Intel Celeron 2.0+Ghz

[PurePeon]

Is there anything wrong with the new intel celerons? I know that before they were not great but I they a good cheap alternative to the Pentium 4? Anyone got a link that shows benchmark tests?

 

[Sunner]

Yep, they're as pathetic as ever in terms of performance.

Tomshardware
AnandTech, somewhat older though.

For office use and such, you're unlikely no notice much of a difference, but then, for most users, gaming is where performance matters in these days of uber fast CPU's.

 

[dullard]

There are many places that benchmark the Celerons on occasion (they don't benchmark all the Celerons though). Tom's Hardware benches a 2.0 GHz Celeron. There are others too.

The Celerons currently hit 2.6 GHz, but 2.7 and 2.8 GHz are rumored to come by the end of the year.

On the games, MPEG-2, tests:
The 2.6 GHz Celeron would be near the bottom of the Athlon XPs and the P4s.

On the PCMark, file compression, Office tests:
The 2.6 GHz Celeron would be about the same as the equivalent Athlon XPs and the same clocked P4s.

On the MP3 maker test:
The 2.6 GHz Celeron would be right near the top Athlons XPs, but far behind the P4s.

Sunner was correct (one minute before me): gaming is awful on a Celeron. It is great for businesses and grandparents that only do office work though. However I think he is wrong that most users game - instead most computers are business/school/families that don't game.

 

[SexyK]

Like Sunner said, you'll be absolutely fine for internet/business apps. Basically no difference at all. When it comes to gaming and some multimedia tasks though, performance will be seriosuly lacking. It all depends what you're planning on using the machine for really.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: dullard
There are many places that benchmark the Celerons on occasion (they don't benchmark all the Celerons though). Tom's Hardware benches a 2.0 GHz Celeron. There are others too.

The Celerons currently hit 2.6 GHz, but 2.7 and 2.8 GHz are rumored to come by the end of the year.

On the games, MPEG-2, tests:
The 2.6 GHz Celeron would be near the bottom of the Athlon XPs and the P4s.

On the PCMark, file compression, Office tests:
The 2.6 GHz Celeron would be about the same as the equivalent Athlon XPs and the same clocked P4s.

On the MP3 maker test:
The 2.6 GHz Celeron would be right near the top Athlons XPs, but far behind the P4s.

Sunner was correct (one minute before me): gaming is awful on a Celeron. It is great for businesses and grandparents that only do office work though. However I think he is wrong that most users game - instead most computers are business/school/families that don't game.

I phrased it kinda badly.

What I meant was, to home users that don't play games, any CPU that's been produced in the last few years will be more than sufficent, so in that case it doesn't really matter.
But gaming is just about the only typical "home user app" that will actually require quite a bit of power, and as has been stated, the Celery sucks at that.