intel celeron 1.1ghz... is it really so bad?

[fjorner]

as a former computer salesman in the late 90s, I nearly wretch when I hear the word celeron.

but alas, I'm a po man and I may be needing a new system. Is the 1.1ghz Celeron that bad?

thanks!

 

[oldfart]

Depends what you do. The 1.1 Celeron Coppermine 128K cache is not bad unless you are a power user. The Celeron 1.1A Tualatin 256K cache is quite a bit better.

 

[Rand]

I'd pass on the 1.1GHz Celeron based on the older Coppermine core, but the Tualatin core Celery 1.1GHz is halfway decent and highly overclockable.
Even so it's hard to recommend when you can get a 1.2GHz Duron for less money, and it should perform close to a Celery 1.3GHz.

 

[Paulson]

If I were you, I'd go with a duron...

More bang for the buck, with better performance...

 

[RGN]

I had a 1.1 Celeron on an 815Mobo. It was fast. I only upgraded because I had the opertunity to sell for what I had into it. No complaints. I've got a P4 1.6 now (and a 1Ghz Duron on a KT266 and a Xp1800+ on a 761, but the Celly was not too bad).

If your not a heardcore gamer or doing 3d rendering or something, you will be fine. You have to remember around here, Intel is a bad word.

 

[bacillus]

<< Intel is a bad word >>


:Q
northwood is restoring Intel's reputation though!

 

[Daovonnaex]

<<

<< Intel is a bad word >>


:Q
northwood is restoring Intel's reputation though! >>

And the Pentium III was well loved, from Katmai to Tualatin. The only bad product was the Wilamette, and even that had its merits (Quake III).

Anyhow, the Celeron is more expensive than the Duron and doesn't perform as well, so you make the call.