Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Celeron is good?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 21, 2002 10:42:29 PM

Hi,
Is Celeron good?
What's difference between Celeron and Pentium ?
Why would one buy Celeron?
How fast Pentium is the same as Celeron 1.3GHZ?

(I am thinking of buying Celeron 1.3 GHz to run Visual Studio.NET and SQL Server on Windows 2000 for program development.)

More about : celeron good

July 21, 2002 11:20:29 PM

Celerons are Pentium cores that were castrated. For exmple the P4 Celeron is a P4 core with only 128K L2 cache and other disabilities I'm sure. A Celeron 1.3GHz is probably as good as a PIII 1GHz, although, I'm not positive on that. If you don't have much moola to spend, I'd think about getting an AthlonXP setup.

:smile: Falling down stairs saves time :smile:
July 21, 2002 11:41:49 PM

or AMD Duron, it's much cheaper than the Celeron and it performs better 2
Related resources
July 22, 2002 1:50:01 AM

a celeronA is virtually the same as p3 coppermine
i have a 1gig at 1.4ghz and bought it about 4 months ago so it was a great deal. now i would NOT buy a celeron because the p4-celeron doesn't o/c well.
July 22, 2002 1:50:41 AM

ok o/c your 1ghz duron to 1.4 then talk to me.
July 22, 2002 1:59:58 AM

i think the big problem with cellerons, in particular the new P4 cellerons is that while they are 'ok' chips... they are almost always lumped with dogs of motherboards and ram combo's. thus performance suffers greatly.


Ego: Check
Rose hued glasses: Check
Fanboy Button: Check
CPU forum, here i come! :smile:
July 22, 2002 2:14:07 AM

You gotta be kidding us when asking this. Why I say this? Because to get to this forum, you have got to have seen the Tom's Hardware Guide main page, and therefore should've been able to chek some articles out. I suggest you go read some CPU articles, get yourself familiar with the current trends, so as not understand anything we talk about here.

For the record, Celerons are castrated and will always be. They would definitly not be good at what YOU said you will use the comp for. Besides, current Celeron prices, from the 1.3 or 1.4 to the 1.7 and 1.8, cost the same as XP1600+ to XP1800+ prices, so you are to save tons and get tons more out of AthlonXPs.

--
:smile: Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G! :smile:
a b à CPUs
July 22, 2002 2:17:53 AM

My Celeron 1200 when overclocked to 1480MHz performs just a little slower than my PIII 1000EB is games.

<font color=blue>At least half of all problems are caused by an insufficient power supply!</font color=blue>
July 22, 2002 3:13:43 AM

I would highly recomend against a Celeron of any speed. They cannot possilby compete in any way with a Pentium. They don't have enough cache to run any type of semi-demanding program. I have seen people get frustrated with a Celeron for running basic office applications. If you can't afford the Pentium, then get an AMD.
July 22, 2002 5:52:50 AM

There is absolutely no reason to buy the Celeron 1.3 Ghz. If you are broke enough to be even thinking of a celeron you should be getting a lower speed one to save money or spending the same amount or maybe just a little more to get a 1600+ Athlong system which would indeed smoke the crap outta the 1.3 Celly!
July 22, 2002 2:08:25 PM

The Tualatin Celerons are cheap, and they (particularly the 1000A) overclock well. There is a new stepping out, and apparently people are even running the new 1400As at 133FSB (=1882Mhz).

You'll get better performance with a 1000A overclocked to 1333 then with a 1300A at default clockspeed because of the 33% faster memory bus.

- JW
July 22, 2002 2:13:40 PM

The guy doesn't seem to know further in CPUs, so OCing would probably be out of the question.

And yes we forgot to mention, other castrations include an extremly el-cheapo 100MHZ bus, the living-in-the-past style dating of Pentium II days.

--
:smile: Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G! :smile:
July 22, 2002 3:23:56 PM

The Celerons are Intel's low end chipset targeting the value customer. Basicly, a Celeron is a castrated Pentium. Celerons of 1.3 Ghz and lower are based off of the Pentium III core, and Celerons 1.7 Ghz and faster are based off of the Pentium 4 core.

Now, personaly, with the cost of a Celeron and the cost of an nice chipset to go with it, you can get much better performance out of a low end Athlon XP like a 1500+ or 1600+. These chips perform close to P4 1.6 and 1.8 specs, and are cheeper than the 1.7 Celeron. High end motherboards can be had for these chips for less than a good Celly/P4 board, and the rest of the components will be about the same price (DDR Ram, Video card, Sound card, HD, ect).

So, is a Celeron with it? Not in my oppinion, but if you need a cheep computer, and "Need" it to say Intel Inside, the Celerons are the way to go unfortunately.

Don't start a <font color=red>flame war</font color=red> while immersed in <font color=orange>gasoline</font color=orange>.
July 22, 2002 5:53:05 PM

how about save some money and still get pentium speed and buy an amd athlon. No I am not a fanboy but this answer seams to apply.
July 22, 2002 9:11:31 PM

With the current Athlon XP pricing there's no need to buy Celerons of any kind. Get youself an Athlon XP1800+ (81$) and a Epox 8K3A (68$) and 256MB DDR Samsung PC2700 (70 $). All prices obtained from pricewatch. If you want some safety, go for Asus A7V333 or Soltek SL-75DRV, both has thermal protection.

For the record I own a 1400 MHz Celeron Tualatin. It overclocks well (1708MHz stable with stock air-cooling), but still it kind of sucks, due to the ridiculously low FSB speed together with chipsets that support SDRAM only. Intel has done what they could to ground this baby's performance, what a waste of potential.

The P4 Celeron is in many respects even worse, made on 0.18 micron and with a miserable 128KB L2 cache. Go for a 1.6A, 512KB L2 cache Northwood. Even when not overclocking it will perform better that a 1800 MHz celeron in a lot of real life tasks and it will run a lot cooler and use less power.

<i>/Copenhagen - Clockspeed will make the difference... in the end</i> :cool:
July 22, 2002 9:19:55 PM

Quote:
how about save some money and still get pentium speed and buy an amd athlon.

To quote myself...
Quote:
Now, personaly, with the cost of a Celeron and the cost of an nice chipset to go with it, you can get much better performance out of a low end Athlon XP like a 1500+ or 1600+. These chips perform close to P4 1.6 and 1.8 specs

Isn't that just what I said? That you can get good performance from the low end Athlons for less than a Celeron?

Don't start a <font color=red>flame war</font color=red> while immersed in <font color=orange>gasoline</font color=orange>.
July 23, 2002 10:51:47 AM

If Celeron 1400 is a little slower than 1000 then I would buy Celeron 1.3Ghz.
I have 4or5 years old DELL Pentium II 300Mhz(277MB RAM, 1 RAM is partially damaged) and it's still running well with windows 2000, SQL Server, IIS, Visual Studio 6 for developing programs(maybe Visual Studio.NET seems ok too.I didn't run enough).
And Radio Shack is selling Compaq Celeron 1.3Ghz 256MB RAM, 40GB HDD,... at $200 but I have to commit 2 years contract with 56kbps MSN ISP that's included at total price $400 of compaq pc. I have to pay for ISP anyway. Isn't this wonderful? If I need MSN broadband I can upgrade the contract with a little more money.


<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by winglesslight on 07/23/02 06:24 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
July 23, 2002 10:59:16 AM

That's certainly cheaper than I thought.
Although I think ibuypower.com sells custom built computer cheaper than the cost of building oneself, I might try one when I get time.
It will cost me labor and time and nerves and hassles of researching components, prices, manuals and reading and composing different parts and testing....
It could be costly for me who would need to get a new pc once a few years. You learn this and you can never use this knowledge, after a few years that knowledge will be obsolte.

By the way, I don't like to OC because it seems like it would be noisy. Also computers are fast enough it's not worth it.

By the way, Why do you guys need fast computers?
I use it for development and the internet.
I've played Unreal Tournament and starcraft on my machine it runs well.(DELL Pentium II 300Mhz, 16mb voodoo 3000, 256mb RAM)

For people who buy fast computers for gaming, it's a luxurious toy. Why not get a game consoles like playstation or gamecube. They are cheaper and has better games.
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by winglesslight on 07/23/02 06:16 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
July 23, 2002 3:41:38 PM

Quote:
For people who buy fast computers for gaming, it's a luxurious toy. Why not get a game consoles like playstation or gamecube. They are cheaper and has better games.

Console graphics suck compared to PCs due to the horrendously low TV resolution. I prefer PC games to console anyday. And the latest games need fast PCs to turn on all the eye candy, which blow consoles away.

Ritesh
a b à CPUs
July 23, 2002 4:17:26 PM

A Celeron 1400 (which is PIII Tualatin based) is slower than a PIII 1000EB on my system. So the Celeron 1300 would be even more slower than the PIII 1000EB on my system. So a Celeron 1200 would be even MORE slower on my system. If you don't believe me, I have a 1200 here that can hit 1480, I'll trade you for a PIII 1000EB! Or better yet, I'll trade you for a Celeron Tualatin 1000, I always wanted to try pushing the bus speed.

<font color=blue>At least half of all problems are caused by an insufficient power supply!</font color=blue>
July 23, 2002 6:07:49 PM

That last sentence would never win with us in this forum. (especially with the Radeon 9700 and NV30 coming out soon)

Again check out the benchmark reviews on THG or Anandtech, you'll see why fast CPUs are needed nowadays. You have yet to try out such speed!

Also, saying that OCing is noisy, makes no sense whatsoever. A CPU does not make any noise, it's purely the fan. Pentium 4 owners who overclocked their 1.6GHZ to 2.4GHZ, were using the RETAIL fan, a silent one that runs around 3000RPM. Imagine such high OCs of 800MHZ, silent PC.

--
An AMD employee's diary: Today I kicked an Intel worker in the "Willy"! :lol: 
July 23, 2002 6:22:02 PM

Wrong here man. TV's res makes the console games in fact smoother in edges. When playing PS2 games or GC or Xbox, you notice the graphics seem more high res, as if there was TruForm or something applied, making them more CGI realistic. When I play Tony Hawk 3 on my PC, I notice the blockiness back, and rather disappointing texturing. When played on PS2, it has awesome graphics, due the TV's effect. I bet UT2003 would look even better on consoles, or that HALO would not have the same amazing graphics on the PC version coming next year.

--
An AMD employee's diary: Today I kicked an Intel worker in the "Willy"! :lol: 
July 23, 2002 6:36:56 PM

Quote:
When playing PS2 games or GC or Xbox, you notice the graphics seem more high res, as if there was TruForm or something applied, making them more CGI realistic.

There is no mysterious TV effect, it's simply a matter of lower resolution. The "effect" you're talking about on Tony Hawk is probably the PS2's motion blur effect, which fools our eyes into eliminating the jagged edges of low resolution. Unfortunately it makes everything blurry. TVs inherently are unable to perform as well as monitors because the standard they use is from decades ago. Maybe you like the smooth look, but PS2 or XBox games are *ugly* IMO. Blurry, unreadable, not as vibrant. They do *not* seem more high res, it's the other way around. Give me crisp and sharp PC graphics anyday.

When I saw Final Fantasy X on a friend's machine I was impressed by the CGI but my first reaction was: "What a waste to have such great rendering on a TV, which washes everything out and makes it blurry." Notice how much better GTA3 looks on the PC than on PS2, despite the fact that it doesn't even take full advantage of modern graphics hardware on the PC. Or how much worse the XBox version of Morrowind looks than the PC. Halo will most certainly look better on the PC if they do the port right. Simple reason: PC hardware is more powerful and the quality of a monitor is miles beyond TV.

Ritesh
July 23, 2002 9:56:48 PM

Hmm well your argument does change my view, and it does make a lot of sense, so I can't say you're wrong there. What I did state before was more of an opinion of how I see graphics, you provided me with an explanation to why.
Hmm I can see when you talk about blurriness but I am not sure if motion blur is all it takes to explain this effect. But when playing FF7 on PSX, that was damn blurry sometimes, but it was not anything smooth anyway, since it's PSX. But back to the new consoles. I also have a gripe with the contrast and color vibrance and crispness that come with PC gaming over consoles. When I play Sonic 2 on DreamCast or GC, I can't help but notice how beautiful and sharp the areas are and the colors, bright and crisp. Especially the first level in the city. I never get that awesome feel on PC games.

One thing I notice however which makes your statement more true, is when websites take screenshots of games on new consoles. The pics:
1) Look jaggy, aliasing is everywhere, while when in action it is much less noticeable.
2) Colors look less vibrant, textures seem misplaced sometimes
3)It's more blocky, feels like less polygons on the PC.

This is why I was saying how the PC monitor completly destroys the thing that makes the effect on consoles to be so smooth as if it's CGI. Ever played MGS II: Sons of Liberty on PS2? Damn beautiful, polys are nice, and when there are cutscenes which are not CGIs mind you, their faces keep that CGI-look. This is why it makes console gaming often beautiful, even though they actually lack so much technology. It'd be great if consoles were modular in graphics. We could swap the cards for newer Nforce Hybrid NVs(cores) and the GC's Dolphin to newer ATI Dolphin cards

--
An AMD employee's diary: Today I kicked an Intel worker in the "Willy"! :lol: 
July 25, 2002 10:32:57 PM

My 'second system' is a Celeron 1200/256k. Not bad at all for net stuff and general apps. Ok it's 100FSB, but how fast can you type? Heh.

Good basic system really. Probably gonna end up using it for a printer/scanner/FTP/HTTP server of some kind I think.

<b><font color=blue>~ What do you mean "It isn't working!"...Now where's my sonic screwdriver? ~ </font color=blue></b>
a b à CPUs
July 25, 2002 10:41:41 PM

Know anyone willing to trade their 1.0GHz Tualatin Celeron for my 1.2GHz Tualatin Celeron?

<font color=blue>By now you're probably wishing you had ask more questions first!</font color=blue>
July 25, 2002 10:43:38 PM

je$u$, you`re funny.

i agree, only if the celerons are coppermine, or willy cored. the tual celerons are amazing, especially the 1.0A, virtually a 1.33 p3!

Be nice.
July 25, 2002 11:29:42 PM

Nope.

Know anyone willing to trade their WD JB RAID 0 array for my pair of 60GXPs?

<b><font color=blue>~ What do you mean "It isn't working!"...Now where's my sonic screwdriver? ~ </font color=blue></b>
a b à CPUs
July 26, 2002 12:50:25 AM

d00d, I'm looking to trade DOWN from 1.2GHz to 1.0GHz, you're looking to trade UP, there's a big difference there!

<font color=blue>By now you're probably wishing you had ask more questions first!</font color=blue>
July 26, 2002 1:12:27 AM

why?

<b>Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped! :cool: </b>
July 26, 2002 2:58:22 AM

HE WANTS TO BOOST UP HIS FSB I THINK

Be nice.
July 26, 2002 3:51:21 AM

Quote:
i agree, only if the celerons are coppermine, or willy cored. the tual celerons are amazing, especially the 1.0A, virtually a 1.33 p3!

Prove it please.
A 1GHZ Cel Tually is almost a Coppermine 1GHZ, except maybe that the cache architecture is still a Celeron one.

--
An AMD employee's diary: Today I kicked an Intel worker in the "Willy"! :lol: 
a b à CPUs
July 26, 2002 4:55:50 AM

Because with the lower multiplier I should reach a higher bus speed.

<font color=blue>By now you're probably wishing you had ask more questions first!</font color=blue>
July 26, 2002 5:41:56 AM

does cache architecture differ between a celery(copper or tual) and a p3(also copper or tual)?

just thought the amount was different.

all my friends just tell me that they connot feel the difference between a cpooer p3 1G and a tual cel 1G. dunno about the cache architecture.

Be nice.
July 26, 2002 6:25:05 AM

i remember reading that the p3 cache had better latencies, along with having twice as much.

cellerons are poor man cpu's.

Asteroid 2002 NV7: The <b>REAL</b> solution to the Israel/Palistine problem!
!