why celeron is not good? or is it good

  • Thread starter Thread starter esara
  • Start date Start date
E

esara

Hi
I have heard that Celeron CPU is not good. Why Celeron CPU does have
good name?? I have found this CPU is good price and the spec of this
CPU is good, so why people do not like it.

Intel Celeron 2.4 FSB 400 128k C$(102) Canadian

I want to build a pc that is used for basic things (internet + office)

thanks a lot.
 
esara said:
Hi
I have heard that Celeron CPU is not good. Why Celeron CPU does have
good name?? I have found this CPU is good price and the spec of this
CPU is good, so why people do not like it.
Click to expand...


What do you mean the "spec" of this CPU is good?

If you mean MHz, then score one for Intel marketing.
If you mean SPEC CPU benchmarks, then you're just mistaken.

You can get an Athlon XP 2500 for significantly less money than a
Celeron 2.4GHz. But performance-wise, the Athlon blows away the
Celeron. You mention that the PC would be for general office and
internet work. Here's a benchmark comparing the Celeron 2.4GHz to
other chips:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=4

Even the lowest-end AMD Duron 1.6 chip beats the Celeron.


-WD
 
esara said:
Hi
I have heard that Celeron CPU is not good. Why Celeron CPU does have
good name?? I have found this CPU is good price and the spec of this
CPU is good, so why people do not like it.

Intel Celeron 2.4 FSB 400 128k C$(102) Canadian

I want to build a pc that is used for basic things (internet + office)

thanks a lot.
Click to expand...

The Celeron is what is commonly known as a crippled chip. It is manufactured
to be cheap to buy. They do this by leaving out some of the technology that
makes a better chip perform faster and more efficiently. The Celeron is
perfect for low power internet machines and that is what they are sold for.
Just don't expect any performance out of the thing. Load a behemoth like the
Encyclopedia Britannica and you can make lunch while you wait for it to
load. The other post is correct, you can build a much better performing
machine for the same money if you look a alternate chips.
 
typical he didn't ask for a comparison of a celery to an amd. but
you guys just can't resists a sales pitch....
It matters on what the heck your going to do with it. office word
processing? Doing a little web surfing and email...go for it
 
JAD said:
typical he didn't ask for a comparison of a celery to an amd. but
you guys just can't resists a sales pitch....
Click to expand...

The OP asked why people don't like the Celeron.
I replied, indicating that it is slower *and* more expensive than the
competition. (AMD) It's fact, not propaganda nor a sales pitch.

It matters on what the heck your going to do with it. office word
processing? Doing a little web surfing and email...go for it
Click to expand...

From the benchmark I posted:
"For the Business version of the test, this involves surfing the
internet, using Office, and running a handful of other common utilities
and programs." Sounds pretty close to what the OP had intended for
the machine.


-WD
 
JAD said:
typical he didn't ask for a comparison of a celery to an amd. but
you guys just can't resists a sales pitch....
It matters on what the heck your going to do with it. office word
processing? Doing a little web surfing and email...go for it
Click to expand...
A quote from the article referred to, in regards to scores on Business
Winstone 2004:

"What's also important to note is that a score of a 10.0 here is about the
performance level of a 1GHz Pentium III, which should help you put the
Celeron's performance in perspective."

Me writing:
The Celeron 2.6GHz scored 13.7.
The Pentium4 1.8GHz scored 15.4.
The Athlon 1.83GHz scored 20.1. (PR rating 2500+)
Yes, the Celeron does suck and it is not worth having when so much better
performance can be had for equal or less money.
 
BP said:
The Celeron is what is commonly known as a crippled chip. It is manufactured
to be cheap to buy. They do this by leaving out some of the technology that
makes a better chip perform faster and more efficiently. The Celeron is
perfect for low power internet machines and that is what they are sold for.
Just don't expect any performance out of the thing. Load a behemoth like the
Encyclopedia Britannica and you can make lunch while you wait for it to
load. The other post is correct, you can build a much better performing
machine for the same money if you look a alternate chips.
Click to expand...
BUT the Celeron is easier to install as its die is protected by the
shield whereas the Athlons' dies lie open... waiting to be damaged;-)

So it's either a Pentium/Celeron or a (equally shielded) Athlon 64...

Gérard
 
BP wrote:
SNIP

BUT the Celeron is easier to install as its die is protected by the
shield whereas the Athlons' dies lie open... waiting to be damaged;-)

So it's either a Pentium/Celeron or a (equally shielded) Athlon 64...
Click to expand...

- Oh my G...!!!
Is this the fault of some PC-rag?
Well, they've played a dirty trick on you then, denying you the
brilliant and utterly outstanding value of AMD socket A cpus, for fear
of nothing.

Only thing it takes to successfully build a socket A, is less than
sloppiness and violence when mounting the heatsink, and following the
instructions.

(And Celeron is not a sane choice for a builder.)

ancra
 
Gerard said:
BUT the Celeron is easier to install as its die is protected by the
shield whereas the Athlons' dies lie open... waiting to be damaged;-)
Click to expand...

Only if you're a cak-handed gorilla. Assuming you have have reasonable
control over your own limbs and can tell the difference between a
screwdriver and a chainsaw you shouldn't have a problem.
 
Back
Top