how bad are celerons????

Status
Not open for further replies.
003 said:
Celerons will NOT run doom 3/hl2 good AT ALL. I used to have a celeron 1.7, and I played UT2004, it ran like CRAP. Now this is when I also had a PCI video card, so it would run like crap anyway, but UT2004 is a very CPU intensive game, and when I upgraded it to a P4 2.0, I got at LEAAST 10fps more in ALL areas.
have you played Doom 3 or HL2 on a Celeron without a PCI card?
I have, and they work fine.
and you are comparing a 2.0 P4 with a 1.7 Celeron. of course the Pentium 4 will be faster. it has a clock speed and cache advantage (I'm assuming they are the same core, probabbly Northwood) but you were also using a PCI video card. that pretty much says it.
PCI cards are not meant for high-end gaming
 
Celerons are the foddor of the PC world.

What performs better, Semprons or Celerons? I beleive semprons....

Just wondering.
 
003 said:
Celerons will NOT run doom 3/hl2 good AT ALL. I used to have a celeron 1.7, and I played UT2004, it ran like CRAP. Now this is when I also had a PCI video card, so it would run like crap anyway, but UT2004 is a very CPU intensive game, and when I upgraded it to a P4 2.0, I got at LEAAST 10fps more in ALL areas.

Its one thing to say that Celerons suck because you had a bad experience with them, then its another thing to say that Celerons suck and here's some benchmarks proving that they suck.

Well, here's a Doom 3 benchmark showing that a Celeron can perform well with Doom 3.

Next time you say that something sucks, prove it.

And, to add to this thread otherwise:

Celerons have their place. Not everyone out there needs a gaming computer. Yes, A64s and P4s perform much better in gaming, and demanding tasks such as video editing and 3D modelling. BUT, considering that gamers make up a tiny fraction of the computer market, Celerons and Semprons definitely have a use, and dont suck.
 
003 said:
They suck.

How can we escape you're superior logic? -_-

I'd never even consider a Celeron, nor a sempron. They have their place, but that dosn't take away from the fact that they simply do not run half as well as there mid-ranged cousins.

Blah. I'd never give a friend a celeron/semp. Would YOU.
 
FadingTheory said:

Blah. I'd never give a friend a celeron/semp. Would YOU.

It depends on their needs. I have a friend who wants me to build him a computer for $400 thats just good enough to run Photoshop. In this case, I will have to use a celeron to keep the price down, and a celeron should run Photoshop without a problem. He's not a gamer at all. Would I buy a celeron? NEVER! But they do have their place.
 
macdawg said:
would you ever recommend a celeron? even to an old lady who doesn't want to build up a PC but just wants a cheap PC to check email and go to pogo.com with?

Is it fair to say that a 2.8 GHz celeron is just fine for checking email and websites with and Pentiums are just for multitasking, games and video editing.

A lot of people are just sold on the Pentium name, then want the cheapest PC they can get with a Pentium 533 mhz FSB, 512 mb ram if they are smart, CD burner, with a flat screen, and go buy a $550 dell without second thought.

If you are buying a new computer for e-mail and web surfing I would buy the lowest priced and slowest processor you can find. A 2.8 Ghz Celeron is fine for a lot of things and more than the old lady would ever need :)

Practically speaking if you can get an old cheap PII or higher that will be more than enough.

Happy Computing :)
 
Celerons have a bad reputation because they are an icon of those $300 eMachines deals where you get the computer, monitor, and printer, that are nothing but pure crap. Its not crap just because of the celeron, its crap because all the parts are crappy. Those machines aren't known for longevity either. This guy I know has one, and it has hard drive head crashes all the time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom