What do you all think of Intel's Celeron processor? I think they STINK. Our laptop and desktop both have celerons, and neither of them are very fast. My Pentium 4 laptop runing at 650mhz loaded Winows XP faster than either of the other two that are running at 2.6 and 2.4ghz. I won't buy a Celeron again if I can help it.
I was never brave enough to try a Celeron. I opted instead to switch to AMD. I have been happy with the two I have had so far.
BTW, some of the early Celerons were supposedly faster than comparable Pentium chips. I think Intel "corrected" that a long time ago though.
Many years ago I had a Celeron 500MHz jobbie and that worked very nicely. It was slower than a P4 for graphics manipulation, but for general use it was fine. But, bearing in mind I moved to the Celeron from a 66Mhz dx486 it seemed super-whizzo at the time!
I don't know about the newer Celerons though. I too have heard that Intel "fixed" the problem of them being too fast and competing with Pents.
Wow, I havent used the Celeron in ages you can say. But have you tried the Celeron D 64 Bit, Its amazing that a 64 Bit Processor is amazingly cheap, I can get it for $59 for a 2.13 GHZ.
|copilot wrote: |
|My Pentium 4 laptop runing at 650mhz |
I did not know they made P4s that ran at that low of frequencies... Most P3s are much faster than 650mhz.
I agree Celerons suck. They are total pieces of trash.
Hmm, I thought Pentium 4's came out starting around 1.4GHz ? I think that below that is Pentium 3's down to 450MHz, then from 450MHz, it's the Pentium 2's.
Anyhow, I agree, I don't like Celerons. If I got a computer cheap (at a thrift store or at a garage sale for some insanely cheap price, or even better, for free), then it's not much of a big deal. If I were to go to a store and buy a Celeron laptop or desktop, I would refuse.
What you pay for is what you get. If you pay for a cheap Celeron, that's what it's always going to be. I would stay with a Pentium machine, or something better that they have nowadays.
About 98% of my machines around here are Pentium's or something better, the remaining 2% are Celerons.
celeron's just don't have the L2 cache... not to mention slower freqs...
My Celerons compare quite well to their Pentium counterparts. I don't notice much difference between a Celeron 266MHz and a Pentium II 233MHz. When it comes to a Celeron 500MHz and a Pentium III 450MHz, I do notice some difference, but it's not a lot.
Apparently Intel changed that with the newer Celerons.
I owned a Celeron 800 (FSB: 100 MHz) till around 3 years back then decided to upgrade my PC to an Intel P4... Anyways, I was cheated. I went in for a P3 but instead got a Celeron. Back then I didnt know much about processors.
As far as I can tell you, it wasnt that bad as compared to the P3 processors. It had a lower L2 cache(just 128 KB) but as such performance wise, it was able to compete with the P3 processors. Anyways, it was good at overclocking too. I was able to clock it over 1 GHz. And for me cache didnt matter that much as I used my PC for gaming mostly and I had a decent AGP card... And what I had learnt was that, the lower the cache, the better the processor is for overclocking. And back then I was an overclocking freak.... or atleast I wanted to be one.
But as such go to see, I would recommened a person to buy an AMD processor instead of a Celeron.
By the way copilot, I never heard of a P4 processor running at 650 MHz before? What I know is that laptop processors are clocked at a lower frequency to save power. So was the P4 just a typo or is it really a P4 which runs at 650 MHz?
Absence of cache is the primary differentiating factor between a celeron and a Pentium of the same generation and similar core.
However, the recent Celerons "D" processors have 256KB of cache memory ...Probably because AMD put 256KB L2 on some of their budget CPUs
I bought one for my brother (upgrading from a P3 866Mhz) and now he runs XP and can even play Age of Empires 3 at decent resolutions.
Not bad at all for a processor that cost me around $70 here (the same processor costs around $40 in USA).
I stopped using Intel processors since 2001 when I bought my first AMD. It was a 1300 MHz Athlon Thunderbird. Last year I assembled a new PC with an Athlon 64 3500+.
I think that Celeron processors can't beat any Pentium 4 but they are very good when rapporting to quality/price. Don't forget that you can get a dualcore cpu for less than 80$.
If you prefer outstanding performances choose a Pentium, else go for a Celeron surely: even if they are slower, take in mind that today cpus will satisfactorily do almost every job.
I have a Celeron Processor (2.4GHz) on another computer. And I agree, it's performance is not good. Though, it's on a budget, so you get what you pay for. There are some small 3D games it can handle, though slowly. But, like I said, it's a CPU on a budget. Also, as I know of, older Celerons actually had a decent speed, though I think that changed with newer ones. Anyway, for basic computing, the Celeron is fine.
That isn't a pentium 4 running at 650mhz. That would more likly be a pentium 3.
The reason Celerons are so bad is because they have lowered cache and the cpu can't process all the data at once like a pentium 4 could.
For example let use our imagination. I will be the pentium 4 running at 2.2ghz. You can be the Celeron running at 3.0ghz. You run 0.8ghz faster then me.
So you are faster then I am at running, but you can only run so much before you slow down for a while. While I can keep running. So even though you are faster. You have to take more breaks then I do.
Not the best sinarieo but it gives you an idea.
Yeah, my 650 mhz is a P3. I made a mistake. I knew that P4's didn't run that slow, so I don't know why I put that.
Celeron really stink. I know this well because i am working on a celeron. Celeron is passe.
That is why we buy from Mac where even the low quality Macs still have a lot of power