• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Intel celeron questions

H

HondaF1

Member
Hi. How good are the fastest Intel Celeron processors today? I think the fastes one available is 2.8 Ghz? in terms of performance, how does a 2.8 Ghz celeron compare to a P4? What is the equivalent speed of a P4 in terms of performance for a 2.8 Ghz Celeron to match it?

Can a 2.8 Ghz Celeron system handle games like Counter Strioke with a good graphics card well? What about some newer games?

Basically, is a high speed celeron chip good for playing mid to high end processing power games (along witha good graphics card)?


What about multimedia applications such as converting video and all that and such things as converting analog video form an external source such as a VCR to a digital movie? Are Celerons good at that? Or is that more of a question of the performance of the video card?

I am looking at building a Celeron system because of the cheap price.
 
No.
Celerons suck for gaming, even at higher clockspeeds the P4's, Athlons, and even Durons will beat them, often by large margins.
If you're looking for a cheap gaming rig, AMD is the way to go.
 
P4 northwood based celerons are not worth the silicon they are made from. do not waste your money on one, you will be much better off w/ any other mainstream processor. Supossedly the new P4 Celerons based on Prescott will be better but I wouldn't hold my breath.
 
2.8 ghZ is the fastest stock celeron at this point in time.

I was looking at some benchmarks on celerons, and a 1.8 ghZ P4 beat a 2.8 ghZ celeron in gaming. So, eh... Yeah. It bites.

But, it will handel counter-strike with no problems. I played CS on a 1.1 ghZ celeron with intel extreme graphics...

But... I wouldn't get a celeron. If you're in that budget, look into AMD. A mobile Athlon 2400+ Barton (78 dollars OEM, newegg.com) and a nice Shuttle overclocking board (50 something dollars at newegg.com) will rival the best processors out with good cooling and a nice overclock. All for about the same price as a celeron setup.
 
Originally posted by: Sunner
No.
Celerons suck for gaming, even at higher clockspeeds the P4's, Athlons, and even Durons will beat them, often by large margins.
If you're looking for a cheap gaming rig, AMD is the way to go.
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth. Given than a XP2500 Barton and a 2.6GHz Celeron are the same price, and the former absolutely bitchifies the latter, it's a no-contest.

- M4H
 
As far as I know, that is why the Celerons are classed as budget CPU's. They are intended for basic workstations, or simple home PC's... where the main use is e-mail, surfing the web or using business apps (like many of the accounting packages available, and of course the various Office suites).

Generally speaking, they don't play games too well... although, my bro has got a Celeron 2 GHz system with a GeForce 4 Ti4400 and he plays all the games currently available, without much lag really. Also, he doesn't have to run lowest details settings to get the games playable either. They couldn't be that cr@p then, surely? 😕

I've sold many Celeron systems, mainly for use as workstations. The Celerons aren't exactly the most powerful CPU's, granted, but they seem to be pretty reliable.

Before someone says I'm defending the Celerons, because I own one or something, I actually have a P4C.

I do however agree with everyone else here... for building budget gaming PC's, AMD has better offerings.
 
Well, thing is, a Celeron box and a lower end AMD box(say based on a Barton 2500+) will cost roughly the same, while one of them will offer vastly superior performance in some cases(mostly games) and fairly similar performance in other cases(Office type stuff, not that performance matters all that much in those types of tasks anyway).

It's not about the Celery being crappy by itself, it's just that AXP's or Duron's are a better choice for the the same or a lower price.

Kinda like a BMW 3 series, even if you only use the car for driving to the grocery store, and hence might not have a use for the power of the M3 over the 320i, if you got them at the same price, wouldn't you rather have the M3, just in case you decided to take a ride at the track one day?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top