Is Celeron really that bad?

Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by Madness, Jul 2, 2005.

  1. Madness

    Madness Do not let Dr. Mario touch your genitals. He is no

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2004
    Messages:
    37,904
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    Yea.. I know it's the cool thing to hate Celeron processors because they're "cheap" but are they really that bad? Say you had a choice between machine A and machine B, would you trade some decent features for a Pentium? :noes:

    Machine A

    • Intel® Celeron® Processor 335 (2.8GHZ)
    • 256 MB DDR-SDRAM (DDR400, 256 MBx1)
    • 80 GB Hard Disk Drive
    • DVD+R Double Layer DVD+-RW
    • Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition
    • VAIO Creation Suite PHOTO, MUSIC, & VIDEO Software
    Machine B

    • Intel Pentium 4 Processor 520 with HT Technology (2.8GHz)
    • 40GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM)
    • 256 MB DDR2 SDRAM at 400MHz
    • 48x CD-ROM Drive
    • Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition,Service Pack 2
     
  2. kingtoad

    kingtoad OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    55,923
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    No, I wouldn't trade anything for a Celeron.
     
  3. barnold999

    barnold999 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    Messages:
    243
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    TX
    Are you just doing word processing? Then the Celeron is fine... but then Machine A is an overkill with everything else... are you actually doing anything more... then Machine B... you can always add on... (Both have so little RAM though)
     
  4. ledzep73

    ledzep73 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Messages:
    6,868
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Louisville
    Well I don't think a Celeron will be able to rip a DVD, or if it does I know it would take forever, so your burner would be a waste.
     
  5. Madness

    Madness Do not let Dr. Mario touch your genitals. He is no

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2004
    Messages:
    37,904
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    It'll be for my Dad so chances are it's gonna be used for AOL and itunes.. I'll be slapping a spare stick of 256 ram on it so that'll be enough to keep everything running smoothly. The reason I want the DVD burner and the 80 gig drive is because, I don't want it to be completely obsolete in 6 months (since both machines have dated technology); And I don't want to constantly be upgrading the parts. Whichever one I choose needs to last for 3-4 years. :hs:

    But the real point of this thread is to find out whats so bad about the Celeron, I know it's highly unpopular amonst teh tech l33t, but as a basic use machine is it worth trading decent features for a basic P4?
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2005
  6. PC Principle

    PC Principle New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Messages:
    64,143
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wasnt Celerons built originally for laptops because they run cooler?
     
  7. barnold999

    barnold999 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    Messages:
    243
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    TX
    Nah... they do run cooler... the Celeron evolved into the M eventually or then they had the Celeron M I think for a while... there were a few out... but yah they do run cooler...

    They are less populour because they are not as good. In 5th grade I used to do this thing called mad minute where we did as many multiplication problems as we could in a minute... I usually did all of them 100... I am a Pentium IV... the other people in my class did 50... they are a celeron... both were 100% accuracty... but it jut went slower... just takes a little longer to compute thing... While I was writing the answer to one problem... I would think about the next one... but others didnt... so that is an odd far-stretched analogy.
     
  8. lowfat

    lowfat 24/Mac/SciFi/PC Crew OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2003
    Messages:
    63,949
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Grande Prairie, AB, Can
    the 520 is a substantially faster CPU, but there is nothing wrong with the celeron if he isn't going to be doing any encoding/etc.

    go for the celeron. It will burn DVD's just fine :ugh:
     
  9. ledzep73

    ledzep73 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Messages:
    6,868
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Louisville
    a p3 wont, and they are comparable chips. really, unless you have hyper-threading, you shouldnt do anything while burning a CD or DVD, its possible to fuck things up. It doesn't happen every time, but im sure you have herd it before.
     
  10. kingtoad

    kingtoad OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    55,923
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    :uh:
     
  11. EvilSS

    EvilSS New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    5,104
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    STL
    Where the heck do you guys come up with this stuff?! Is should be able to rip/burn DVDs just fine.
     
  12. EvilSS

    EvilSS New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    5,104
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    STL
    No, it was built as a low-cost alternative to compete with AMD.
     
  13. EvilSS

    EvilSS New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    5,104
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    STL
    Yes, it will. The limiting factor is the DVD drive, not the processor. Celeron machines move data just fine to/from hard drives, and they are much faster than a freakin' 16X DVD burner. Even compressing video (DVD Shrink, for example) should run just fine on a 2.8 Celeron.

    Hell, I have an AMD 1.4Ghz Duron that rips/shrinks/burns DVDs just fine, and I'm pretty sure a 2.8 Celeron would kick the shit out of it.
     
  14. lowfat

    lowfat 24/Mac/SciFi/PC Crew OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2003
    Messages:
    63,949
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Grande Prairie, AB, Can
    :ugh: i can clock my althon @ 1GHz and burn dvd's just fine. you don't know wtf you are doing if you cant burn a DVD.
     
  15. PC Principle

    PC Principle New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Messages:
    64,143
    Likes Received:
    0
    OIC
     
  16. Madness

    Madness Do not let Dr. Mario touch your genitals. He is no

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2004
    Messages:
    37,904
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    actually I have never heard of that... :hs:
     
  17. Penguin Man

    Penguin Man Protect Your Digital Liberties

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2002
    Messages:
    21,696
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Edmonton, AB
    A PIII burns DVDs just fine as well.
     
  18. Tk

    Tk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Messages:
    23,086
    Likes Received:
    285
    Location:
    nw iowa
    so whats the prescott? is that the high end or what?
     
  19. ledzep73

    ledzep73 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Messages:
    6,868
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Louisville
    I've read it several places, Ill post up a few links later tonight if I can find them.
     
  20. SugarCoatedSour

    SugarCoatedSour Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Messages:
    53,663
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Glenview, IL
    If you're dad's just going to be using AOL and iTunes, just go for a slower P4--there's really no need for a 2.8Ghz Celeron or P4 if that's all he needs to use the computer for.

    My cousin is still running on his 2.0Ghz P4 since 2002, and I don't see it being outdated for what your dad would be doing--He rips and burns CDs and DVDs all the time without any hitches, and encoding video isn't a problem.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2005
  21. EvilSS

    EvilSS New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    5,104
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    STL
    True. But the 2.8 will last longer, especially if it is not used for gaming or encoding video.

    Unless you cousin is a time traveler, I don't think he had a 2Ghz in 1999. AMD and Intel both released the first x86 1.0 Ghz processors in 2000. The 2.0Ghz P4's came out in late 2001.
     
  22. PC Principle

    PC Principle New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Messages:
    64,143
    Likes Received:
    0
    John Titor :noes:
     
  23. SugarCoatedSour

    SugarCoatedSour Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Messages:
    53,663
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Glenview, IL
    My mistake, it was when we graduated high school, so the year would be 2002.

    Either way, I still think his dad would be fine with a P4 a little slower than a 2.8. I'm running an Athlon XP 2700+ and I practically use it every day for more intensive work than just internet surfing and word processing--I'm pretty sure it'll hold out long enough, until the LGA775's and Socket 939's are a little closer to my budget, even if that is a long way down the line.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2005
  24. EvilSS

    EvilSS New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    5,104
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    STL
    The real questions (and I haven't looked up prices lately on Intel chips) is where the price break is. There is usually little difference between prices up to one processor, then there is a HUGE jump in price to the next fastest one. I wold imagine that the 2.8 is probably close to that point due to it's age. It might be just as cheap to go with the 2.8 as a slower chip.

    You are correct though, a slower processor would work just as well. There is just no reason to do it if it only saves $20 bucks or whatever.
     
  25. SugarCoatedSour

    SugarCoatedSour Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Messages:
    53,663
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Glenview, IL
    I agree, I suppose he can just go for the 2.8 if he's only going to save a little, but if he can save $40, I think it'd be good--that way he can get a stick of 512MB DDR 400, at least.
     

Share This Page