08-03-2009 10:39 PM
Anyone offer some advise on two different processors in low-end laptops I am considering for simple web surfing, email, occasional spreadsheets and music downloads. Intel Celeron 900 vs. the AMD Athlon 64 TF-20. Is either one of these much better than the other?
Solved! Go to Solution.
08-03-2009 10:53 PM
The AMD Athlon is going to offer better performance than the Intel Celeron.
08-03-2009 11:15 PM
Adam is right with this comparison. the Intel Celeron 900 was severly cut down from it's higher end bretheren in terms of it's FSB speeds and cache, thus allowing the Athlon 64 you mentioned to in the end be faster. I wouldn't compare it to an upper-end Pentium Dual Core or a Core 2 Duo by any means, however.
08-03-2009 11:17 PM
Exactly, and for the small price difference I would go with a Dual Core or Core 2 processor.
08-03-2009 11:24 PM
if you are looking for a decent computer with a Core 2 Duo it in, check out HP's DV4 & 5 line. If those are a bit out of your range, check out the HP G60s. They carry the higher-marked Pentium Dual Cores.
08-03-2009 11:36 PM
08-04-2009 12:01 AM
Does it matter that the Celeron is a 2.2 GHz processor w/800MHz FSB and the AMD Athlon is a 1.6 GHz processor w/ only 667 MHz FSB. To me (the not-so-techno guy) it would seem this Celeron would perform better than the Athon? What am I missing?
08-04-2009 12:07 AM
Intel and AMD measure their clock speeds differently being their manfucaturing processes are different. The best way to determine is to actually see performance benchmarks of the two processors. From experience, Intel usually supercedes AMD but in this case with the comparison of the two, AMD is the winner here.
The Intel processor may have a "faster" clock speed but the ability to fetch and give information to the processor to .... process .... is faster with the AMD.
I hope that helps.