Intel Celerons....

[ncovert]

What does everybody have against Intel Celeron CPU's? I think they're not to bad at all! Is it just the low cache memory, or what? They've always behaved for me...

[PeteS in CA]

Re: Intel Celerons....

I think it's partly image, partly how people use their machines. On the image side, a Celeron (and earlier x86SX uP's) is "dumbed down". And it isn't very macho. On the usage side, some people really "need" (= want) the fastest affordable machine performance. For them, a Celeron can't deliver. If you're just doing browsing and using Office Suite type programs speed isn't quite so critical and a Celeron will do just fine. I'm of the latter sort; some one who does a lot of gaming or video work might say more or less what I did above, but wording it quite differently.

[ratdude747]

Re: Intel Celerons....

What does everybody have against Intel Celeron CPU's? I think they're not to bad at all! Is it just the low cache memory, or what? They've always behaved for me...

the first celeron (covington) was a PII with the L2 chopped off entirely... Once people tried them, celeron became a bad name for a while... the next chip was the famous mendocino, which OC'd like a demon... from there the celeron had a decent following until the s478 celerons came and were a performance flop... a duron with 1/4 the cache of an athlon would kill a celeron with half the cache of a pentium... the netburst concept did not scale down cache wise very well... since then, they have had a bad name...

[ncovert]

Re: Intel Celerons....

the first celeron (covington) was a PII with the L2 chopped off entirely... Once people tried them, celeron became a bad name for a while... the next chip was the famous mendocino, which OC'd like a demon... from there the celeron had a decent following until the s478 celerons came and were a performance flop... a duron with 1/4 the cache of an athlon would kill a celeron with half the cache of a pentium... the netburst concept did not scale down cache wise very well... since then, they have had a bad name...

I think a reason why people say the celerons are crap is because the S478 version only has 128Kb L2 cache, whereas some of the S370's had 256Kb L2

[ratdude747]

Re: Intel Celerons....

I think a reason why people say the celerons are crap is because the S478 version only has 128Kb L2 cache, whereas some of the S370's had 256Kb L2

Performance says it all:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/1201

Back then, AMD 1, Intel 0

[Scenic]

Re: Intel Celerons....

Too bad sh*tloads of people still think they're junk because when they hear "celeron", they immediately think of the ultra crippled P4's and run away. Pretty much the same story for Pentium D (P4 x2) vs. Pentium Dualcore (Core2 based)..

The Core2 based Celerons (Celeron S4xx and Celeron Dualcore E1xxx and E3xxxx) are actually pretty damn quick and cost next to nothing (last time I bought one new it set me back 32eur for a brand new E3400 dualcore (2x 2.6GHz ; boxed version))

S478 and 775 Celerons (the P4 based ones) are only worth being used as test-cpus. Too much heat, no grunt. A 1.8GHz singlecore Celeron S430 (core2 based) easily kicks a Celeron D 3.xGHz (P4 based) in the butt, while using less than half the power (35W vs. 84W)

[Newbie2]

Re: Intel Celerons....

The new LGA1155 dual-core Sandy Bridge Celerons, like the G530 2.4GHz, look very attractive as well. They have Intel "HD" graphics, VT, and a decent 2MB of L3 cache (only 1MB less than the Pentium's 3MB). Being under $60 a piece, dual-core Sandy Bridge Celerons are a very affordable way to have a basic Sandy Bridge PC.

I would purchase a Celeron G530 along with a cheap Intel H61-based motherboard if I had the extra money to waste, since I have some DDR3 RAM laying around from upgrading my main PC.

Too bad sh*tloads of people still think they're junk because when they hear "celeron", they immediately think of the ultra crippled P4's and run away.

Until I purchased a Celeron E3400 for a cheap Hackintosh experiment I had last year, I thought the same thing, having last experienced a Celeron in the form of a super-slow Northwood Celeron 2.2GHz a couple years back in a budget HP desktop. To my surprise at the time, paired with a GeForce 9600GT and 4GB of DDR2-800 RAM, the Celeron E3400 ran Mac OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.6 without any lag.

[Scenic]

Re: Intel Celerons....

Core 2 Duo E8300 (6MB cache) -> downgraded to Core 2 Duo E7400 (E7300?) (3MB Cache, slower FSB) -> downgraded to Pentium Dualcore E5300 (2MB cache, slower FSB) -> downgraded to Celeron Dualcore E3400 (1MB cache, FSB is the same)

So basically, you have (had?) a triple-crippled Core 2 Duo E8300 lol

[Newbie2]

Re: Intel Celerons....

Core 2 Duo E8300 (6MB cache) -> downgraded to Core 2 Duo E7400 (E7300?) (3MB Cache, slower FSB) -> downgraded to Pentium Dualcore E5300 (2MB cache, slower FSB) -> downgraded to Celeron Dualcore E3400 (1MB cache, FSB is the same)

So basically, you have (had?) a triple-crippled Core 2 Duo E8300 lol

Never thought of it that way!

Anyway I no longer own the Celeron E3400; I upgraded the PC it was in to a Pentium E6600 3.06GHz that I got, as well as removing Snow Leopard (scrapping the Hackintosh status as well) since I got sick of it. It's running good old Windows 7 now.

My E3400 now belongs to my mother in her PC; that E3400 with 8GB of DDR2-800 RAM and a basic GeForce 8400GS graphics card on Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 64-bit smoothly run her needs of Internet, e-mail, and MS Office 2007 applications. Sounds like what Intel intends these Celerons to be used for.