Do all Celerons really suck?

bigred

Penultimate Amazing
bigred
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
22,759
Location
USA
Just wondering how much of a diff they REALLY make - ?
 
Of course they do. They're not made by AMD. :D

It all boils down to what your computing needs are. Celerons can fill the bill for a large majority of users. If your computing needs are high horsepower (Latest greatest games, video, lots of graphics work) then look elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
What Jim said. Well, except for the AMD part.

If you use it to surf the Web on a dialup connection, and write documents and make spreadsheets and deal with mail and that's about it, then Celerons are a fine solution for the price.

If you are doing heavy-duty graphics stuff, then you won't want a Celeron.
 
OK now you're telling me all Athlons suck too? cripes...er most PCs sold in stores are one or other and no I am NOT getting one shipped...
 
No, no. It's just an AMD vs Intel fanboy thing. Pay no mind, both companies make fine products. Intel Celeron would be more comparable to AMD Sempron chips. Athlon is AMD's better chip line.

It probably won't matter a bit to you in the end.
 
Oh, and Celerons might save you a tiny bit of battery life on a laptop, if you really cared.
They cost less, and are perfectly good for 90% of the computing public.
 
They are essentially the cooler, slower, simpler, but especially much cheaper version of the Pentium. Horses for courses.
 
I had a PC with a Celeron (wait for it) 333 (ha ha!) for nearly ten years. I ran Photoshop 4, Flash, etc, plus the games of the day (Sims, etc) perfectly well. As others have said, they're fine for everyday user stuff.

I have a Pentium 4 now, but my computing needs have changed dramatically so I need something with a bit of push.
 
tkingdoll said:
I had a PC with a Celeron (wait for it) 333 (ha ha!) for nearly ten years. I ran Photoshop 4, Flash, etc, plus the games of the day (Sims, etc) perfectly well. As others have said, they're fine for everyday user stuff.
Click to expand...

Ahh, that was a great model, especially if you were using the 440BX motherboard. You could overclock it like crazy.
 
I'm still using an AMD 300 K6 (or K7?) with 3D now. It has 64 megs of ram and it is the busiest machine in the house because it's my router / web server. It has a 1.5 gig hard drive and only ever gets turned off by power failures. :)
 
jimlintott said:
I'm still using an AMD 300 K6 (or K7?) with 3D now. It has 64 megs of ram and it is the busiest machine in the house because it's my router / web server. It has a 1.5 gig hard drive and only ever gets turned off by power failures. :)
Click to expand...

My server is an original slot athlon 700 mhz computer. It handles my domain, dns, dhcp, and nat.
 
Sounds like I should aim for the Athlon but not worry if I "only" get the Celeron, generally speaking. Fair?
 
Pentiums, Celerons, and AMDs are all fine chips but for hard core snacking you need a big bag of Muncho's.
 
bigred said:
Sounds like I should aim for the Athlon but not worry if I "only" get the Celeron, generally speaking. Fair?
Click to expand...
I'd go for the Athlon but I'm an AMD fanboy.:D

It sounds like you are going to pick a whole package system off the shelf. As long as the whole package has the features that you want then what the CPU is doesn't really matter. A bigger disc drive may be of more value to you than the latest 64bit dual core chip.

I have a theory (yes, it's a crackpot theory) that says the amount of buyer's remorse a consumer suffers is directly proportional to the amount of research that goes into the buying decision. That theory predicts that you are already going to be dissapointed. :p
 
Right this very moment, I would reccomend a Pentium D 805 processor, but AMD is slated to drop their prices on the Athlon 64 X2 3600 to pretty darned cheap and that might be a better buy.

Either way I agree that the CPU is probably not going to matter too much for you given your video card preferences. Focus on getting sufficient memory and hard drive space and you should be fine.
 
jimlintott said:
No, no. It's just an AMD vs Intel fanboy thing.
Click to expand...
Not really, no. For most product lines, the price/power:performance ratio is better for AMD. Intel chips generally cost more, and use more power than an equivalent-performing AMD chip. The difference isn't all that great at the Sempron/Celeron level, since their both fairly low-power, moderate-performance and the prices aren't that different; but with the high-performance Athlon/P4 and Opteron/Itanium lines, it's significant.

And Intel still does not have a CPU comperable to the dual-core AMD Athlon 64 lines.
 
luchog said:
Not really, no. For most product lines, the price/power:performance ratio is better for AMD. Intel chips generally cost more, and use more power than an equivalent-performing AMD chip. The difference isn't all that great at the Sempron/Celeron level, since their both fairly low-power, moderate-performance and the prices aren't that different; but with the high-performance Athlon/P4 and Opteron/Itanium lines, it's significant.

And Intel still does not have a CPU comperable to the dual-core AMD Athlon 64 lines.
Click to expand...

.... Umm... I don't consider myself an AMD fanboy but certainly a strong supporter and I will say your information seems a bit old.

The Pentium D 805 is pretty much the best bang for buck you can get. Granted soon the Athlon X2 3600+ will be discounted to only slightly more but the difference will not be all that great and the 805 can be overclocked to around 4 Ghz comfortably on an air based heat sink.

Furthermore the Pentium D line has been a pretty good competitor for the Dual core Athlon 64s, just not the high end Opterons and even that changed recently with the woodcrest and conroe chips. Also the heat and power consumption differences are marginal at best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom