Prescott = Good Celeron

Who would've predicted <i>that</i>?

Even so, I still can't see any enthusiasts buying one over an AXP.

---
Epox 8RDA+ V1.1 w/ Custom NB HS
Summer's here! so ease off the overclock...
XP1700+ @166x12 (~2Ghz), 1.475 Vcore
2x256Mb Corsair PC3200LL 2-2-2-4
Sapphire 9800Pro 400/730

Nope. While it is an improvement over the previous celerons and appears to have halfway decent pricing, the AXPs still appear to be the better buy.

As with the old one, it'll be people going to PCWorld to buy a computer and seeing "2.8Ghz Intel Processor" who buy them. Still not particularly good value for money, but good enough for their e-mail.

Maybe that's a good thing, because they should notice it grinding to a halt because of Viruses, Spyware & Adware slightly quicker than with a better performing setup  

---
Epox 8RDA+ V1.1 w/ Custom NB HS
Summer's here! so ease off the overclock...
XP1700+ @166x12 (~2Ghz), 1.475 Vcore
2x256Mb Corsair PC3200LL 2-2-2-4
Sapphire 9800Pro 400/730

Yeah, a number of years back my parents "upgraded" their PIII 750 to a PIV 1.4ish GHz (don't remember exactly, I think it might have been slower than that) celeron while I was away at college. I told them to talk to me before they do something silly again but since it does e-mail and age of empires just fine they didn't seem to care too much. Still, they could have gotten something better for the money.

But that is with a 133 fsb. If these suckers can get past 166, they are the next xp-m. A nice IS-7 board, some cheap samsung pc3200, and you've got a nice inexpensive set-up.

Why did they upgrade? P3 750 can do e-mail and age of empires without any problem.

------------
<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A>

<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig</A> & <A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/benchmark.html" target="_new">3DMark score</A>

Captain Obvious is suprised that the D managed to beat the AXP on a few benchmarks!

<b><font color=red>Captain Obvious To The Rescue!!! (Obviously)
Captain Obvious: Pointing out the Blindingly Obvious!</font color=red></b>

Dunno. Too much money and nothing to do with it maybe. They could have spent it on me.  

It would have been safer to say that all they did for the new chips is mechanically remove half the cache on the chip and re-release it

I'm not surprised since they didn't include AXP 2700+

------------
<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A>

<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig</A> & <A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/benchmark.html" target="_new">3DMark score</A>

-------------------------
Captain Obvious is suprised that the D managed to beat the AXP on a few benchmarks!

Captain Obvious To The Rescue!!! (Obviously)
Captain Obvious: Pointing out the Blindingly Obvious!
---------------------

rofl

The old celeron 2.8 was on par with a P4a at 1.7, while the new celeron 2.8 is on par with a P4b at 2.6. That is quite the jump.

Have you seen the overclock these processors can achieve?!?!

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/celeron-d....

They even outpace a P4 3.2GHz C! I think Intel are on a winner with this new line of Celerons.

<A HREF="http://ricserv.servebeer.com" target="_new"> My website </A>

Next thing I want to see is Sempron vs Celeron D benchmarks, from what I see. AMD will not necessarly have a huge lead in the low-end market from now.

The first Celeron that deserve to be call a CPU.

--
It's tricky to use words like <b><font color=green>AMD</font color=green></b> or <b><font color=blue>Intel</font color=blue></b> in a signature some users could think your are biased.

When the highest clocked celeron d is released (3.2Ghz) do you think it will be a good overclocker? I am wondering which of these celerons I should purchase.

Usually, the best overclockers are the lowest speed CPU. They do not necessarly reach the highest speed, but they usually have lot more "headroom".

For example : the AMD Barton 2500+ is often prefer to the 3200+, because it can be clocked in the same speed range for a fraction of the price. The same thing for Northwood Pentium 4 CPU, the best overclocker's are the 2.4GHz to 2.8GHz versions. They cost less and can reach appr. the same speed. It's why I would get a Celeron D 2.8GHz, it will reach nearly the same speed when overclocked, and it will cost less.

--
It's tricky to use words like <b><font color=green>AMD</font color=green></b> or <b><font color=blue>Intel</font color=blue></b> in a signature some users could think your are biased.

I think you mean the 2.6 Ghz. Is this a Northwood chip?
Intel® Pentium® 4 - 2.8B-GHz @ 533Mhz w/ 512k
It costs ~$50 canadian more I wonder if its worth it. My mobo supports 533 bus only. It will cost me ~50 for a zalman fan for the celeron when I choose to overclock it so I don't know if it makes sense.

The OC is not quite up to expectations. At 3.8, it seems to be on par with the xp-3200. It would need to beat that by > 10% to keep up with the xp-m 2500's OCing potential.
Oh well, for the price, and Intel, and for those who would sacrifice perf for a name it's a good chip.

And have you seen the overclock people are getting from Barton mobile?

IMO Intel has made a great step from junk to a CPU, at least something you can talk and not laugh. There is still a gap between Celeron and similar priced AMD CPUs, but is not as big as before.

I want to see if 3.8Ghz are "predictable/standard" overclock gain or just a very lucky one. And also when talking about overclocked CPUs, we should compare a 3.8Ghz Celeron with a 2.4Ghz Barton. Don't know of any review yet.


Still looking for a <b>good online retailer</b> in Spain :frown:

For gaming, the Celeron D seems about on par with the xp3200+ @ 2.2, so an xp-m at 2.4 or better would be about 10% faster.