neat to try..

[DJ-CHRIS]

Well, that's precisely why celerons suck completely. They have terrible bandwidth to the ram, so intel pumps up the cache to compensate. Well, when you take away thier one single high-point, it's a lame horse. It has no memory capabilities.

Ryan

This was only for origional celeron's. And back than, the celeron's started outpeforming the celeron's. (Actually upon remebering, they had less cache, but the cache was full speed instead of half)

After that, celeron's just have half the cache.

 

[talldude123]

okay, well if a celeron is bad for gaming, how about pentium 3, 1.2 ghz?

Has 512 KB cache, 1.2 Ghz is okay, would it run better than a celeron d?

 

[Shumway]

If you want a cheap gaming rig do up a sempron,They beat the crap out of Celeron D's at just about every single thing

 

[talldude123]

arent semprons the exact same as celerons, just basic processors for basic computing?

i know that athlon is the direct competitor for pentium 4.

 

[talldude123]

sempron 2600:
1.6 GHz <- kinda low eh?
256 Kb cache

celeron D 330:
2.6 Ghz
256 Kb cache

 

[Shumway]

You better go read up on this in the AMD vs Intel thread,Ghz don't mean nothing anymore The only thing the celeron's are better at is encoding and the like's.

 

[FghtinIrshNvrDi]

You see, back to my theory about the Celerons being L2 cache dependant... The Semprons didn't have this problem, because they rely more heavily on system memory. Therefore, when you cut half of the cache from under THEM, it's not nearly as drastic. Here's a terrible metaphor:

An AMD Sempron is like plucking all of the down feathers off a a bird and releasing him into the wild. A Celeron is like is like plucking every last feather out of his wing. Which bird would you rather be?

Ryan

 

[Nitestick]

face it sempron>celeron. the celeron has lost one of the keypoints of the intel series and has not been designed to compensate. cache isn't that important to any of the AMD's but once again this is the main thing lost in the Semprons. as suggested before if you want a cheap gaming rig go with a sempron. you mentioned having "all performance parts, except the processor". if you are prepared to buy performance parts then why not spend an extra couple of hundred to get a decent processor

 

[Flanker]

okay, well if a celeron is bad for gaming, how about pentium 3, 1.2 ghz?

Has 512 KB cache, 1.2 Ghz is okay, would it run better than a celeron d?

A Pentium III would be even worse. I've spent 3 years on a Pentium III 1.0GHz, I should know.

A Sempron 64 is MUCH MUCH MUCH (like...times infinity) better than a Celeron. A Sempron 64 is actually a direct competitor to the Pentium 4s, in some ways.

And just wait for the Socket AM2 Sempron 64s...ownage to the extreme.

If you want to make a budget PC (like, $600-minus, then go with a Sempron 64 2800+ or 3000+. They overclock like !-!ell..

 

[talldude123]

well sempron 64 is 64-bit, right?

anything 64-bit is obviously gonna be good!

is there going to be a celeron 64-bit coming out? or will it be pointless to create?