how bad are celerons???? - Page 5 - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > Monitors, Printers and Peripherals
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 06-13-2005, 12:59 PM   #41 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Jorsoft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oakdale, MN
Posts: 4,581
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by FadingTheory

Blah. I'd never give a friend a celeron/semp. Would YOU.
lol friends don't let friends do celerons

But I was actually *very* surprised at how well celerons and semprons performed in that Doom3 test. However, I think that original point still stands: Get a full-fledged processor for gaming.
And as far as Internet and Word go, yes Celerons/Semprons do a good job *now*, but what about in the future? Back in the day everybody thought that the new 300 mhz PII was blazing fast, which it was at the time. But then the internet got more graphically intense, more java code to run, the new versions of Windows needed more horsepower to run, etc. and now that same processor is nothing more than a dinosaur. That's the cycle of technology and I think that getting a P4 or an Athlon over their lower end equivalents will ensure more future use out of the same system regardless of what it's being used for. And as I've indicated aerlier, they're practically the same price. You will be able to use a better processor for a lot longer and really get more for your money.
__________________

__________________
Jorsoft is offline  
Old 06-13-2005, 01:12 PM   #42 (permalink)
I Rule You
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 543
Send a message via AIM to FadingTheory Send a message via Yahoo to FadingTheory
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by horndude
Too many people and companies try to hide bad software with more powerful hardware, pretty silly thing to do.Apple does it, and the other major OS out there is certainly guilty of it.
That will always happen. Hardware is logic that works, while software is logic that should work, but dosnt.

Hardwares easier to debug, because you KNOW how the hardware will react: its right there, a solid state object, in which it is what it is. Software, you never know when two lines of code will execute at the same time, crashing or seizing the system. You can never acount for what will happen.
__________________

__________________
Iraq... whee.
FadingTheory is offline  
Old 06-13-2005, 06:58 PM   #43 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,247
Default

um, the question has NOTHING to do with gaming. It was a simple question. Would the config shown do what the above statement said. Yes, its great to know the performance specs, benchmarks, and what not but this is NOT the issue. Its a simple question. Would this work. The answer is, if this is ALL and she will not have the desire to do any real graphic intense programs in the future, then YES it will do all you asked and you could go even lower, if need be.
__________________
If you argue with an idiot he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

I am not a fast writer.
I am not a slow writer.
I am a half-fast writer.

-Robert Asprin
killians45 is offline  
Old 06-13-2005, 08:40 PM   #44 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,006
Default

I don't know if this is common, but in my family, computers come in 3 year cycles. I bought a 1XX mhz pentium computer in 1996. Upgraded to a 533 celeron in 1999. Then I bought a 2.0 Ghz northwood in 2002. The celeron still works fine. It can still play some old games like Warcraft III. It only has problems encoding stuff. I can surf the web/check email with it.
Celerons are fine if you are on a budget, and don't want to spend that much cash on the next cpu. That being said, get the semprons. Although they OC worse in MHz standards, they become monstors once they get over 2.4 ghz. Intel disabled important tings like hyperthreading and l2cache for the celerons. AMD disabled the useless 64 bit technology, and the less needed l2 cache for semprons.\

Btw check this out.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...ron-3100e.html
Hacp is offline  
Old 06-13-2005, 08:51 PM   #45 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: asdf
Posts: 8,885
Default

64bit isnt useless.... hell its been around since 1992 though lol
c0rr0sive is offline  
Old 06-13-2005, 10:47 PM   #46 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,006
Default

Compared to hyperthreading, it is. Also, how many people who buy the 64s actually use 64 bit processing? Very few I would imagine. Very good feature to cut out.
Hacp is offline  
Old 06-14-2005, 12:43 AM   #47 (permalink)
Master Techie
 
uzi9mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Horseheads, NY
Posts: 2,553
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by m3trj
Apparently Tech-Forums runs on a Celeron, so they can't be that bad.
Well, running a forum really comes down to how much ram the computer has, the HD speeds and transfer rates, and the internet connection on the servers side.

You do not need a really high end CPU just to push letters around and archive them..............
__________________

__________________
INTEL i7 930
ASUS P6X58D
3x2gb Corsair Dominators
EVGA GTX 480
CORSAIR 850-HX
uzi9mm is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.