Intel Celeron processors

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Old Gringo, Nov 5, 2006.

  1. Old Gringo

    Old Gringo Guest

    The good, The bad, and The ugly. Tell me about them, or where I can
    find some reviews on them. Be back to thank you.
     
    Old Gringo, Nov 5, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Old Gringo

    Old Gringo Guest

    Without Any Hesitation, Old Gringo Wrote The Following:
    After reading this: http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1217
    I guess Celeron is good enough for an old fart.
    The one I am interested in is the
    Intel Celeron D 351 3.2Gh. 256k Cache Em64T.XD 533MHz FSB
    Any impute appreciated.
    Be back to thank you.
     
    Old Gringo, Nov 5, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Old Gringo

    Old Gringo Guest

    Old Gringo, Nov 5, 2006
    #3
  4. Old Gringo

    Norm Guest

    Would you like a help file on using Google?
     
    Norm, Nov 5, 2006
    #4
  5. Old Gringo

    PeeCee Guest


    The Good: mmm cheapish compared to Pentiums
    The Bad: the're slow.
    The Ugly: No sooner get one and you want to upgrade.

    Paul
     
    PeeCee, Nov 5, 2006
    #5
  6. Old Gringo

    Old Gringo Guest

    Without Any Hesitation, Norm Wrote The Following:
    You're to late, I found it. <g>
     
    Old Gringo, Nov 5, 2006
    #6
  7. Old Gringo

    Old Gringo Guest

    Without Any Hesitation, PeeCee Wrote The Following:
    Thank You, but the records I found say something different.
     
    Old Gringo, Nov 5, 2006
    #7
  8. Old Gringo

    Old Gringo Guest

    Without Any Hesitation, Norm Wrote The Following:
    PS: Thanks Norm
     
    Old Gringo, Nov 5, 2006
    #8
  9. Old Gringo

    Donald Guest

    Donald, Nov 5, 2006
    #9
  10. Old Gringo

    nobody > Guest

    Don't know off-hand of any links :{

    Depending on which era of Celeron, they have been downright poor to great.

    The early ones had absolutely no cache memory whatsoever which made them
    about 60% as effective as a 'full' Pentium (II at the time) for the same
    clock speed for any CPU intensive application like hardcore games.

    Intel added cache memory later and the Celeron became a bigger
    contender. The infamous "300A Celeron" was a cheap alternative to a 400
    PII as the 'A' would often overclock to 500 mhz, at about half the price.

    Celerons usually have about half the cache of a 'full' Pentium III or IV

    Nowadays a Celeron is a fair contender for most computing tasks. It's
    not going to be as fast at video transcoding or them same hardcore
    games, but for almost every home use otherwise, most people wouldn't see
    the difference.
     
    nobody >, Nov 5, 2006
    #10
  11. Old Gringo

    Old Gringo Guest

    Old Gringo, Nov 5, 2006
    #11
  12. Old Gringo

    Old Gringo Guest

    Without Any Hesitation, nobody > Wrote The Following:
    Thank You very much for the impute. I am finding that the Celeron
    will be adequate for my needs. Thanks again.
     
    Old Gringo, Nov 5, 2006
    #12
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.