Cheapest proc ever!

[suraswami]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819104006

Single core proc for $20 shipped. Good for home server or mom and pop email machine or kids budget gaming. Runs cool so no big HS too.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Sempron. *sigh*

 

[Deleted member 3]

Sempron. *sigh*

You get what you pay for. Though suraswami is right, e-mail/office machine doesn't require anything better.

 

[exodusprime1337]

wow that's awsome. i could think of 100 uses for computers with that proccy. i mean cheap linux box, emulator machine, file server for the home, nas box. so many things.

 

[Hayder_Master]

cheap , good for low profile pc with mobo with built in card you can make a pc under 100$

 

[Mussels]

at 1.8GHz, it will be 720P capable, 1080P capable with an accelerator video card (aka, good onboard video/780G)

Great for budget builds (non gamer) thats for sure.

 

[Black Panther]

e-mail/office machine doesn't require anything better.

Lol one of the computers I put at work has a celeron 333Mhz and 128MB RAM. It only runs Microsoft Word and Excel (on XP), and it does its job fine.

Old games run fine as well - you know like Sonic the Hedgehog, Prince of Persia I and II.... but obviously our clerk doesn't game at work... Previously I had set up this pc for my daughter, but then I put this at work and took the 1600+ AMD for her.

So yeah... a 1.8Ghz will be more than fine for office work.

 

[Error 404]

You could take the fan off the stock heatsink and use natural convection to cool it. Silent file server, anyone?
That is really cheap.

 

[Mussels]

combine with a board like this,
and a case like this

and you can have a HD capable media PC/netbox for... well, for very damned little.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

You get what you pay for. Though suraswami is right, e-mail/office machine doesn't require anything better.

I can't even stand using a Sempron/Celeron after a clean install of XP. Update and installation routines alone take twice as long or more. It is so worth the extra $40 to step up to a Athlon, Pentium, or Core processor. It'll pay for itself in not wasting time doing pretty much everything.

"Require," no, but time is money.

I thought this thread was actually going to be about the VIA C7. I've never used a VIA processor but I am interested to know if the responsiveness is on the level the budget or mainstream chips.

 

[suraswami]

I can't even stand using a Sempron/Celeron after a clean install of XP. Update and installation routines alone take twice as long or more. It is so worth the extra $40 to step up to a Athlon, Pentium, or Core processor. It'll pay for itself in not wasting time doing pretty much everything.

"Require," no, but time is money.

I thought this thread was actually going to be about the VIA C7. I've never used a VIA processor but I am interested to know if the responsiveness is on the level the budget or mainstream chips.

I have used S754 Sempron 2600 (with just 128 kb cache) on my previous generation media center PC for almost a year. It really played BF2 on 50" screen, played all my movies, recorded shows and browse the internet while AVG is updating and scanning without a hiccup. So don't know if its only for you.

My FIL still runs a PC with a Socket A Sempron 2500 and he feels it is super fast He does PowerPoint presentations for his work and creates loads of charts with data in Excel and also uses the machine to convert docs to pdfs. Its a work horse.

 

[niko084]

Ya real cheap, really not too bad either...

Anyone know if stock for stock how this would compare with a P4 3.0 HT chip in gaming?

 

[newtekie1]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103196

Only $5 more, 100MHz faster, lower power usage, and comes with a heatsink.

I can't even stand using a Sempron/Celeron after a clean install of XP. Update and installation routines alone take twice as long or more. It is so worth the extra $40 to step up to a Athlon, Pentium, or Core processor. It'll pay for itself in not wasting time doing pretty much everything.

"Require," no, but time is money.

I thought this thread was actually going to be about the VIA C7. I've never used a VIA processor but I am interested to know if the responsiveness is on the level the budget or mainstream chips.

I can agree with this actually, even with the dual core Celeron E1400 I just tested, the machine is a little more sluggish with lower end processors like this. However, will that really be noticeable to the people using the machine? No, not really, unless they are used to super powerful machines. And will it be any better with a slightly faster Athlon? No, it really won't.

Moving from the Celeron machine I just built, to the Pentium E2180 machine, and there is very little difference really. Updating and installation takes about the amount of time on both, so simply saying avoiding the Celeron isn't accurate.

And furthermore, when overclocked these processor can scream, and be just as snappy as their higher end counterparts. When I took the Celeron E1400 to 2.4GHz, the machine seems much more responsive, and I couldn't really tell the difference between it and my Q6600 at the same speeds when doing basic tasks.

 

[JrRacinFan]

@newtekie

Couple that with this board:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813138105R

Very interesting.

 

[niko084]

@newtekie

Couple that with this board:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813138105R

Very interesting.

If only I was sure that board had an I/O plate

I hate buying them, they cost so much for a stupid piece of tin.

 

[JrRacinFan]

If only I was sure that board had an I/O plate

I hate buying them, they cost so much for a stupid piece of tin.

Pfft whats an I/O plate..... Not even using one with this DFI board. Altho both of those paired would make a midrange gaming platform. Just add hd3850/HD4670 and above.

 

[niko084]

Pfft whats an I/O plate..... Not even using one with this DFI board. Altho both of those paired would make a midrange gaming platform. Just add hd3850/HD4670 and above.

I can't bring myself to run a board without one... I know its not really a big deal its just something that would drive me up the wall....

But ya it would make a great entry level gaming system, I have a x2 4200 laying around and am thinking about buying that board for it.

 

[suraswami]

I can't bring myself to run a board without one... I know its not really a big deal its just something that would drive me up the wall....

But ya it would make a great entry level gaming system, I have a x2 4200 laying around and am thinking about buying that board for it.

I have this board,

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813153073

It has all the OC options u would ever want, I mentioned before, its poor man's OCer. Add a used 3850 from here and you are set for budget gaming or even watching HD.

Or get this Foxconn for decent onboard graphics

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813186143

 

[newtekie1]

While we are on the subject of cheap: $40 X2 4400+

 

[suraswami]

And oh I Wish Frys sells this proc with a ECS board for combo price of $30 heck even $20

 

[suraswami]

While we are on the subject of cheap: $40 X2 4400+

I would go with the BE2400 instead. At default its 45w and OCs nice too.

 

[newtekie1]

I would go with the BE2400 instead. At default its 45w and OCs nice too.

True, luckily they are the same price.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Moving from the Celeron machine I just built, to the Pentium E2180 machine, and there is very little difference really. Updating and installation takes about the amount of time on both, so simply saying avoiding the Celeron isn't accurate.

I was referring to Pentium 4/Pentium D, not the "Pentium Dual-Core" of today. No offense but Pentium of today has been degraded to Celeron status. They are practically interchangeable.

And furthermore, when overclocked these processor can scream, and be just as snappy as their higher end counterparts. When I took the Celeron E1400 to 2.4GHz, the machine seems much more responsive, and I couldn't really tell the difference between it and my Q6600 at the same speeds when doing basic tasks.

Instructions per Cycle (IPC) * Cycles per Second (Hz) = Instructions per Second (I/s)

That equation is the great processor equalizer. Celerons and Semperons have pathetic IPC. For theoretical sake, lets say it is just 2 IPC (this is a very liberal) and use your given speed of 2.0 GHz. That gives use the following:

2 IPC * 2.0 GHz = 4.0 GI/s

The Core 2 is in the neighborhood of 3 IPC and let's go with the same clockspeed of 2.0 GHz:

3 IPC * 2.0 GHz = 6.0 GI/s

Theoretically, your processor at 2.4 GHz grants you the following:

2 IPC * 2.4 GHz = 4.8 GI/s

As you can see, still well under the Core 2 processor. Realize that overclocking results in a higher frequency of errors and a lower IPC as a result. Assuming these IPC figures are correct (not certain on Celeron), you'd need to have your clockspeed at 3.0 GHz to match a Core 2 at 2.0 GHz.


Why I think the IPC of Celeron/Pentium is much lower is because Pentium 3, Pentium 4, Athlon XP, Athlon 64, Pentium M, Core 2, Core, and Athlon 64 X2 are all extremely responsive on an OS released at about the same time. The ones that have consistently stood out as not being responsive are the likes of Pentium, Celeron, Semperon, and Duron. Because of their tiny caches, their IPCs are at least half if not lower.

The main shortcoming of these cheaper processors is a much smaller cache. Benchmarks typically don't show this because they are designed to work with small caches. Where it becomes blatantly obvious is in tasks that require larger caches (like games) and simple day to day operations. Higher clocks can increase the instructions per second to a level that nullifies the difference.

 

[newtekie1]

I was referring to Pentium 4/Pentium D, not the "Pentium Dual-Core" of today. No offense but Pentium of today has been degraded to Celeron status. They are practically interchangeable.

I was talking in present day terms, when someone makes a comment, that is what I expect they are talking about. And the Celeron's of today are certainly not the Celeron's of yesteryear. And quite frankly, I would take a Celeron Dual Core over a Pentium D any day. As for the Pentium Dual-Core's being pretty much Celerons of today, I agree. In fact, I've said this since before the E2100 series was even released: http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=20105&p=187004

Instructions per Cycle (IPC) * Cycles per Second (Hz) = Instructions per Second (I/s)

That equation is the great processor equalizer. Celerons and Semperons have pathetic IPC. For theoretical sake, lets say it is just 2 IPC (this is a very liberal) and use your given speed of 2.0 GHz. That gives use the following:

2 IPC * 2.0 GHz = 4.0 GI/s

The Core 2 is in the neighborhood of 3 IPC and let's go with the same clockspeed of 2.0 GHz:

3 IPC * 2.0 GHz = 6.0 GI/s

Theoretically, your processor at 2.4 GHz grants you the following:

2 IPC * 2.4 GHz = 4.8 GI/s

As you can see, still well under the Core 2 processor. Realize that overclocking results in a higher frequency of errors and a lower IPC as a result. Assuming these IPC figures are correct (not certain on Celeron), you'd need to have your clockspeed at 3.0 GHz to match a Core 2 at 2.0 GHz.

Why I think the IPC of Celeron/Pentium is much lower is because Pentium 3, Pentium 4, Athlon XP, Athlon 64, Pentium M, Core 2, Core, and Athlon 64 X2 are all extremely responsive on an OS released at about the same time. The ones that have consistently stood out as not being responsive are the likes of Pentium, Celeron, Semperon, and Duron. Because of their tiny caches, their IPCs are at least half if not lower.

The main shortcoming of these cheaper processors is a much smaller cache. Benchmarks typically don't show this because they are designed to work with small caches. Where it becomes blatantly obvious is in tasks that require larger caches (like games) and simple day to day operations. Higher clocks can increase the instructions per second to a level that nullifies the difference.

Most of this is not accurate. The IPC on the Celeron's(E1000 series) and Core 2 Duos are the same. Which makes most of what you have argued inaccurate. The main difference is that due to the smaller cache size, there are more cache misses, so time and instructions have to be wasted waiting for the information to be transferred.

This means that in programs that are largely cache independant, the Celeron will perform pretty similar to the Core 2 Duo.Mainly this is anything that doesn't involve a lot of data movement, office apps and such fall into this category, which is why these processors are often used in machines that are inteded for office tasks.

Benchmarking definitely picks up on the lower cache hindering performance, especially gaming benchmarking. But again, it depends on the benchmark being run.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Most of this is not accurate. The IPC on the Celeron's(E1000 series) and Core 2 Duos are the same. Which makes most of what you have argued inaccurate. The main difference is that due to the smaller cache size, there are more cache misses, so time and instructions have to be wasted waiting for the information to be transferred.

Cache misses = few instructions successfully completed per clock = fewer instructions completed per second. Whenever a component of a processor is waiting, it is a works against the IPC count and inherently, I/s count.