Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

New Celeron D Performance

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 30, 2006 11:08:12 PM

I was thinking about getting a Celeron D 347 for my sub computer

Its going to be used for light gaming with a 7600gs and a gig of ram

its is a 65nm and 512kb l2
and I also heard it is a Conroe-L core or something and runs REALLY cool.

Ive also heard that they are really good for the price

how is it??

More about : celeron performance

November 30, 2006 11:22:46 PM

That's a netburst cpu... not conroe

Cedar mill, 512K, 65nm.
December 1, 2006 1:21:13 AM

w/e it is
how is it
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
December 1, 2006 1:43:45 AM

Celeron D-65? ~=Northwood no HT, possibly slower.

:-( for gaming
:-) for office stuff

At least move up to the E6300 for gaming, otherwise you'd be better off buying AMD Athlon64 single core.
December 1, 2006 1:49:25 AM

Quote:
At least move up to the E6300 for gaming, otherwise you'd be better off buying AMD Athlon64 single core.


agreed.
December 2, 2006 8:09:02 AM

Quote:
Celeron D-65? ~=Northwood no HT, possibly slower.

:-( for gaming
:-) for office stuff

At least move up to the E6300 for gaming, otherwise you'd be better off buying AMD Athlon64 single core.

Yes, Celerons suck in gaming and overall cpu intensive jobs and when they say a CPU is good for office apps, then it's good for nothing. Even in price celerons D don't compete well, the cheapest range $40-50 while you stil have S754 semprons @ $30-40 performing much better.
December 2, 2006 8:09:20 AM

Quote:
Celeron D-65? ~=Northwood no HT, possibly slower.

:-( for gaming
:-) for office stuff

At least move up to the E6300 for gaming, otherwise you'd be better off buying AMD Athlon64 single core.

Yes, Celerons suck in gaming and overall cpu intensive jobs and when they say a CPU is good for office apps, then it's good for nothing. Even in price celerons D don't compete well, the cheapest range $40-50 while you stil have S754 semprons @ $30-40 performing much better.
December 2, 2006 8:10:01 AM

Quote:
Celeron D-65? ~=Northwood no HT, possibly slower.

:-( for gaming
:-) for office stuff

At least move up to the E6300 for gaming, otherwise you'd be better off buying AMD Athlon64 single core.

Yes, Celerons suck in gaming and overall cpu intensive jobs and when they say a CPU is good for office apps, then it's good for nothing. Even in price celerons D don't compete well, the cheapest range $40-50 while you stil have S754 semprons @ $30-40 performing much better.
December 2, 2006 8:13:58 AM

Quote:
Celeron D-65? ~=Northwood no HT, possibly slower.

:-( for gaming
:-) for office stuff

At least move up to the E6300 for gaming, otherwise you'd be better off buying AMD Athlon64 single core.

Yes, Celerons suck in gaming and overall cpu intensive jobs and when they say a CPU is good for office apps, then it's good for nothing. Even in price celerons D don't compete well, the cheapest range $40-50 while you stil have S754 semprons @ $30-40 performing much better.
December 2, 2006 8:23:45 AM

Quote:
Celeron D-65? ~=Northwood no HT, possibly slower.

:-( for gaming
:-) for office stuff

At least move up to the E6300 for gaming, otherwise you'd be better off buying AMD Athlon64 single core.

Yes, Celerons suck in gaming and overall cpu intensive jobs and when they say a CPU is good for office apps, then it's good for nothing. Even in price celerons D don't compete well, the cheapest range $40-50 while you stil have S754 semprons @ $30-40 performing much better.
December 2, 2006 8:50:03 AM

Quadruple post plus 1 :) 
December 2, 2006 9:10:24 AM

Quote:
Celeron D-65? ~=Northwood no HT, possibly slower.

:-( for gaming
:-) for office stuff

At least move up to the E6300 for gaming, otherwise you'd be better off buying AMD Athlon64 single core.

Yes, Celerons suck in gaming and overall cpu intensive jobs and when they say a CPU is good for office apps, then it's good for nothing. Even in price celerons D don't compete well, the cheapest range $40-50 while you stil have S754 semprons @ $30-40 performing much better.

Is it tom's servers screwin around?
December 2, 2006 9:26:13 AM

I share the opinon like the rest of the discutants in this thread,
Celeron is the worst CPU for gaming, available on the market.
It's architecture is 31stage Netburst.
If your budget is tight and you need CPU for gaming, the best choice ise Athlon64 s939 3200+ or 3500+.
December 2, 2006 9:26:30 AM

I share the opinon like the rest of the discutants in this thread,
Celeron is the worst CPU for gaming, available on the market.
It's architecture is 31stage Netburst.
If your budget is tight and you need CPU for gaming, the best choice ise Athlon64 s939 3200+ or 3500+.
December 2, 2006 10:16:46 AM

Quote:
Quadruple post plus 1 :) 

Not my fault, I got someting like "An error ocured" after clicking submit :oops: 
and gOJDO seems to be on the same boat. Last night I couldn't even open the topics, any problems on the server?!
December 2, 2006 10:29:23 AM

I wish that the celeron series would die altogether. R.I.P. and NEVER come back.
December 2, 2006 10:47:21 AM

In performance they really have to, however, I'd rather like it to survive as name. It's much more romentic than 'Core2 Duo' or 'X6800' and I have good memories of my 333MHz and the Tualatins were nice stuff too. The whole P4 architecture was way too inefficient to make a good value CPU with cripled L2; mobile celerons ofer a much more decent poeformance.
December 2, 2006 11:02:03 AM

I love your quad-core posts hehehehe
December 2, 2006 11:20:29 AM

Quote:
I love your quad-core posts hehehehe

and state this on a celeron thread :lol: 
December 2, 2006 11:23:37 AM

am2 sempron cheaper, runs cooler, and probly performs better.
December 2, 2006 11:25:36 AM

Celerons suck not just for gaming but overall system performance is also appauling. A Celeron at 2ghz is about as good as a Pentium 3.
December 2, 2006 11:48:57 AM

Quote:
At least move up to the E6300 for gaming, otherwise you'd be better off buying AMD Athlon64 single core.


agreed.
Amd64 Single Cores are still great CPU especialy for the price...
As for Celerons. My first Cpu was a Celeron 885MZ... it was ok
But I have a friend.. he used to have a 1.8Celeron and it destroying his gaming.. He was play CS:S everything on low with 30FPS.
As for Semrpons... I loved my Sempron it was great. And it blew my friends OC'd Celeron out of the water..
December 2, 2006 11:49:57 AM

Quote:
At least move up to the E6300 for gaming, otherwise you'd be better off buying AMD Athlon64 single core.


agreed.
Amd64 Single Cores are still great CPU especialy for the price...
As for Celerons. My first Cpu was a Celeron 885MZ... it was ok
But I have a friend.. he used to have a 1.8Celeron and it destroying his gaming.. He was play CS:S everything on low with 30FPS.
As for Semrpons... I loved my Sempron it was great. And it blew my friends OC'd Celeron out of the water..
!