Next Generation Emulation banner

Does your pc have an Intel Celeron processer?

  • Yes

    Votes: 9 22.5%
  • No

    Votes: 31 77.5%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 0 0.0%
1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,071 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just wondering how many of you have celerons...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,338 Posts
How about those of us who had used Celerons before?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,071 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Demigod said:
How about those of us who had used Celerons before?
If you want to you can. Or if you still have a PC that has one. :)
 

·
The Hunter
Joined
·
15,879 Posts
Mine doesn't have one, it has one that's even slower :p
 

·
band
Joined
·
4,912 Posts
i used to have a celeron 400 that died but if it didnt die i'd still be using it as my BT computer. so i voted yes, and i hope thats ok.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,071 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
D.D. said:
i used to have a celeron 400 that died but if it didnt die i'd still be using it as my BT computer. so i voted yes, and i hope thats ok.
Lucky you, I hope my celeron dies, stupid peice of s#$%. j/k

It's ok.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,338 Posts
A Celeron was the first processor I used in my ATX box. It was a Celeron (Mendocino I think) @ 366 Mhz, which I overclocked to 500. It was pretty good for the time, although my P3 700 I upgraded it to completely eclipsed it. Still, a good processor for the price (unlike now).
 

·
Canadian Spaceman
Joined
·
8,767 Posts
My little ****ty server box has a 2ghz 400fsb celery in it and it does well for what it is. Honestly it isnt good for an update on your gaming machine, but for anything else it might be worth it price wise.
 

·
band
Joined
·
4,912 Posts
@blueshogun.

to be honest i was under the impression that a 2.6ghz celeron wud be pretty darn fast O_O .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
350 Posts
*Cusses at 2.4GHz Celeron.... *
Blue, you little ****er, you beat me by 200MHz :(. Oh, can I have you FX 5200 PCI? My intel is making me sick... oh well, unreal tournament runs great on it... i love that game.. and 2000+ people still play it online..
 

·
Computer Nerd
Joined
·
162 Posts
nope, i haven had a celeron since 1999, well u know what i do have err will have when my psu and cpu comes on the 27th ;)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,071 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 · (Edited)
D.D. said:
@blueshogun.

to be honest i was under the impression that a 2.6ghz celeron wud be pretty darn fast O_O .
Well, you got the speed part right, but it has terrible performance. Take away L2 cache, forget L3 cache exists, remove MMX, produce it cheaply... and presto! you got's a Celeron. Seriously, it is fast in all, but it has horrible multitasking, one program brings cpu usage up to 100%, and performes crappily with games such as Doom3, Halo, SWAT 4, and others. And yes cooliscool, I know my GeForce 5200 (PCI) is crap ;) It handles Doom3's High Quality mode just fine, but there is little to no speed difference between High and Low Quality on my machine. So that's why I blame the Celeron. Either way, I'm gonna build a new PC and not only will it have an AMD 64, it will also have one (or two) of these so I'll never have a low end system for years to come.

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/594/594882p1.html

EDIT:
*Cusses at 2.4GHz Celeron.... *
Blue, you little ****er, you beat me by 200MHz . Oh, can I have you FX 5200 PCI? My inte is making me sick... oh well, unreal tournament runs great on it... i love that game.. and 2000+ people still play it online..
I'd be happy to let you have it, but unfortunaltly, I need it because it's the best thing in town (that I can use). The best thing in town is a GeForce 5200 AGP. That's odd that you run UT2004 fine, it still runs like crap for me. When my mom got this pc for me, I thought it had a p4, but I was wrong. Now I'll never shop for a pc again, I'll build instead from now on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
350 Posts
blueshogun96 said:
That's odd that you run UT2004 fine
I said Unreal Tournament, the orignal version... I can get like 200FPS if I want too. Anyone can run that game ;), *pulls out 233MHz pc and says "Yep; this pc can run it too"*

Oh, and if you can see it; here is why my PC sucks.. *20 dollar cam*
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,341 Posts
Uh, since when have Celerons lacked MMX? I wonder which Celeron is the worst for its respective time period, either the Willamette-based ones or the Covington :p. I plan on getting a decently quick Celeron (700-850 MHz) for my new P3 box so I can overclock it a bit, hopefully well past 1 GHz :D.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,338 Posts
n_w95482 said:
Uh, since when have Celerons lacked MMX? I wonder which Celeron is the worst for its respective time period, either the Willamette-based ones or the Covington :p. I plan on getting a decently quick Celeron (700-850 MHz) for my new P3 box so I can overclock it a bit, hopefully well past 1 GHz :D.
All processors since the Pentium MMX have MMX I believe. And I think the Covington would be slightly better than the Willamette. The NetBurst architecture is really dependent on cache, much more so than the P6 core. Of course it was because of the Covington that the Celeron series got such a bad rep. My friend wouldn't even get near one, even the Mendocino, which was just as fast as a P2 (when overclocked to the same FSB;)).

If you can, try grabbing a Celeron based on the Tualatin core (anything past 1 Ghz). I hear those can overclock like mad. Getting a P3 Tualatin would be even better, but they're very rare and also quite expensive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,330 Posts
I've owned several Celerons.. a Celeron 466, 433, and 400, a Celeron 733 (66), Celeron Tualatin 1.2 which I OCed to 1.8, and a Celeron 2.6 which I OCed to 3.4.. I've built countless Celeron boxes for people aswell. The Tualatin was significantly faster in gaming than the Celeron 2.6 even at 3.4GHz, exluding benchmarks. The lack of cache and low FSB hurts the Celeron NW badly with those deep pipeline stages. The Celeron D (prescott) on the other hand is a great CPU and totally a bargain as it's no more expensive than an equivilent NW Celeron. I was planning on buying one before my friend told me he'd sell me my current P4 3.2C for $55, which is cheaper then the slowest (2.26GHz) Celeron D.:D I doubt your FX 5200 is running Doom 3 on High at any playable rate.. if it can't run UT2K4 at a playable speed, there's no way it can run Doom III good at all. My asus FX 5200 AGP 128-bit (I bet your PCI FX 5200 has a 64-bit memory bus, which makes matters even worse) when overclocked to 300/500 couldn't even run it at a playable speed at 800x600 high. If you consider 11FPS playable when standing there doing nothing, I suppose I'm wrong. While that CPU is infact a bottleneck, those games should be playable if you had a better graphics card. And yep, the Celeron has always had MMX, seeing how the first Celeron was based on the P2, which was ages after the Pentium MMX which introduced MMX (Integer SIMD). Each Celeron had the same instruction sets as their respective bigger brothers. For example, the Northwood Celeron has MMX, SSE, SSE2 (both FP SIMD), like the P4 Northwood. The only current CPU that has L3 cache is the P4EE (and Xeon, but that's not really a home user CPU) which is over $1000.. not really practical, seeing how a much cheaper AMD64 3800+ would tear it to shreds. The thing about the P4 architecture is that it's a ***** to optimize for, but when done right, it really shines. Celerons are simply P4s with cut corners, no real core differences.. but those corners make the difference most of the time. ;)

I'll never go back to a Celeron, though. My next upgrade will probably be a next gen AMD 64 CPU, or possibly an AMD/Intel dual core.. who knows. My PC is fast enough right now, so I'm not looking to upgrade in the near future, except for maybe some more RAM. Still owe ChrisRay $40 for my 9800Pro aswell, which he'll be getting Tuesday. :p

I love computers. :yippee:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
780 Posts
proger said:
I said Unreal Tournament, the orignal version... I can get like 200FPS if I want too. Anyone can run that game ;), *pulls out 233MHz pc and says "Yep; this pc can run it too"*

Oh, and if you can see it; here is why my PC sucks.. *20 dollar cam*
Thats a good one. My first comp was a Compaq Presario 7462. It had an AMD K6-2 processor at 500 mhz. As I learned more about comps and saw my friends get celeries that could beat mine in games, I started to hate AMD. The Celerons suck at games in reality, but that K6-2 sucked more. So why do I have an AMD processor? Cause when I built my secondary rig in '03 the P4's were too expensive, and the Williamette core sucked anyway. Celerons still aint the best for games today; the new P4's are much better than a Williamette but still too much for my wallet. My current rig wasnt cheap, but it runs all my games at +60 fps with max detail and AA so while it only runs at 1.8, I am very happy with it.
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top