx

With cost being a factor , why aren't you considering an amd chip? For word processing and e-mail I don't see justification for a PIII, and a duron costs much less than a celeron.Go for a duron system with added ram and you should be fine.

by sdbier

It seems Intel has the advantage. Choosing between Celeron and PIII..., here is something which will help:

http://www.intel.com/procs/perf/icomp/index.htm

Check out this site for all the performance stats you should need.
The Sysmark2000 on Win2000 will test performance benchmarks using business application software...OK?

by dbelville

You didn't give any information about your older Pentium systems but if they are at least P200MMXs with 128MB of memory, you could run W2K on them and the people using them for word processing will not notice any difference. A bigger-badder-better processor will not make them type any faster or make e-mail come down the pipe any faster. Any P200 will keep up with Word, Excel or Outlook if it has enough memory. I suggest you take one of your older machines and test it. If you can get W2K to run OK on it (I have done so), you may be even more money ahead by doing so. Of course, if the machine is anything less than a 200, I would not try this. I did get W2K to run OK on a Pentium 150 w/64MB of RAM but it didn't run as fast as W98 did. I thinka 200 is worth a try.

by gtek

In respect to yourself, I believe that PIII's are great CPU's. In fact I probably would buy a PIII over a Celeron anyday. But that matter is money. PIII may give power that you need but Celeron's do give out the power for the price. If I had only $10,000-$15,000 dollars to spend on 100 computers, I would choose Celeron. Celeron altogether isn't a bad CPU. It may be a bit sluggish on run intensive programs, but for just e-mail and word processing they would be just fine. If you would liketo download some benchmarking programs you can do that at
http://www.benchpage.de

by willia

I've worked with both processors. Especially for the purposes for which your company intends, the Celeron is a much better choice. Never forget that functionality is more important than flash.

by fred

Our 800MgHz Durons seem to be out performing our Dell 800 MgHz P3's.

by drector

I have recently been building business systems using PIII 800 chips and Duron 800 chips - the durons seem to be faster in the thing that is important to most people - opening programs - when you want something it pops up FAST - and the durons are considerably cheaper. They also seem extremely stable. If I was making the decision I would go with the duron 800 on a microstar motherboard supporting UDMA 100 with UDMA 100 IBM 20 - 30 gig hard drive, 256 meg of ram and a 8-16 meg video card running a sis 6326 chip. With this system the cost of the mobo and chip is about the same as the PII 800 chip by itself and the performance is great. This is more than is really needed for word processing and email (K6-2 500 chip works great for that) but your users will be very happy with it.

by jimhm

Hey - NetTek, just wondering after all these posts what your outfit will do. I'am interested to see if these posts help you out any.

Are you going with Celeron, PIII, PVI or AMD. What is going to be your memory configuration.

I read loads ofgreat information and personal results of selections. You created a good discussion - just wondering what your thoughs are - and which way you are now leaning.

Just wondering -

by clearsmashdrop

First I agree if your user base is just Office and Email then the Celeron's will be okay.

I have a question about the AMD chips. I have an Abit BH6 at home which I can upgrade to a P3-650 if I want. ( As long as its not a Coppermine CPU )

Is there and AMD equivelant I can use? Ive never even looked at AMD before simply because my company doesnt purchase them and my home machine is happy with its Celeron 333.

Thanks.

ps my abit is a BX chipset/100mhz bus/dma33/slot 1

by rjschenone

Unfortunately for youe position, your CFO is correct. Win2K for simple wordprocessing and e-mail, works just fine with the celeron chip, provided that the system has at least 128MB of RAM. And with RAM prices being inexpensive [I just bought a 256MBMicron chip for $68.00], more RAM makes Win2K a very happy camper.

I read a article a few months back [sorry I can't remember who wrote it], in which going from 64MB to 256MB RAM provided a 40% performance increase using Win2K. Yet increasing CPUperformance from a Celeron 500 to a PIII 750, provided only a 10% gain.

I know this isn't what you wanted to hear. But maybe, your CFO would be more appreciative of your insight and knowledge, if you sided with him/her on this one. He is correct.

Put for CPU intensive apps, a PIII is a must.

by e-fellow

Look if you are the person making the final presentation to the CFO then surely you have done the following, if not do so:

#1. Analyzed what each person's or group of person's requirements are today, as well as, based on your 2 to 5 year plans for other advancements in IT.

#2. Most people are giving you suggestions and none of them know what the hell you do or what your IT strategy and plans are.

#3. The suggestions you have been given should help you make decisions on what each person there needs not just for today but also in 3 years.

#4. Take the info you have gained here, look at your actual needs, your plans and then make sure that everyone that is knowledgeable enough to sign off on this project, does so whole-heartedly,create a powerful presentation based on the facts, give two options, no more and be prepared to place orders.

#5. The CEO, CFO, and COO have no clue as to what you really need, that is your job, so research, plan, strategize, present and stand firm. Mgmt. will love you for not only saving a little money but also for the confidence that you provide them in knowing that you and your team done your homework, you are all together and you will back it together.

#6. Have a drink!!!!!!!!!!

by dean_stockwell

Everyone refers to the high end applications when looking at choosing a PIII over a Celeron.

Can anyone give me some examples of these types of applications? Does Office 2000 qualify or is it similar to previous office versions?

This discussion is closed to new replies.