Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is Celeron D 2.53 GHz enough for office apps as a stopgap

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Celeron
  • Apps
  • Office
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 21, 2006 3:51:00 PM

Hello,

I am considering Celeron D 2.53 GHz as a stop gap arrangement till my CONROE arrives.

My work till then will mostly be office applications.

Please tell me if this CPU is enough for office apps.

Is the L2 128KB x 2 = 256 KB?

Will this be very sluggish?

More about : celeron ghz office apps stopgap

August 21, 2006 3:56:21 PM

It isn't going to be the fastest proc on the block, but it should suffice for office applications.

FYI, the L2 cache is 256K, and the processor is single core.
August 21, 2006 4:00:53 PM

If I am not wrong you want to spend only few $$ on it. I'd take an old 478 board, a 2GHz celeron (Northwood) and set FSB to 133: here you have more than the 2.53 celeron D.
I have done it with mine and works just fine; no overheating, super stable, everything stock :wink:
August 21, 2006 4:00:53 PM

I am sorry, I went by the name Celeron D and thought that it will be like a dual core like Pentium D.

thanks for letting me know.

Intel is very clever in its marketing.

Rgds,
August 21, 2006 4:03:59 PM

Quote:
Please tell me if this CPU is enough for office apps.

If by "office apps" you mean word processing and spreadsheets, then it should be more than enough.

Quote:
Is the L2 128KB x 2 = 256 KB?

No, the Celeron is single core so the L2 is 256KB.

Quote:
Will this be very sluggish?

Only if you are dealing with huge data files, or are running several apps at once.
August 21, 2006 4:05:25 PM

Slight problem: OP is waiting for Conroe, which is only LGA775... not skt478

BTW, the Northwood Celeron has ATROCIOUS performance, even with the FSB cranked up. A Celeron D at 2.4 (or less?) would outperform the Northwood Celeron at 2.8.
A Northwood Celeron at 2.66 would get steamrollered by the Celeron D at 2.53.
August 21, 2006 4:12:05 PM

Quote:
BTW, the Northwood Celeron has ATROCIOUS performance, even with the FSB cranked up. A Celeron D at 2.4 (or less?) would outperform the Northwood Celeron at 2.8.
A Northwood Celeron at 2.66 would get steamrollered by the Celeron D at 2.53.


This is true. I believe the Northwood had just 128KB L2 and a 400 FSB, while the D-series have 256/533.
August 21, 2006 4:16:28 PM

Will it fit on a CONROE ready mobo? Yep, it will.
Will it damage my costly 965 chipset based mobo if it heats a lot? ... Intel's P4-era CPUs don't "burn" motherboards, since they will throttle to prevent themselves from burning up, then turn off before any damage can occur. Unless you can find a way to disable the thermal diode, the CPU will shut down if it exceeds ~130C.
August 21, 2006 4:42:25 PM

Quote:
I am sorry, I went by the name Celeron D and thought that it will be like a dual core like Pentium D.

thanks for letting me know.

Intel is very clever in its marketing.


Rgds,
Shhhh!!!! We don't need another thread about this. :?
August 21, 2006 8:18:00 PM

Quote:
Slight problem: OP is waiting for Conroe, which is only LGA775... not skt478

BTW, the Northwood Celeron has ATROCIOUS performance, even with the FSB cranked up. A Celeron D at 2.4 (or less?) would outperform the Northwood Celeron at 2.8.
A Northwood Celeron at 2.66 would get steamrollered by the Celeron D at 2.53.


True, but if you OC you get the 533 bus and half the cache. Only in games and intensive apps the D model gets an edge for the same frequency.
However, in most cases they both suffer badly from the crippled cache while surprisinglt Semprons do not.
August 21, 2006 8:21:45 PM

Quote:
Slight problem: OP is waiting for Conroe, which is only LGA775... not skt478

BTW, the Northwood Celeron has ATROCIOUS performance, even with the FSB cranked up. A Celeron D at 2.4 (or less?) would outperform the Northwood Celeron at 2.8.
A Northwood Celeron at 2.66 would get steamrollered by the Celeron D at 2.53.


True, but if you OC you get the 533 bus and half the cache. Only in games and intensive apps the D model gets an edge for the same frequency.
However, in most cases they both suffer badly from the crippled cache while surprisinglt Semprons do not.Semprons were an early indication that cache didn't much matter on K8, thus AMD dropping the 1MB L2 models. They should have done this much earlier and saved some money.
August 21, 2006 8:28:32 PM

Yes, on the other handI wonder why it still does matter so much to Core2; it's no mure Netburst that requires a large cache to address to anytime it makes a wrong branching, right?
August 21, 2006 8:38:21 PM

Quote:
Yes, on the other handI wonder why it still does matter so much to Core2; it's no mure Netburst that requires a large cache to address to anytime it makes a wrong branching, right?


Is it anything to do with amd having an integrated memory controler and intel not having one??
August 21, 2006 8:45:18 PM

Don't think. It has to do with another aspect of CPU architecture but I don't know. The IMC just makes browsing RAM a bit faster but that's all I think.
August 21, 2006 8:46:58 PM

Quote:
Yes, on the other handI wonder why it still does matter so much to Core2; it's no mure Netburst that requires a large cache to address to anytime it makes a wrong branching, right?


Is it anything to do with amd having an integrated memory controler and intel not having one??

From what I've seen it has more to do with the old syle FSB vs Hyper transport. By having a larger cache Intel erases the latency advantage AMD has with its design, I guess in part this is due to the memory controller as well.
August 21, 2006 8:47:45 PM

Quote:
Yes, on the other handI wonder why it still does matter so much to Core2; it's no mure Netburst that requires a large cache to address to anytime it makes a wrong branching, right?
I would say it's because C2D doesn't have an IMC. The IMC's low latency seems to nullify any benefits of larger cache.
August 21, 2006 8:56:17 PM

That means that even semprons (S754) have an IMC?!
August 21, 2006 9:02:34 PM

Quote:
That means that even semprons (S754) have an IMC?!
Yes, they do.
August 21, 2006 9:05:46 PM

Celeron D is not a bad processor.It is much better than Northwood celeron , which had serious performance problems due to too small cache. I have a celeron D 2.4 GHz and can do almost everything , even play oblivion at playable frame rates with a relatively slow graphics card.

regards,
Lukas
!