The budget cpu thread

Looking through the 'measure your cpu speed' thread it took me about 6 pages to come across a user other than myself who doesn't have a core duo!

I'd like to hear from those of us who have more down to earth systems, celeron-ms, pentium-ms, semprons, early turions etc.

How does your cpu perform? Does it run hot? What levels of cache does it have, was it cheap, do you like it, how does it compare to other cpus you've used, are budget cpus still even budget?

Being a student and not made of money I have a sub-£500 (just under $1000) machine runnin a Celeron-m 380. Super pi reveals that it's modest 1.6GHz single core completes 2 million digit calculations around the same time as a P4 2.6. That's fine for me. It doesn't run hot at all, not exceeding 54 degrees C.

My only criticism is a lack of speedstep which means battery life isn't what it could be.

So what are your experiences of lower end cpus?

 

I currently have two Sempron lappys and an A64 one. The Semprons have a lower wattage rating than A64s and most Turions, so they run very cool and quiet. One has 128KB cache, the other 256KB, which I suppose contributes to it's cooler operation. Unlike the Celeron-M, Semprons natively support cpu throttling like the premium processors.

For doing general tasks such as web browsing and watching DVDs, I don't really see much performance difference at all (if any). The Athlon64 gets pretty warm just idling, the Semprons don't. I rarely ever hear the fan kick into high gear on the Semprons, while the A64 fan does frequently.

I'm sure on intensive tasks such as encoding that the Athlon64 would eat the Semprons alive, but I have yet to test them with any heavy project.

I get much better battery life from the Sempron units, and they only have 6-cell batts while the A64 has a 12-cell.

Anyway, I'm happy with the Semprons. So far they do everything I ask of them and they do it quickly.

 

I currently have a Toshiba L20-SP119, that originally came with a Celeron M 370 (1.5Ghz), 256MB RAM and a XPRESS 200M. Right out of the box, it was fairly usable (even though the integrated chipset took 64MB from the RAM!), if you only had just one program opened, otherwise it would slowdown due to the paging to the hard drive. After I upgraded RAM to 1GB I was able to multi-task smoothly.

It ran must of my programs really well including iTunes, Firefox, Visual Studio compilers and even circuit simulators! However multimedia tasks like Photoshop and video encoding were kinda slow. One thing that I noticed is that a 5400RPM hard drive really helps.

What I didn't really liked was, as you said, Celeron M's lack of SpeedStep. So even with a 8-cell battery, the most time I got was 2:40 with light use. So then I found a Pentium M 1.6 GHz (533Mhz FSB) for cheap and I upgraded my laptops CPU. I think it has been the best upgraded I've ever done! Not in performance, it is like 5-10% faster, what I really won was battery life! I easily got 3:15 hours, and with a little tweaking, now I get 4:00 hours! It also runs cooler.

So, I would say that Celeron M's are pretty decent performers for the price (if you don't compare them to dual core cpu's) for even not-so-light weight applications. Their only drawback is battery life.

 

I don't have a dual-core CPU either, so that makes a couple of us.

I have an Intel Pentium M 750 with a 1.86GHz clockspeed, 2MB L2 cache, and 533MHz FSB. I applied Arctic Silver 5 on it and it is undervolted. It runs around 42-44*C at idle, and during gaming, it is around 55-59* at 100% load on a cooling pad. It was not that expensive of a CPU from what I remember; the base CPU offered on my Sager NP5320 at the time was the Pentium M 740 (1.73GHz). I spent $50 to get the upgrade to the 1.86GHz.
My Pentium M could now be classified as budget. No new notebooks have it. It is probably on par with the latest generation of Yonah-based Celeron M's (400 series) in overall performance but I don't have any direct comparisons.
Battery life on this machine isn't very good; with an 8-cell battery, I get around 2:30. The low battery life is mainly due to the power-hogging 256MB ATI Mobility Radeon X700 graphics card.
As for performance - it does everything I ask of it. I do some light multitasking and it is fine with that; it is a good gaming CPU as well. It does hang when I do certain demanding tasks like Photoshop, but even then it is reasonably fast.

 

Sorry Chaz but to call my good M750 budget CPU is just an offence for me or at least unfair. I'm sure that you'll see a difference if you compare this 'thing' called Celeron to its bigger and nice brother Pentium M...You can see that in some benchmarks a Pentium M would just double the performance of a Celeron (from the same generation)... I'm not talking about regular stuff so please don't start with that again... Otherwise, I'm sure that you know about the differences in the speedstep unit...and the less cache though I agree that's not a big issue for some people...As for multitasking, sometimes I really hate my CPU especially when I can't even scroll a page while Kaspersky is checking my system...

And so, I'm a man who will never buy a Celeron even if it was the last CPU left on this world (this is subjective, don't count it) but yes some people can live long and happy life with their Celerons

Once I was talking about the difference in the prices which is probably my strongest argument here so I'm not gonna do it again... (it's not the case)

However, Chaz I'm wondering, when you usually defend budget CPUs, why didn't you buy your Sager with a Celeron... you would've saved some dollar.

 

I got an Acer Aspire 3000 with a Mobile AMD Sempron 3000+. It was OK, but I wanted better, so I bought 2 512 MB sticks of Corsair RAM (the motherboard tkes DDR333, I got this so I could overclock) and a Cooling pad and overclocked my Sempron to 2 GHz (3300+ speed, 1780 MHz FSB, 370 MHz RAM) using Clockgen. System is stable (checked with prime95), CPU idles at 34 degrees (c) and maxes out at 47 degrees.

Now it runs beautifuly, a very good deal considdering I got this laptop for $600 2 years ago. I also found out that the CPU is upgradable (no plans for that, I looked at benchmarks and found that putting in a Turion MT37 would not make that much of a difference over the overclocked Sempron) as well as the hard disk (duh!) and the Wireless card (which I also have no plans for since it has dual band support).

My only complaints are that my IGP has no support for OpenGL and that it ame with a 4200 RPM hard drive (which I'm too lazy to upgrade since I would have to reinstall Windows and Linux). A number of OS tweaks have made the system utilize the RAM more which results in less disk activity, which is a plus.

The Celeron Ms are so low profile that a Pentium M would be a big improvement despite the fact they are toward the lower end of the performance scale especially when compared to the Turions. The 745s and above are decent chips, though.

 

The Pentium M is not technically a 'budget CPU' and never was when it came out, but the fact of the matter is that by today's terms it is classified a budget solution - it performs at about the same level as the latest generation of Celeron Ms, which are based on the Yonah core and not the Dothan as previous Celeron M's were. Like I said, I don't have any direct benchmarks to compare it, but the shoe fits - the Pentium M is not as fast as a Core Solo, and the Celeron M 400 is not quite as fast as the Solo, so the general performance of a Celeron M 400 should be similar to that of a Pentium M. The Pentium M should still have the edge though, considering it has higher clockspeeds.
Now don't get me wrong, I still think the Pentium M is a great CPU, but it's not the best anymore.

Sounds like you would benefit from a Core Duo or other dual-core CPU if your system gets bogged down that much.

My system was never offered with a Celeron (a Sager with a budget CPU? ), the lowest CPU was the Pentium M 740. Had it been available I still would have gone for the Pentium M because:
A) I play 3D games, and although the Celeron is capable of running them I would think the faster FSB (533MHz for the Pentium vs. 400MHz for the Celeron), higher clockspeed, double the L2 cache would make a difference in maintaining a more stable framerate.
B) I also do Photoshop, which is very CPU-intensive and benefits from a faster CPU.
C) Not fond of the Celeron lacking SpeedStep, I like a cool-running computer. My Sager does not stay that cool to begin with, so having the processor run at full clockspeed all the time isn't exactly . . ideal.

 

So now you see (A,B and C I'm sure you will find D too) why I call this CPUs trash from time to time... and of course they can be a treasure for someone who doesn't have A,B,C...

I know that Pentium M is a good CPU (kinda revolution) and I like it... I admit that I exaggerated about Kaspersky, but I'd definitely buy dual core CPU because I've tried... I saw a difference...though it's not so important at the moment...

You know that the comparing of things form different generation is not fair... and 'budget' for a CPU usually means crippled in some way... we're not talking about performance here... so let's say 'old' but still 'up-to-date'

why not?
http://www.pctorque.com/sager-5460-gaming-laptop.php

You have a 'luxury' like Sager with a 'budget' (today's terms) card like X700.... how can you live with that?

 

Thanks for the insights!

Dreamer - it was originally I who labelled the Pentium-M a budget cpu. While in it's day it was a fantastic cpu and still is, it's now being quickly overtaken by core duos. Looking at the sigs of most of the users on here there are very few single core cpu users still left and while the p-m was a top line cpu when it came out, now it's general use is on lower-end machines, although Celeron-ms still occupy the lowest end of the market.

I have. I recently noted a super-pi time for a Yonah Celeron-M 410 (1.46GHz) as 2:08 for 2 million digits. This can be compared to my Celeron-M 380 (1.6GHz) posting a time of 2:14. By comparison a Pentium-M 1.6 comes in around 2:10, so the Yonah core has had significant effect. I am confident a Yonah Celeron-M could give an equivalent clock speed Pentium-M a good run for it's money.

I agree with you for all the celerons apart from one. The Celeron-M. This is a cpu based on the architecture of Intel's top-line cpus and it shows. Yes it is cheap becuase they leave out things like speedstep and have a reduced amount of L2 cahe but for the average user, 1MB of Level 2 cache is more than enough and that's what this thread is about. The average user.

I'm really glad to hear that R4000! I think there is far too much emphasis in the computer world on bigger better faster. Sure a Core Duo is faster, a lot faster than a celeron-m but do I need one? No. I need a cpu that'll do the job at a good price and this Celeron-M has been able to handle everything i've tried it on so far with ease.

I am intrigued by the possibility of upgrading though, would this celeron-m 300 be able to take either a pentium-m or yonah (400) celeron-m? A 2GHz Yonah c-m would be a cpu with some serious power behind it.

 

jess_paws I know I'm joking you can called it whatever you like...

Anyway, we had a discussion here recently and my positioin was and still is that crippled in some way 'things' like Celeron/Sempron are no worth buying just because today it's easy to find core duo or even core 2 duo at a similar price...

So I call them trash (not really true) from time to time because the difference in the prices is not as big as it should be... and that's way I wouldn't recommend them.

 

Find a Core Duo for £400 with all the specs of my L100 on the sig and i'll believe you! Otherwise I'll continue to consider it a posh cpu!

I found one Core Duo for £500 but it lacks the 256mb radeon xpress 200m of my machine.

My point is that some of us just don't have that kind of money and I want real opinions on budget cpus, the ones that a lot of people who aren't rich/really into laptops use.

 

heh.. that's too easy look at Dell E1505
the right link: http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=19&l=en&oc=E1505S1&s=dhs

 

You can buy a macbook for $1000 and it has core duo...

I am not rich, and I have listed some strategies to maximize money accumulation:

1. Mooch off parents
2. Mooch off grandparents
3. Mooch off friends (might be hard because friends are a renewable resource so you don't want to absolutely cut it dry).
4. Work??? (I know, it's retarded)
5. Scholarship? (Some federal governement place sent me $1000 dollars scholarship in CHECK!, gg I'll use it for "educational" purpose only, no.
6. Identify your needs and don't spend 5 dollars on a mocha frappacino triple late. Only buy what you need, and don't let the media fool you into buying things you don't need.

If you are not a gamer or a heavy 3d graphics designer, Core 400 Duo and pentium M are not that far apart and the same goes for video cards.

 

Unfortunatey this model isn't available in the UK. We also have to pay VAT which would push the price up by 17.5%. I also think that Dell laptops look like they've been hewn from solid Granite. Hardly good looking.

Again, Macbooks start at £750 in the uk thanks to lovely VAT. I also don't want one, I don't like them. No offence to any mac users who may be reading.

My Dad actually bought me the laptop for an early christmas present. Good thing too or I wouldn't have been able to get one at all! I also am trying to get a job!

I'm sure one could get a Core Duo in the USA for the equivalent of £400 (about $750-800) but not here! The challenge is still on. Find me a Core Duo with the same or better specs as my L100 (512mb ram, xpress 200m, dual layer etc.) at a uk retailer for £400 and i'll admit you're right.

Now, back on topic, anyone have anything to say about their Celeron-M, Pentum-M, Sempron or other cheaper cpu? P4? P3? Original Celeron? All welcome.

 

yah I hate mac books also

Do you have Staples in UK? They have a lot of decent notebooks for ~$1200 Canadian, which is like $1050 US which is... I dunno how much in £.

I actaully have a question about "256mb ATi radeon xpress 200m"... is it better or worse than x1400? x1300?

 

Worse. The x200m with dedicated is about the same as an X300. The x200m without dedicated (like mine) is not even as good as that. It's just about ok for some basic games but it's not a gaming chip at all really.

 

True, they are just crippled versions of their bigger brothers. As for them being worth it, I guess it simply depends on market conditions when the consumer is looking to buy. For me, the Turion X2 was not available in the units I was looking at, and I did not want to spend another $200+ dollars for a 2GHz single core Turion in a budget laptop (especially because I ended up buying three). Once I get the 1.5GB of ram in the latest one, it should hang pretty well with my A64 3800+ for most things. Not too bad for being one of the entry-level cpus on the V5000. I was really surprised how well the first one handled with 1.25GB ram. Seemed like a good deal.

I did notice on the new V6000T that the Core Solo is only a $50 upgrade from the Celeron-M. In that case, I see what you mean about the minor difference in price.

 

I take it the Core Solo will be the new budget chip once the pentium-m and celeron-m finally go under?

 

the upgrade from Solo to Duo is a 50$ too...

When we're talking about budget... what about the Turions... I've seen plenty of them on UK sites

 

You can get Turions pretty cheaply but they're usually stuff like ML-28s which are basically like a low level pentium-M compared to a similar celeron-M, slightly better than a sempron but not much.

The newer turions are more expensive usually.

 

The Celeron is here to stay, and I do not think the Core Solo is going anywhere either. Those processors have their place on the market, just like the higher-end Core (2) Duos.

 

Yeah. Fortunately/unfortunately, we will see a Core 2 Duo-derived Celeron M processors in Q1 2007.

However, I am wondering what exactly is the place of Core Solo on the market now and in the future.

The case with the highest-end Duos is a bit different. The people need something to stay there like a scarecrow.

Edit:
Anyway, Intel probably has a good marketing department (just like the other 'monsters') so I am sure they know what they do...

 

Celeron-Duos huh? Sounds interesting!

So Celeron-M will go forward with Yonah, Core and Core 2 in various configs will of course be the backbone of Intel's laptop cpus, any ideas on the future of the pentium-M?