cheaper manufacturing process. better 'architecture' in the pentium. generally speaking pentium = faster celeron = not as fast. still not a bad chip for the price. tho the duron (the amd athlon's similar 'little brother') is cheaper still.
If you are going cheap get an AMD. Celerons are menna be much much slower than an AMD for the same price.
get an AMD, they are better. my machine before this (Now AMD 2.4), was a celeron, and it was slow as....they have got hardly any cache....so are generally slower per op....
Celerons are terrible m8 , ive had a few pentiums as well as a celeron but they are just no where near as good as amd's imho , athlon 2000xp's are going for next to nowt now but ive uve got plenty money buy the fastest u can afford , if your upgradeing your m/b at the same time its worth spending a bit more on one instead of going for the cheapest option !!! ...fidds...
My new pc is going to be amd 2.6 which but this is strange 2.5 are better. Try get that round your heads
the number in the name of the AMD processors bear no resemblence to the actual speed it runs at. i've got an AMD XP2100, runs at something like 1.7/1.8.
Dont get a celeron... you'll deeply regret it. Best of the budget processors right now is the Athlon XP2500 (Barton) - cost about 50-60 quid these days.
what's a good all round package then, geeks? i'm not buying it till after xmas, due to the price drop after xmas.. i need a pc for general purpose stuff.. editing the odd photo, but normal sized ones, not anything fancy..
