does Celeron really suck

[umala]

I have heard people in this forum said that Cel really sucks. As a very, very, very tight budget student, I really want to have some explained.

First, if Cel sucks because of L2 cache (1/4) of Pentium why AMD still lack behind Pentium while it has 4 times larger L1 cache ( though L2 cache is a half).

My Uni, the largest and best Technical Uni in Finland, they just stick to Celeron for almost all their LAB PC.They must have reason for it and while I am sure they are not in a bad shape of budget as mine, certainly, I want to outperform them in term of saving (hi hi).

So if 478 Cel 3.0 is better than 2.4 P, I will choose Cel

Why

 

[Saudakar]

Celeron doesn´t suck, if you only need power for surfing, office and other light applications. If you´re a gamer, designer or coding media, you´ll need more power, and the celeron just won´t be enough. If you´re on a tight budget and you won´t be needing the extra power, just go with a celeron!

 

[ChipDeath]

If you're on a really tight budget, why not build an AMD based system instead?

On the AMD V Intel thing, they're both very different architectures, the P4 just does not need as much L1 (I'm sure someone can explain this better than me!)

a Celery 3Ghz would probably get creamed by a P4C2.4 anyway, as it also runs on a faster bus as well as having the extra cache...

[EDIT]
but then they don't Actually make a 3Ghz Celery ATM. If you're talking about the upcoming Prescott-based one, then it will probably be a close run thing, as it should get ~20% extra perf at the same clock speed
[/EDIT]


---
The end is nigh.. (For this post at least) <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ChipDeath on 08/29/03 09:55 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[TheRod]

It depends on what you do with your computer.

But for example : Celeron 2.3 GHz and Athlon XP 2400+ are the same price.

In "office applications" you will probably don't notice any difference in performance. But in GAMES you would see a great difference between the AMD and the Celeron.

So, If you don't play games at all or if you don't care about gaming performance, you can buy a Celeron. but, If you plan to play games, you will get better perfromance with equally priced Athlon XP.

And, to save more money, buy the cheapest CPU and get a decent MB and RAM to overclock it! Low end Athlon XP are easily overclockable... I don't know much about Celeron, I never bought one of them or built a system based on them.

I wish you good shopping!

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?

 

[pIII_Man]

the celerons are pretty good overclockers...it is not uncommon for a celeron 2.0 to hit 3.0ghz on air cooling...

However i would seriously recomend amd for low end...

pair a 2400+ with a soltek nv400 and you have a nice budget system...for the same price (if not less) then the much worse celeron...


Proud owner of DOS 3.3

 

[ufo_warviper]

I dissagree - I wouldn't go with the celeron. Even if he isn't a gamer, he can still purchase more power at similar price points with an AMD CPU although the Celeron would do just fine for web surfing and basic applications. Then again, even an original Pentium @ 133 MHz system with 32 megs of RAM can surf the web ok. My grandma uses that and she is perfectly happy with web performance. You can get an AMD Athlon XP for CHEAP! If your on an EXTREMELY tight budget like you say, you can get the cheapest AXP for about $50, which would be an Athlon XP 1500+ and will perform FAR better than any celeron you might find at that price. You could even do gaming with that CPU, one of my gaming systems is an AXP 1500+ and it runs everything I have even though it paired with a measily Ti4200 video card.

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!

 

[imgod2u]

The P7 (netburst) architecture relies very heavily on local cache. It's clockspeed is so high such that a single cache miss (and consequent need to wait for main memory) could cause a lot of idle clocks. This, in addition to the small L1 cache, means the Netburst architecture relies heavily on the L2 cache.
The Celeron simply isn't good in any way (assuming we're talking about the P7 core based ones). It's not good from a price/performance standpoint (as you could always either get a cheaper P3 or Athlon that performs as well or a similarly priced Athlon that performs better) and it's not good from a performance standpoint. I just can't see anyone justifying buying it unless you're just strictly devoted to Intel but are too cheap to spring an extra $20 for a low-end P4.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.

 

[Flinx]

Universities and even businesses often get huge price breaks on products that the regular consumer won't.

I know that the company I work used to save 40-50% on both hardware and software from the list price or if you went to the supplier to get a single seat. Of course they bought thousands.

Companies are able to give educational institutions better deals because of tax breaks etc. So ur University may be buying the most cost effective processor for them because they got a deal.

The only deal you're going to get for a single processor is AMD. (And I'm not a fan boy). When they sell the celeron at 1/2 the price of an AMD it may be worth buying but then u might buy a Duron instead.

Oh yeah! Celerons suck for previous mentioned reasons and bad/expensive upgrade path, high price of replacing with Pentium (look at P3 prices).

The loving are the daring!<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Flinx on 08/29/03 05:57 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[addiarmadar]

Celerons do not suck, only to hard core gamers and graphic proggers. They used to be only 66mhz clock speed but now they are at 200mhz. Its a great CPU but just weak with graphics.

F-DISK-Format-Reinstal DO DA!! DO DA!!

 

[pIII_Man]

flinx!

I am using a celery...

boohoo dont say that! *cries*


Proud owner of DOS 3.3

 

[Flinx]

Me too PIII, but the last processor I bought, cheapskate that I am is an AMD.

Intel is too pricy for my blood and the next processor I get will still be an AMD although the P2.4C is temptimg.

Hey I got a Celeron 1400 sitting right here where I'm typing. One of the nice ones with the 256 cache and not the 128 Intel is/was trying to dump on people. Got a spare 700 sitting in the cupboard in case this 1400 goes and I need an internet machine. Meanwhile picking my spot for a graphics card. Got about 1/2 saved up for what I expect and OEM 9800 nonpro is gonna cost after XMAS.

Dang I hope the price comes down even more.

The loving are the daring!<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Flinx on 08/29/03 06:49 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Crashman]

Celeron really does suck. If you need to save money, buy an AMD system. If you were thinking of buying a cheap Celeron and overclocking it, buy a cheap Athlon and overclock it instead. No matter what, Athlon always offers more bang for any given amount of bucks than Celeron.

There are reasons universities use Celerons. Mostly it's because the people in charge of that purchase know nothing about performance, and care little. There is a myth that Intel systems are always more stable. And companies like Dell use Intel exclusively, so if your uni has Dells, they didn't even have a choice.

Consider the price of whatever Celeron you were looking at, and buy a similarly prices Athlon. Then consider the price of whatever Intel chipset board you were looking at, and buy a similarly priced nForce 2 board. You'll have equal stability and increased performance.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[ufo_warviper]

The only time I heard of Celeron actually being a good buy was when the original Celeron 300A came out. It wasn't a good buy on stockspeeds, only if you overclocked the (4-letter word) out of it to 500 MHz with stock cooling. I heard of the Tullitan Cellys being decent overclockers, And that's it!

Crashman is right, go with AMD in this case, period!

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!

 

[Flinx]

Did you finally get one of those 1000's or 1100 and overclock it as Crashman suggests?

The loving are the daring!

 

[Crashman]

Yes, the 300A was nearly as fast in some things, and faster in others, than the PII 300, due to it's full-speed cache (1/4 the size, 2x as fast). And most would do 450MHz at or near stock voltage, making them extremely competitave with the PII 450. Then the Tualatin Celeron was OK, but really screamed if you could get the bus speed up by overclocking.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[pIII_Man]

yes i did...i could get 1.55ghz out of it...but i am having some agp bus problems...i am sure if i take it to 1.7v i could get 1.6ghz...but first things first...i gotta lock the agp bus...

And i think i have found a way...i am ordering some 66mhz oscillators...i will keep you guys posted if i fanially find a way to lock the BX's bus...its alot easier to take a soldering iron to a $20 board than it is a new board...


Proud owner of DOS 3.3 <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by piii_Man on 08/29/03 09:47 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[ufo_warviper]

Ah, the good old BX, there was never a better chipset made for its day. LX boards sucked BUTT though. I mean would it really be worth it to upgrade a PII 233 to only 100 MHz more @333? That just sounds like a really limited CPU range, so much fcr upgrades!

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!