Are Pentium, Celeron, & Atom CPUs used in modern-day computers as low in performance as those same-named CPUs of old? (laptops, desktop)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
QUESTION: Are Pentium, Celeron, & Atom CPUs used in modern-day (year 2016) computers as low in performance as those same-named CPUs of old?
I myself am a many-decades computing and electronics user and techie-type and I know I can take it upon myself to do much voluminous research on the web to try to tease out the correct answer(s) to my question. But I want to ask YOU other true techie-types as well, based on your own true knowledge and experiences, the following question:
A host of modern day (year 2016) laptops and desktops, typically of measurably lower-cost, are offered that, instead of having Intel Core i7 or i5 or i3 (or their AMD equivalents), offer what they label a "Pentium" or a "Celeron" or an "Atom" processor. At first, I'd think to myself "Why in God's name would the manufacturers offer computers for modern-day 21st-century users that use such ancient prehistoric CPUs such as these? Who could ever tolerate their very sub-par performance level and capabilities for our modern-day needs?"
Yet I've been thinking that maybe it is the case that these present-day (Year 2016) CPUs that are designated as a "Pentium" or a "Celeron" or an "Atom" may not be the same creatures as the "Pentiums" or "Celerons" or "Atoms" of old from 10 or 20 or 30 years or more ago but may be rather that much better (maybe even significantly better?) in their performance levels and capabilities than those same-named processors of old. IS THIS, IN FACT, A TRUE SUPPOSITION ON MY PART or IS IT NOT TRUE?
I own multiple laptops now and some I may replace (I like having a 2nd and even a 3rd laptop to own as fallback units but I don't want to use any laptop with utterly intolerable performance and much-less-than-optimal capabilities (heck, even an Intel Core i3, of which I own one such laptop now, doesn't impress me too much with its lower-than-ideal performance). Unless YOU YOURSELF are severely constrained financially-speaking and therefore are forced to opt for a lower-end laptop having a "Pentium" or "Celeron" or "Atom" processor because of its lower-end price, would YOU YOURSELF otherwise not choose to get any modern-day (Year 2016) laptop which is Pentium-based or Celeron-based or Atom-based laptop but instead ONLY go for at least an Intel Core i3 or, even better yet, an Intel Core i5 or Core i7 (or AMD equivalent)? Wouldn't you yourself think that even the best modern-day (Year 2016) "Pentium" or "Celeron" or "Atom" processor is still nowhere near even the performance league of even the Intel Core i3 (and, at that, a Core i3 processor doesn't impress me too much with its overall performance) and hence is most certainly even that much way, way lesser in performance than an Intel Core i5 or Core i7?
Well there were no Atoms back in the day. Those are new and are really more for tablet type computers.
Yes, Celeron's still exist and they are exactly what they were back in the day: crippled Pentium chips.
Any of the i processors, even the 3, labeled 6th generation are what you want today. The i3 is a dual core. The i5 CAN be a dual, but are generally 4's. And the i7 is the creme de la creme. The i5 is an excellent choice, though. No need to shy away from that one. Personally I would only buy an Intel i5 or i7. My laptop is a 4th gen i7 and my desktop is a 6th gen i7. I also have a Windows tablet with an Atom.
Of course it does depend on what you want to do with it.
Well there were no Atoms back in the day. Those are new and are really more for tablet type computers.
Yes, Celeron's still exist and they are exactly what they were back in the day: crippled Pentium chips.
Any of the i processors, even the 3, labeled 6th generation are what you want today. The i3 is a dual core. The i5 CAN be a dual, but are generally 4's. And the i7 is the creme de la creme. The i5 is an excellent choice, though. No need to shy away from that one. Personally I would only buy an Intel i5 or i7. My laptop is a 4th gen i7 and my desktop is a 6th gen i7. I also have a Windows tablet with an Atom.
Of course it does depend on what you want to do with it.
Thank you for your response, Peregrine.
Actually, back in early-to-mid-2008, I bought one of the very first "netbooks" (an Acer Aspire One AOA150-1570 Netbook) and it came with an Atom processor and nearly all other prevalent netbooks did as well. So the Atom was not invented with the advent of tablets but was even in use that much earlier when so-called "netbooks" were first introduced. And there ARE modern-day lor-cost laptops (perhaps even some desktops too?) that run some generation of Atom processor but that is reflected in their low-ish price (e.g., $179 to $200 or $225 for such a laptop).
I have a self-constructed ASUS-based tower PC desktop with an Intel Core i7 (which appears, to me, to be based on the "Sandy Bridge" microarchitecture . . . an earlier Core i7 microarchitecture) and can take 32GB of RAM maximum. The point is that one would think that a Core i7 would be a very very speedy performer and yet the system really drags at times (often enough) even with other optimum hardware components (though not using an SSD booting drive yet). I've come to realize that it is not enough to simply have an Intel Core i7 but rather one should aim to have a LATER-GENERATION (if not THE latest-generation) Core i7. I believe the i7, stated in chronological order of historical introduction, was based on "Nehalem", then later "Westmere", then later "Sandy Bridge", then later "Ivy Bridge", then later "Haswell", then later "Broadwell", and then later the "Skylake" microarchitectures (per this writing in the last quarter of 2016) . . . and a Sandy Bridge-based microarchitecture such as my presently-installed CPU is that much lower in performance than a Skylake or even or Broadwell or Haswell architecture. The point is that, analogous to my just-given example of the Core i7 processor, likewise, if one is to have a laptop based on a Pentium or Celeron or Atom, one should aim to get the very-latest generation of that processor with the most cores or else one is very likely to be well disappointed in the performance.
I don't even want to deal with an Intel Core i5 if I can help it but would rather have an Intel Core i7 and then ideally one based on the latest-generation Skylake architecture.
simple answer is to passmark any CPU on any system you are looking at buying. Getting a QUAD CORE makes a huge difference in something like a laptop versus a dual core, and often if you shop around you can find quad core systems on sale for about the same money.
I got my mother to return her dual core after she was disappointed at how poorly it played agar.io which is a more CPU intensive game.. the quad core she got had a better monitor (less backlight bleed) and better keyboard as extra perks, for the same price while running the game smoothly.
You are better off spending $100-200 more to get 2X or 4X the speed. Like EVERYWHERE in life there's a middle ground of bang for the buck that will get you the most for your money and leave you satisfied with your purchase without breaking the bank.
The hard drive speed is the weakest link in any modern setup, followed by lack of RAM which should no longer be an issue as most modern systems come with 8GB or more and ram is cheap. My 2600K boots slower but still plenty fast with the old SATA SSD but the system itself is plenty fast, of course it's overclocked to 4.5 GHZ. The 6600K skylake system is running a SATA based M.2 drive and boots blazingly fast.. in seconds. Had I spent the extra money on a PCI Express based M.2 drive it probably would go faster yet.
The big reason Sandy Bridge is slower is because they aren't clocked as high by default.. Skylakes and Haswells will clock by default closer to 4.0 GHZ and some turbo higher then that, whereas a 2600K sandy bridge clocks at 3.4 with a turbo to 3.8 but is fully capable of running at 4.3 to 4.6.. I've been at 4.5 for a few years now. The IPC boost from Sandy Bridge to Skylake is roughly 25%.. not enough for me to justify a new gaming rig when it works perfectly fine.. I only built this 6600K I have as a favor to my mother otherwise I'd still have a second sandy bridge build in my bedroom.
simple answer is to passmark any CPU on any system you are looking at buying. Getting a QUAD CORE makes a huge difference in something like a laptop versus a dual core, and often if you shop around you can find quad core systems on sale for about the same money.
I got my mother to return her dual core after she was disappointed at how poorly it played agar.io which is a more CPU intensive game.. the quad core she got had a better monitor (less backlight bleed) and better keyboard as extra perks, for the same price.
You are better off spending $100-200 more to get 2X or 4X the speed. Like EVERYWHERE in life there's a middle ground of bang for the buck that will get you the most for your money and leave you satisfied with your purchase without breaking the bank.
Yet would say that even the very best specced QUAD CORE Pentium or Celeron or Atom (if QUAD CORE versions do, in fact, exist for each of these named CPU types) would still not be in the league of even a basic-level Intel Core i3 CPU (and then most certainly not be comparable to an i5 or i7 or any generation)? That even a QUAD CORE Pentium or Celeron or Atom CPU will be quite noticeably sub-par in performance and capability when compared to even a basic-level Core i3?
Atom is only used in mobile devices, tablets, smartphones and things like that so it's hard to make an apples-to-apples comparison to the kind of devices that would be in an i3 or higher CPU.
As far as comparing Celeron, Pentium and the i3 and up, you can find charts online that compare a large variety of CPUs.
Celeron and Pentium are pretty far down the list. Even though they don't benchmark the the latest chips it's a safe bet that the best performance will be from a i3 or greater.
Atom is only used in mobile devices, tablets, smartphones and things like that so it's hard to make an apples-to-apples comparison to the kind of devices that would be in an i3 or higher CPU.
As far as comparing Celeron, Pentium and the i3 and up, you can find charts online that compare a large variety of CPUs.
Celeron and Pentium are pretty far down the list. Even though they don't benchmark the the latest chips it's a safe bet that the best performance will be from a i3 or greater.
Thank you for this useful info.
Actually, Atom CPUs are, in fact, offered in various modern-day (Year 2016) laptops (not just in tablets or smartphones).
Believe me brother I am well versed in processor talk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsAll
Actually, back in early-to-mid-2008, I bought one of the very first "netbooks" (an Acer Aspire One AOA150-1570 Netbook) and it came with an Atom processor and nearly all other prevalent netbooks did as well. So the Atom was not invented with the advent of tablets but was even in use that much earlier when so-called "netbooks" were first introduced. And there ARE modern-day lor-cost laptops (perhaps even some desktops too?) that run some generation of Atom processor but that is reflected in their low-ish price (e.g., $179 to $200 or $225 for such a laptop).
When I say "back in the day" I am referring to when the Celerons came out... the early 00's. There were no Atoms back then. And there aren't really any Netbooks today, so it still stands: Atoms are for phones and tablets.
I did screw up describing my equipment. My laptop is a 5th Gen i7 and my desktop is a 7th gen.
Quote:
The point is that, analogous to my just-given example of the Core i7 processor, likewise, if one is to have a laptop based on a Pentium or Celeron or Atom, one should aim to get the very-latest generation of that processor with the most cores or else one is very likely to be well disappointed in the performance.
I don't even want to deal with an Intel Core i5 if I can help it but would rather have an Intel Core i7 and then ideally one based on the latest-generation Skylake architecture.
I have to COMPLETELY disagree with you. ONLY a POWER USERNEEDS an i7. *FACT*
I PROMISE you, Aunt Edna is not going to be bitching to you because her 7th gen i3 laptop isn't loading Pinterest fast enough. The i5 Skylake isn't just GOOD ENOUGH. It is EXCELLENT. This is the budget GAMERS processor. You would not even notice the difference playing Gears Of War between an i5 and an i7.
(For the non gamers: GoW is one of THE latest video games that really pushes a modern system).
I am not trying to talk you out of the i7, obviously. If you can AFFORD the best... get the best. But if you cannot? -or- If you simply don'tWANT to spend AS much?
A current i5 is not just a good choice, it is an excellent choice. Some would actually say, similar to the current feelings out there about Nvidia's GFX chipsets, the price to performance ratio is better with an i5.
This is similar to how most experts, myself included, recommend the Nvidia 1070 chipset to most gamers, and not the 1080. For what you pay extra (nearly double), the performance gain is like 15%. 1.7 times the price for + 15% performance = only for the wealthy.
The price difference between the i5 and i7 aren't as drastic, but the basic principle stands.
As for "Atom powering modern 2016 laptops", show me one that a) isn't a wannabe tablet (not a "convertible" or a 2 in 1) b) runs Windows not ChromeOS. The Atom is a low power chip. It doesn't make sense to put it into a normal sized laptop for power or heat/space savings...
Even the skinniest premium laptops still use "PROPER" proccy's.
Believe me brother I am well versed in processor talk.
When I say "back in the day" I am referring to when the Celerons came out... the early 00's. There were no Atoms back then. And there aren't really any Netbooks today, so it still stands: Atoms are for phones and tablets.
I did screw up describing my equipment. My laptop is a 5th Gen i7 and my desktop is a 7th gen.
I have to COMPLETELY disagree with you. ONLY a POWER USERNEEDS an i7. *FACT*
I PROMISE you, Aunt Edna is not going to be bitching to you because her 7th gen i3 laptop isn't loading Pinterest fast enough. The i5 Skylake isn't just GOOD ENOUGH. It is EXCELLENT. This is the budget GAMERS processor. You would not even notice the difference playing Gears Of War between an i5 and an i7.
(For the non gamers: GoW is one of THE latest video games that really pushes a modern system).
I am not trying to talk you out of the i7, obviously. If you can AFFORD the best... get the best. But if you cannot? -or- If you simply don'tWANT to spend AS much?
A current i5 is not just a good choice, it is an excellent choice. Some would actually say, similar to the current feelings out there about Nvidia's GFX chipsets, the price to performance ratio is better with an i5.
This is similar to how most experts, myself included, recommend the Nvidia 1070 chipset to most gamers, and not the 1080. For what you pay extra (nearly double), the performance gain is like 15%. 1.7 times the price for + 15% performance = only for the wealthy.
The price difference between the i5 and i7 aren't as drastic, but the basic principle stands.
As for "Atom powering modern 2016 laptops", show me one that a) isn't a wannabe tablet (not a "convertible" or a 2 in 1) b) runs Windows not ChromeOS. The Atom is a low power chip. It doesn't make sense to put it into a normal sized laptop for power or heat/space savings...
Even the skinniest premium laptops still use "PROPER" proccy's.
Well, although I sounded, in retrospect, like I was speaking for the entire population (e.g., when saying "one should do this" or "one should do that"), I was rather only speaking for myself. That is, I myself do happen to be a power user (the more power, the better) . . . I want speed, speed, speed, speed, speed!!! And hence I am, if financially capable at the time, willing to spend extra to get the most performance-capable and functionality-capable CPU (and other components) that I can. As I said in my earlier posting (in reference to you saying that an i5 is an excellent choice), I found even my Sandy-Bridge-based i7 desktop to be wanting enough times in performance. I will, if I can, aim to have a Skylake-based i7 next time.
For that matter, I read lately that Intel is planning on a new more-advanced microarchitecture beyond "Skylake" (to be called "Kaby Lake").
OK, so it sounds like you know what you want and for the most part know what you are talking about.
Is there a question here somewhere or are you just wanting to chat?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
