Celeron Vs Dual Core

Go with the dual cores. It might cost a bit more but i the long run it's worth it.

 

You can't really compare a Celeron and Core2Duo. They are two different CPU's ,by this I mean that the Celeron is old technology and the "C2D" is new technology created for a new age of Mircosoft Vista computers.

A Core2Duo T7300 1.83 Ghz is better and faster than a Celeron M543 1.86 Ghz, because its optimised and more efficient in design.

Its a bit like buying cars. An old car might have a bigger engine but a new car will normally beat the old one because its been designed to be economic.

 

wrong, even if vista wasn't released(what i hoped for), the processor still would have been released :|
It was released just because PIV was released after PIII-the demand for faster processors

not only design *cough *cough, It also has 2 cores

Hmm...not really...a Maruti 800 gives better mileage than a newer Honda City and maintenance costs are pretty less

 

Yes, I agree. I think most people in the world will agree as well.

 

Didn't knew that, thanks for the info mate

yea buddy, my thumb's up for a Core2Duo !!

lol, naughty boy !!

thanks mate, thanks to all your replies, i now know the difference between the two

Thanks mate, thanks for the explanation !
what's with the Core2Duo T5550 1.83 Ghz, is it good?

absolutely, unanimous core2duo verdict here

What do you guy's thing of a LG notebook??, is it good? or does it have any issues?

 

Quad core kicks all their asses

 

Not really....not with the current applications.
Only a few softwares are able to fully utilize the 4 cores of the quadcore processor, for most normal usage and gaming, it doesn't give much of a performace increase than core2duo's
But yea, if you want a future-proof processor, that's the one to look for

 

dual core for sure. no comparison really.

 

anyone got any experience with a LG notebook?

 

The LG laptop in the pic looks sick, whats the name of that and how much does it cost?

 

I would definitely go with a dual core. Far superior and depreciates less.

 

i am using and like dual core very much.it is just great havent used celeron till now.i am thinking of upgrading to core 2 duo or xeon.

 

every celeron i ever used sucked ...

 

Celeron is cheap, Dual Core is not even a type of processor, there are many type of dual cores from different companies
Quad Core kills both of them anyway
and in the future so does 8 core

 

lol yeah, the pic ain't glamorous (minus the model!), but it's good .
That's a LG Xnote S900-G.CPB1A2

Intel Core2Duo T7300 (1.83 GHZ/667 MHz/2 MB Cache),
2 GB DDR2 RAM, 250 GB SATA HDD,
19" Wide TFT,
4 USB,
1.3 mpx cam,.
thats around a grand, $1080 to be exact!!

lol, sounds like you speak from experience.

how do you check on a "genuine" Intel Core2Duo?

 

celeron is cheap and good enough for normal home use..

 

I've got a Dual Core laptop myself.

 

Since no one has given a technical answer yet, let me explain exactly what the key differences are.

First, the Celeron has always been the budget line, in that they are stripped down versions of the current Intel processors. For example, an early Celeron was simply a rebranded Pentium III with either half the cache and/or a reduced bus speed. That trend continued into the Pentium 4 era, and Celerons from that time period are nothing but Pentium 4s with less cache and/or reduced bus/processor speeds. Current Celerons are just the same, are now based on the Core microarchitecture, just like the Core 2 Duos.

The specs the original poster posted illustrate this. Look again and compare:
Intel Core2Duo T7300 (1.83 GHZ/667 MHz/2 MB Cache)
Intel Celeron M543 (1.86 GHz/533 MHz/1 MB Cache)

Both of those processors are based on the Core microarchitecture, however you'll notice the Celeron runs on a 533MHz frontside bus, and has half the cache as the Core 2 Duo you posted. Of course, another key difference is that the Celeron only has one core, while the other has 2 (but there are now dual core Celerons by the way.) The end result is that the Celeron will be a bit slower than the Core 2 Duo, but not by that big of an advantage.

Anyway, what that means to you in terms of performance is that todays low end Celerons actually are much better performance and benchmark wise than high end Athlon 64s and Pentium D processors.

I'm personally about having the best machine possible, which is why I don't have a laptop. I have a Core 2 Quad desktop with 6GBs of RAM!

 

Thanks for the reply mate

which make do you have?

Now that's a detailed explanation , thank you so much jquindlen.

I now have a better knowledge about the processors!!

Adding on to this, I heard Celeron chips never have a overheating issue!, is that true?
or does the overheating actually depend on
a).The amount of your usage or
b).Your HDD free space or
c).RAM, HDD mismatch

 

Core 2 duo are better than celeron.