Thread: What type of Processor to buy for my new rig ?

I am presently operating a Celeron Tualatin on my desktop.

I appeared this processor up and I read some quite disturbing things.

I have listened to that it is quite much an OC’ed rebranded PIII, is this true?

And I have been scheduling to build a new rig for a while now and I just got into video editing, what type of processor I should obtain from AMD for my new rig. My budget is under 700 USD.

my following specifications are

AMD Regor 240
DDR3 patriot 133 MHz RAM
gigabyte mobo AM3 HD4200
LG Optical drive
HIS Radeon 5750
Hanns-G monitor 21.5'
SATA II 250gb 7200 RPM
Corsair 450watt

Is hanns-g a reliable monitor product?

What is the disparity between SATA and SATA II? I recognize about the 6 GB/s data transfer rate of SATA II is twice of SATA but is it obvious?

I do not know your concern. Is the P3 Tualatin Celeron derived from the P3 Tualatin core? Yes, identical to the P4 Celerons were derived from the equivalent P4 micro architectures. OC’ed? The P3's were all multiplier locked and binned at their rated speeds. Rebranded? I do not recognize what you denote here. They are all Intel CPU's.

I signify, I considered my processor was enhanced than a PIII. By rebranded I destined was the Tualatin Celeron just an overlcocked PIII that git renamed as a Celeron because it was quicker but older?

I am essentially asking more information on this processor akin to what can it be utilized for today? And more information on its arch. If there is anything superior about this part of crap.

Dude why does it issue? Your saying you’re passed that your CPU is similar to a P3; well similar to us it yet sucks as a Celeron. lets say if it was akin to AMD quad core and you discovered it is really crappy triple core then there is sometime to be dissatisfied to be about.

It can run office functions. Tualatin was the last generation of P III and Celerons derived from them. Main difference was that the Tualatin P III had 133 MHz fsb and the Celerons 100 MHz. If the motherboard utilized for the Celerons supported 133 MHz people got 33% overclock on those Celerons just by lifting the fsb to 133.

Suggestion: you require 500w or above if you desire to run on quad core + 5700. 450w seems to be not sufficient.

PS: I memorize these Tualatin Celeron were once trumple the sale of Pentium 4 s423 based platform and some presentation can yet rival to high end Pentium 4 at the time...and more influential and efficient than p4 Celeron w128.

You’re speaking that the PIII Celeron is really spirited to the P4?

And thanks for the suggestion, its funny people were speaking an efficient 450 watt should be well but thanks for the input.

Tualatin core was hocked p4's sale actually bad until Intel stops it. A Celeron 1 GHz will take a p4 Northwood at 1.6 GHz to compete the presentation. Willamette will have to OC’ed to 2.4 GHz to tie the disparity. So far that Celeron you have was the best processor for money at the time (2000-2002) it completely beat p4 at cost/presentation. But of cause Tualatin p3 is far more than Celeron and yet beat Athlon in many benchmarks.

Could you detailed more on why this is so superior? Like microach, cache and how it was equal to strike a P4?

Tualatin Celeron has 64 k l1 (32k+32k), 256k /512k (Pentium 3) l2 evaluate to Willamette Pentium 4's 8k l1 + 12kuops trace engine, 256k l2. Coppermine’s 32k l1 (16k+16k), 256k l2, Tualatin hand down.

For bus, Tualatin is essentially the same as Coppermine in I/O buss as that limit Pentium 3's bandwidth greatly. Pentium 4 trumple Pentium 3 in quad data rate of 400 MHz evaluate to p3's single channel. But Pentium 3 was moderately cheap and maintains the same presentation with p4 that is in much higher clock rate with narrow bandwidth.