The official new celleron article discussion.

jlbigguy

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
1,001
0
19,280
Simple. Clock speed is the perceived power of a processor for the majority of buyers. Nothing more.

<font color=blue>This is a Forum, not a playground. Treat it with Respect.</font color=blue>
 

lhgpoobaa

Illustrious
Dec 31, 2007
14,462
1
40,780
course.

wonderful marketing strategy

"look folks... your getting lots of wonderful warm fuzzy Megahurtz... giga hurtz even! dont they make u feel powerful and special?"

dare i say it...

P4 celleron + sdram = hot Via C3?

<font color=green>Hamsters</font color=green> <font color=red>don't</font color=red> <font color=green>play</font color=green> <font color=red>Soccer.</font color=red>
 

Quetzacoatl

Distinguished
Jan 30, 2002
1,790
0
19,780
Quick! Somebody get some PC-100 CL3 SDRAM!

Oh wait, we first need an appropriate i845 board *grabs a Chaintech 9BJA*

"When there's a will, there's a way."
 

buddry

Distinguished
Mar 20, 2002
1,642
0
19,780
Little difference my guess, but I will glance through the article later.

That is a nice <b><font color=green>Garbage Can</font color=green></b> you have there!
 

gal128

Distinguished
May 14, 2002
109
0
18,680
This one of those things where you just shrug your shoulders. They didn't lower the price of the 1.7GHz Celeron and they are both 0.18 willies that aren't really that good for OCing so I have no idea what they were thinking when they did this.

HULK SMASH!!!
 

eden

Champion
A small 5% overall increase.
However it costs 100$, that is even more than an XP1700! Where's the value in that! Not even OCing proved to be good anyway...

Oh and call me old-fashioned, but where the hell does the PC-133 SDRAM come from? Tell me they didn't castrate the new Celly or Duron?
Or was it for the Celery 1.3? In that case there is a new 1.4GHZ version, they should use that.
--
Meow
 

baldurga

Distinguished
Feb 14, 2002
727
0
18,980
They are thinking about "marketing"! Come on, I imagine myself conving some friend telling the a XP 1500+ is better than a 1.8 Celly.

That arises another question: why they don't put the XP 1500+ benchmarks? It seems reasonably as they are in the same price level. Come on, they tell you in the article but didn't show any result! Why? Don't tell me because the mobo proces. Duron and XP use the same! So, what is the reason? It's to dificult to imagine people will be interested in?

"Sometimes don't like what THG do" - Smurf

DIY: read, buy, test, learn, reward yourself!
 

Garasaki

Distinguished
Mar 29, 2002
35
0
18,530
The saddest thing is, that this stupid celly will probably outsell any AMD model....perticularly the 2000+-ish models...

It's amazing how the public loves their Intel...
 

lhgpoobaa

Illustrious
Dec 31, 2007
14,462
1
40,780
lol you too? :smile:

but now i hae a serious comment to make regarding the cellery article.

i noticed toms benchmarked the systems with DDR or RDRAM, which is perfectly acceptable.

problem is, we are dealing with <font color=blue>BUDGET PROCESSORS.</font color=blue> and such processors and invariably coupled with other budget components like SDRAM, geforce2MX/TNT2/integrated graphics and so on.

example: i have two friends who got nice duron systems. perfectly adequate for their needs. do they use DDR? no. both use the KT133 chipset.

And as we all know, using SDRAM lowers the performance. <font color=red>BUT</font color=red> as previous benchmarks have shown, the P4 architecture is especially vulnerable to performance degredation using SDRAM. course the duron is too, but not nearly as bad.

so i believe the testing methadology for budget processors is somewhat flawed.

dont believe me? go out there and have a look at the system specs of many OEM rigs that use durons or cellerons. And see if you can find a P4 celleron rig using ddr/rdram or DDR for a duron.

<font color=green>Hamsters</font color=green> <font color=red>don't</font color=red> <font color=green>play</font color=green> <font color=red>Soccer.</font color=red>
 

TRENDING THREADS