Overclock.net banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
hey,
i am just curious.
I personally have a celeron and think the are awful, can't stand mine @1.80 GHz..anyway..i thought all celerons where bad but my mate told me that celeron D's are not to bad and can be actually good!
can this be true?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,104 Posts
Theyre alright, a lot better than the regular pentiums. They still dont compare to a prescott though. Theyre good for office work, they just arent very good for gaming. Is your celeron the willamette core, if so, I know how bad it is because I had one lol. It has a sweet 128k of L2 cache!
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: Sin100

·
Goodbye
Joined
·
10,269 Posts
A Celeron is a Celeron man, the D really isn't any better, I have a system at 2.93Ghz it's a cel, POS my old Athlon 1700 was able to keep up with the thing. If your board can handle a P4 then bite the bullet and go for it, much nicer performing CPU
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
From the reviews I've seen on Newegg for the higher-end Celeron D's they preform pretty good in comparison to P4's. Deffinately better than the original Celerons.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,824 Posts
Celly Ds perform well for the price (2.93s go for around $75US), but they're not on par with P4s. They're not targeting the same users, though, so you really can't expect similar performance. A Celly D will handle any type of routine application you throw at it without breaking a sweat. They can handle games as long as you're not looking for high/extreme settings and killer frame rates. They're fully intended for the budget market and serve the needs of that market well. If you have the budget and need for a high end machine, this isn't the CPU you want.

And yes, Celly Ds are considerably better than their predecessors. A 1.8 GHz Celeron is based on the Williamete core as bigval said, and that was not one of the better products that Intel put on the market (I have a P4 1.5 GHz Willy at work, and it doesn't exactly burn things up). Celeron Ds are based on the Prescott core, which although it produces a lot of heat, is a solid core.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
mhh so what your saying in a way is.. imagin this...
i buy a normal Intel celeron @ exactly 2GHz then i buy a AMD Athlon 64 3200+ @ exactly 2GHz with lest say the same cache and everything used on the same PC...i would actually see the AMD proform better even though there specs appear the same!
my mate also told me that AMD and Intel are different when it comes to GHz/MHz speed, such as a AMD at 2.8GHz would be like a Intel at 4GHz and intel are trying to con by suggesting that they are higher, wich they are in some way but not as powerfully as they appear...or somthing like that?! is he talking rubbish??
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,824 Posts
AMD and Intel CPUs perform different numbers of operations per clock cycle, so clock speed on its own is meaningless. You can roughly multiply an AMDs clock speed by 1.5 to get an Intel equivalent, though there are lots of other factors that determine performance. So yes, a 2.0 GHz AMD will destroy most 2.0 GHz Intel (with the exception of the Pentium Ms). Those are different generations of CPUs, though, so you really can't expect to draw a comparison between them. A 3.0 GHz P4 is similar to a 2.0 GHz AMD, though not exactly equal by any means.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,831 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by bigval

Theyre alright, a lot better than the regular pentiums. They still dont compare to a prescott though. Theyre good for office work, they just arent very good for gaming. Is your celeron the willamette core, if so, I know how bad it is because I had one lol. It has a sweet 128k of L2 cache!


Ya, mine only has 128l2 cach also, it really sucks for gaming. Anyway, if you have the chance to get something besides celeron D, then i would.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top