• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

P4 vs Celeron M?

V

vat

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 21, 2005
Messages
343
Hello, I am planning to purchase a laptop and I was wondering wich processor is better? Is it a big gap between the two?
 
There's almost no performance difference between a Celeron M and Pentium M, and the Pentium M is a fairly decent CPU. I think a Dothan Celeron M is a great value chip, perhaps the best there ever was.
 
The Celeron M lacks the Pentium M's power saving features...it uses about 33% more power, so overall you'd probably get 10-15% more battery life with a Pentium M.
 
Thank you for the replies, I am not comparing P-M to Celeron-M but I am comparing P-4 vs Celeron. I have heard somewhere that Celeron-M is a little better than P-4. I don't know if that's true but I have someone could clarify that for me. Thanks
 
vat said:
Thank you for the replies, I am not comparing P-M to Celeron-M but I am comparing P-4 vs Celeron. I have heard somewhere that Celeron-M is a little better than P-4. I don't know if that's true but I have someone could clarify that for me. Thanks
Click to expand...

I'm assuming you made a typo at the end of that first sentence and meant to say "Celeron M" (otherwise the first sentence contradicts the second and the thread title).

It really depends what models you're comparing between the Celeron M and P4 and what you're doing. But for general use I'd say the Celeron M is better suited for a mobile setup than a P4 (or even a P4-M for that matter).
 
Yiffy said:
I'm assuming you made a typo at the end of that first sentence and meant to say "Celeron M" (otherwise the first sentence contradicts the second and the thread title).

It really depends what models you're comparing between the Celeron M and P4 and what you're doing. But for general use I'd say the Celeron M is better suited for a mobile setup than a P4 (or even a P4-M for that matter).
Click to expand...


Yes, you are correct, that was a typo. So I would be better off to get Celeron-M if I only use it for like Microsoft Office, watch DVDs, burn Cds, ect...? What's the benefit if you get P-M over Celeron-M? What P-M can do that Celeron can't do? I hope I am not asking to much, thank you.
 
vat said:
Yes, you are correct, that was a typo. So I would be better off to get Celeron-M if I only use it for like Microsoft Office, watch DVDs, burn Cds, ect...? What's the benefit if you get P-M over Celeron-M? What P-M can do that Celeron can't do? I hope I am not asking to much, thank you.
Click to expand...

It uses less power, runs faster, costs more.
 
vat said:
Yes, you are correct, that was a typo. So I would be better off to get Celeron-M if I only use it for like Microsoft Office, watch DVDs, burn Cds, ect...? What's the benefit if you get P-M over Celeron-M? What P-M can do that Celeron can't do? I hope I am not asking to much, thank you.
Click to expand...

Talonz pretty much summed it up.

The Celeron M isn't slow by any means either. I played the demanding canals level in HL2 on a Celeron M 340 (1.5Ghz/512KB L2/400FSB) and it was plenty smooth. Framerates never became unplayable. (High in game detail on a 9700Pro).

And there are faster Celeron M models too.
 
The Celeron M also has less cache than their Pentium 4/M brethren, but it doesn't seem to affect the Celeron M vs. Pentium 4 M as much as it does the Celeron vs. Pentium 4.

I use notebooks with Pentium 4 M, Pentium M, and Celeron chips. I have not tried a notebook with Celeron M chips though, but I hear they're a big improvement over the regular Celerons we saw a couple years ago.

In this day, for a notebook, I think the best choices are either Pentium M or Celeron M based ones. The Pentium 4 based ones consume more power and run hotter. One of the people I was overseas with had a P4 based notebook (not the mobile Pentium 4) and his probably ran 1.5 hours tops on his 9 cell battery (or 12 cell, I don't remember). My pentium M ran about 5 hours (screen brightness at around 40%) with the 8 cell battery. My pentium 4 M from 3 years back got about 3 hours of battery life from a full charge (battery has since died, too lazy/cheap to buy a $150 replacement).
 
perplex said:
how would a celeron M compare with xp 2400+ ?
Click to expand...

It would kill it with ease, clock for clock. You'd have to pinmod the Celeron M to run at a competitive frequency though.

Take the 370, pin mod, and voila! 15x133=1995MHz
Easily beats a K7.
 
The Pentium M does have speedstep, the Celeron M does not.

That does not mean the Pentium M consumes less power. Pentium M Dothans at their rated speeds uses about 1.34 volts. A Celeron M Dothan uses 1.26 volts at rated speed.

If you run your laptop at high CPU usage most of the time, the Celeron M actually will have lower power consumption than the Pentium M chip. If you laptop idles a lot, the Pentium M will have lower power consumption because it can step down to 0.988 volts and 600mhz fairly quickly. In general use though, they are very similar in power draw.

Its an undocumented feature, but you can *startup* a celeron M at 0.700 volts 600mhz and it will always consume less power than a Pentium M (as long as its not a LV or ULV model) unfortunately it will be stuck at that speed as it does not have the circuitry to ramp up to full speed and voltage.
 
so.. what's the price on these celeron M and the motherboard costs? how would it compare to a sempron 3300+ ? what are the clock speeds?
 
ZenOps said:
The Pentium M does have speedstep, the Celeron M does not.

That does not mean the Pentium M consumes less power. Pentium M Dothans at their rated speeds uses about 1.34 volts. A Celeron M Dothan uses 1.26 volts at rated speed.

If you run your laptop at high CPU usage most of the time, the Celeron M actually will have lower power consumption than the Pentium M chip. If you laptop idles a lot, the Pentium M will have lower power consumption because it can step down to 0.988 volts and 600mhz fairly quickly. In general use though, they are very similar in power draw.

Its an undocumented feature, but you can *startup* a celeron M at 0.700 volts 600mhz and it will always consume less power than a Pentium M (as long as its not a LV or ULV model) unfortunately it will be stuck at that speed as it does not have the circuitry to ramp up to full speed and voltage.
Click to expand...

QFT.

The one point I disagree with is that most laptops will be in idle mode for general use, so the P-M is a stronger choice for power consumption.
 
ZenOps said:
The Pentium M does have speedstep, the Celeron M does not.

That does not mean the Pentium M consumes less power. Pentium M Dothans at their rated speeds uses about 1.34 volts. A Celeron M Dothan uses 1.26 volts at rated speed.

If you run your laptop at high CPU usage most of the time, the Celeron M actually will have lower power consumption than the Pentium M chip. If you laptop idles a lot, the Pentium M will have lower power consumption because it can step down to 0.988 volts and 600mhz fairly quickly. In general use though, they are very similar in power draw.

Its an undocumented feature, but you can *startup* a celeron M at 0.700 volts 600mhz and it will always consume less power than a Pentium M (as long as its not a LV or ULV model) unfortunately it will be stuck at that speed as it does not have the circuitry to ramp up to full speed and voltage.
Click to expand...

So you can use a 6X multiplier on a Celeron M? Any links to this?
 
Some guy on Anandtech sells Celeron M's overclocked to 200 bus and 3.2ghz. He uses Asus mobo's and sells the combos very cheap. How would these stack up. He is Karaktu I think, his combos are famous.
 
Blinkme323 said:
Some guy on Anandtech sells Celeron M's overclocked to 200 bus and 3.2ghz. He uses Asus mobo's and sells the combos very cheap. How would these stack up. He is Karaktu I think, his combos are famous.
Click to expand...

he'd need to bundle the combo with some good old cascade phase change cooler ;)
what i mean is that it's definately not an M but more likely p4 mobile celeron..
 
Yiffy said:
So you can use a 6X multiplier on a Celeron M? Any links to this?
Click to expand...

Disable speedstep in the BIOS and the Banias will go to a 6x multiplier (600mhz). I bet the C-Ms will do the same with that process
 
Talonz said:
Disable speedstep in the BIOS and the Banias will go to a 6x multiplier (600mhz). I bet the C-Ms will do the same with that process
Click to expand...

sorry but celerons have only one multiplier..
no 6x or whatsoever.
as also first pentium Ms were banias then naturally they had mults down do 6x..
 
markku said:
sorry but celerons have only one multiplier..
no 6x or whatsoever.
as also first pentium Ms were banias then naturally they had mults down do 6x..
Click to expand...

Thanks markku, I guess you learn something new every day. I thought that the C-Ms would function similarly compared to my Banias :)
 
ZenOps said:
Its an undocumented feature, but you can *startup* a celeron M at 0.700 volts 600mhz and it will always consume less power than a Pentium M (as long as its not a LV or ULV model) unfortunately it will be stuck at that speed as it does not have the circuitry to ramp up to full speed and voltage.
Click to expand...

i have searched the web as a maniac and can´t find anything about this.. please tell us how to "startup" this...
 
I just bought a Celeron-M 350 (1.3GHz)

Installed it to the famous CT-479 with ASUS P4P800-SE desktop board, it runs smoothly @ 2.33GHz (180x13 @ 1.34v)

This baby rocks ass! Performs almost same as my Pentium M @ 2.4GHz (200x12)

It runs super Pi 1M for only 36s, same as a Pentium 4 3.75GHz

Yeah, Celeron-M's do perform great, but you have to at least let them running @ 133FSB (533 Effectively) otherwise the frequency is just too low for it to perform good
 
bought a cm 360J for ~35 bucks recently and did a little comparison pm vs cm, both at 2240MHz:
3dmark2001SE, cm 18820, pm 20135
superpi1M, cm 38.265sec, pm 34.029sec
superpi8M, cm 7min 53.250, pm 7min 08.076
hecus pifast, cm 54.54, pm 52.62
i always thought that cm performs just like banias, but it actually is just a bit worse.
the reason - like always with celerons, there's more to it than just smaller L2 cache -
whereas pm has l2 with 8-way assiociativity, cm has 4-way..
and that is the main reason celeron is slower, not the size of cache..

i could manage to oc celeron M all the way to 14x166(2324), with 1.3v and stock ct-479 cooler and it wouldn't oc not a single mhz further.. not even boot...
actually most of the celerons have 166 fsb limit.. those few 180s are quite rare..

cm now sits passively, using ct479 hs with no fan plugged in, in antec minuet case, on p4p800vm at 2.1ghz.. prime stable of course :)
 
markku said:
bought a cm 360J for ~35 bucks recently and did a little comparison pm vs cm, both at 2240MHz:
3dmark2001SE, cm 18820, pm 20135
superpi1M, cm 38.265sec, pm 34.029sec
superpi8M, cm 7min 53.250, pm 7min 08.076
hecus pifast, cm 54.54, pm 52.62
i always thought that cm performs just like banias, but it actually is just a bit worse.
the reason - like always with celerons, there's more to it than just smaller L2 cache -
whereas pm has l2 with 8-way assiociativity, cm has 4-way..
and that is the main reason celeron is slower, not the size of cache..

i could manage to oc celeron M all the way to 14x166(2324), with 1.3v and stock ct-479 cooler and it wouldn't oc not a single mhz further.. not even boot...
actually most of the celerons have 166 fsb limit.. those few 180s are quite rare..

cm now sits passively, using ct479 hs with no fan plugged in, in antec minuet case, on p4p800vm at 2.1ghz.. prime stable of course :)
Click to expand...

I was wishing someone would post something like this many posts ago. Great info and thank you!

Donnie27
 
The Celeron M I got is revision C0, just like those PM 7x0 's

That's why it can sustain a higher FSB. BTW now tried few thing never tried before: Use stock voltage (1.264) and it works very stable @ 180x13 too :eek: Amazed.

I tried to use both CPU to play the AVC H.264 video demo "The Greatest Games"

Both CPUs clocked at 133x13 = 1.73 and then CM @ 180x13 = 2.33 vs PM @ 200x12 = 2.4

The CM's very laggy when playing the video @ 1.73 (dropped > 100 Frames) and a bit laggy @ 2.33 (dropped 5 Frames, probably counted as tolerance).

The PM's slightly better in 1.73 (dropped 76 Frames) and very smooth not dropping any frame @ 2.4GHz

Anyother test I've done yesterday is 3dmark 2001, with a stock speed 6800GT AGP

PM 1.73: 20644
PM 2.40: 25132
CM 2.33: 22602

Pi: PM 1.73: 43s, PM 2.4: 31s, CM 2.33: 36s

This is it, CM's performance about equals PM's performance x 0.9

a 90% performance of a PM, not bad
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top