Hi,

I've a question about Celeron D. In short - is it worth buying?

Right now I've AMD 1Ghz Thunderbird, 512MB SDRAM@133Mhz on Asus A7V133
motherboard. My OS is Windows XP Professional SP2. What I do with it:
Dreamweaver MX, MySQL, PHP, OpenOffice, Winamp, some adventure games,
email etc. Nothing really demanding. However I usually run many programs
at once which has a tendency to slow my system down (no surprise here).
What really annoys me is that whenever I want to open .ape file with
'insane' compression I've to wait few seconds. Whats more - my system
goes into deep-freeze mode.

That fact made me wonder if it is a right time to upgrade my computer. I
don't want to spend to much cash right now nor do I think that it is
necessary for me to have Core 2 Duo so I thought about Celeron D.
Does it make any sense to buy it? Something like Celeron D + 1GB DDR2 on
mb supporting Core2Duo? Then after a year or so I could upgrade
processor to Core 2 Duo if I had cash and need for extra 'power'. Would
Celeron D with 1GB DDR2 give me significant gain in overall performance?

Any suggestions/opinions would be appreciated.

regards
t47

Towarzysz 47 wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've a question about Celeron D. In short - is it worth buying?
>
> Right now I've AMD 1Ghz Thunderbird, 512MB SDRAM@133Mhz on Asus A7V133
> motherboard. My OS is Windows XP Professional SP2. What I do with it:
> Dreamweaver MX, MySQL, PHP, OpenOffice, Winamp, some adventure games,
> email etc. Nothing really demanding. However I usually run many programs
> at once which has a tendency to slow my system down (no surprise here).
> What really annoys me is that whenever I want to open .ape file with
> 'insane' compression I've to wait few seconds. Whats more - my system
> goes into deep-freeze mode.
>
> That fact made me wonder if it is a right time to upgrade my computer. I
> don't want to spend to much cash right now nor do I think that it is
> necessary for me to have Core 2 Duo so I thought about Celeron D.
> Does it make any sense to buy it? Something like Celeron D + 1GB DDR2 on
> mb supporting Core2Duo? Then after a year or so I could upgrade
> processor to Core 2 Duo if I had cash and need for extra 'power'. Would
> Celeron D with 1GB DDR2 give me significant gain in overall performance?
>
> Any suggestions/opinions would be appreciated.
>
> regards
> t47

The Pentium D 820 is not very expensive ($118). And you might not even be
interested in Conroe, once you've used it for a while.

Paul

Paul wrote:

> The Pentium D 820 is not very expensive ($118). And you might not even be
> interested in Conroe, once you've used it for a while.

Still Celeron D is ~50% cheaper. Wouldn't Pentium D 820 be an overkill?
And would it run fine on 350W Chieftec? I heard that D805 is great
because it's v. easy to overclock it. Perhaps if Pentium D then D805
would be a better choice? Or am I wrong?

regards
t47

"Towarzysz 47" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:eh84h3$sl4$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi,
>
> I've a question about Celeron D. In short - is it worth buying?
>
> Right now I've AMD 1Ghz Thunderbird, 512MB SDRAM@133Mhz on Asus A7V133
> motherboard. My OS is Windows XP Professional SP2. What I do with it:
> Dreamweaver MX, MySQL, PHP, OpenOffice, Winamp, some adventure games,
> email etc. Nothing really demanding. However I usually run many programs
> at once which has a tendency to slow my system down (no surprise here).
> What really annoys me is that whenever I want to open .ape file with
> 'insane' compression I've to wait few seconds. Whats more - my system
> goes into deep-freeze mode.
>
> That fact made me wonder if it is a right time to upgrade my computer. I
> don't want to spend to much cash right now nor do I think that it is
> necessary for me to have Core 2 Duo so I thought about Celeron D.
> Does it make any sense to buy it? Something like Celeron D + 1GB DDR2 on
> mb supporting Core2Duo? Then after a year or so I could upgrade
> processor to Core 2 Duo if I had cash and need for extra 'power'. Would
> Celeron D with 1GB DDR2 give me significant gain in overall performance?
>
> Any suggestions/opinions would be appreciated.
>
> regards
> t47
You can't be serious. Celeron is a ridiculous chip in today's market. For 20
bucks more, get a much faster Amd or Intel. Good grief. BTW, OO will boot up
much faster with a newer chip.

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 20:55:53 +0200, Towarzysz 47
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Paul wrote:
>
>> The Pentium D 820 is not very expensive ($118). And you might not even be
>> interested in Conroe, once you've used it for a while.
>
>Still Celeron D is ~50% cheaper. Wouldn't Pentium D 820 be an overkill?
>And would it run fine on 350W Chieftec? I heard that D805 is great
>because it's v. easy to overclock it. Perhaps if Pentium D then D805
>would be a better choice? Or am I wrong?
>
>regards
>t47

Yes the Celeron will be a significant performance increase
over the current CPU, and with many uses going up to 1GB of
memory will help a lot too- though right now you can already
get a gauge of your memory needs by looking at the memory
figures in Task Manager.

As for whether it's better for you to buy that Celeron right
now or put it off long enough to save up the difference
towards a Core2Duo, I can't answer that... but if you aren't
looking to reuse the Celeron to build another system for
some other use, I would hold off and just buy one CPU.

A Chieftec PSU isn't so good, for it to be from the earlier
Athlon era, it's not likely to have enough 12V current to
support a modern system.

kony wrote:
> Yes the Celeron will be a significant performance increase
> over the current CPU, and with many uses going up to 1GB of
> memory will help a lot too- though right now you can already
> get a gauge of your memory needs by looking at the memory
> figures in Task Manager.

I worked on a Sempron machine for a while and I must say that it was
quite good. Windows XP was running smoothly and there were no freezes.
However since it wasn't my machine I couldn't check how it behaves when
I do what I usually do. I wonder if Celeron D is faster than Sempron. If
it is or at least it's equal then I think that it might be ok.

> As for whether it's better for you to buy that Celeron right
> now or put it off long enough to save up the difference
> towards a Core2Duo, I can't answer that... but if you aren't
> looking to reuse the Celeron to build another system for
> some other use, I would hold off and just buy one CPU.

Well, I don't know whether I'll need anything more than Celeron or D805.
That's the question. I know that Core2Duo is fast but I don't know
whether I need it. You don't need a Ferrari to go shopping, do you?

> A Chieftec PSU isn't so good, for it to be from the earlier
> Athlon era, it's not likely to have enough 12V current to
> support a modern system.

This PSU of mine is ~1 year old.

regards
t47

Pete wrote:
> You can't be serious. Celeron is a ridiculous chip in today's market. For 20
> bucks more, get a much faster Amd or Intel. Good grief. BTW, OO will boot up
> much faster with a newer chip.

I've had enough of AMD. What other Intel for 20$ more did you have in mind?
As for boot time - I know that OO boots faster on newer chips - I'm not
THAT lame . And I don't really care if it boots 5-10 seconds faster
because I boot my computer once a day. Even 10 seconds doesn't matter .

regards
t47

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:46:01 +0200, Towarzysz 47
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>kony wrote:
>> Yes the Celeron will be a significant performance increase
>> over the current CPU, and with many uses going up to 1GB of
>> memory will help a lot too- though right now you can already
>> get a gauge of your memory needs by looking at the memory
>> figures in Task Manager.
>
>I worked on a Sempron machine for a while and I must say that it was
>quite good. Windows XP was running smoothly and there were no freezes.
>However since it wasn't my machine I couldn't check how it behaves when
>I do what I usually do. I wonder if Celeron D is faster than Sempron. If
>it is or at least it's equal then I think that it might be ok.

It depends quite a lot on the speed of each CPU, and the
specific task as they're different architectures.



>
>> As for whether it's better for you to buy that Celeron right
>> now or put it off long enough to save up the difference
>> towards a Core2Duo, I can't answer that... but if you aren't
>> looking to reuse the Celeron to build another system for
>> some other use, I would hold off and just buy one CPU.
>
>Well, I don't know whether I'll need anything more than Celeron or D805.
>That's the question. I know that Core2Duo is fast but I don't know
>whether I need it. You don't need a Ferrari to go shopping, do you?

If I needed one for other uses and could only have one car,
I suppose I'd have to do the shopping with it.

I wouldn't consider Core2Duo a Ferrari though, there are
multiple speed grades.

The best value in the low end is probably an Athlon 64.
Whether it makes the most long-term sense might depend on
how much time passes before you were to replace the CPU, if
you bought the Celeron based system.


>
>> A Chieftec PSU isn't so good, for it to be from the earlier
>> Athlon era, it's not likely to have enough 12V current to
>> support a modern system.
>
>This PSU of mine is ~1 year old.


The overall quality is still lower than average, but it
might be optimized for 12V current being new(er) and thus
sufficient for a basic system.

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:52:32 +0200, Towarzysz 47
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Pete wrote:
>> You can't be serious. Celeron is a ridiculous chip in today's market. For 20
>> bucks more, get a much faster Amd or Intel. Good grief. BTW, OO will boot up
>> much faster with a newer chip.
>
>I've had enough of AMD. What other Intel for 20$ more did you have in mind?
>As for boot time - I know that OO boots faster on newer chips - I'm not
>THAT lame . And I don't really care if it boots 5-10 seconds faster
>because I boot my computer once a day. Even 10 seconds doesn't matter .
>


What's "had enough of AMD" mean? Whatever you buy new today
has a different CPU architecture and motherboard chipset,
the only commonality is who made it.

Until Intel came out with the Core series of CPU, AMD was
still the performance per dollar leader. By buying the
last-generation Celeron you'd getting less value per dollar
than going with AMD. However, I don't know what pricing
is like there, in the US it won't be long until Core 2 Duo
is down at entry level price points, is already around $180
USD for an e6300.

kony wrote:

>>> As for whether it's better for you to buy that Celeron right
>>> now or put it off long enough to save up the difference
>>> towards a Core2Duo, I can't answer that... but if you aren't
>>> looking to reuse the Celeron to build another system for
>>> some other use, I would hold off and just buy one CPU.
>> Well, I don't know whether I'll need anything more than Celeron or D805.
>> That's the question. I know that Core2Duo is fast but I don't know
>> whether I need it. You don't need a Ferrari to go shopping, do you?
>
> If I needed one for other uses and could only have one car,
> I suppose I'd have to do the shopping with it.

What I meant was: I probably (~90%?) won't use extra power provided by
Core2Duo for at least 2 years.

> I wouldn't consider Core2Duo a Ferrari though, there are
> multiple speed grades.
>
> The best value in the low end is probably an Athlon 64.
> Whether it makes the most long-term sense might depend on
> how much time passes before you were to replace the CPU, if
> you bought the Celeron based system.

Well - compared to my Thunderbird it is a Ferrari . I replace CPU
rather rarely. I started with 386DX, then there was PII 350Mhz and now
I've Athlon 1Ghz.

As for Athlon 64 - I've one at home already - s939 X2 3800 (too bad I'm
not the one working on it ). It's nice and fast but I heard that
Core2Duo is much faster. And that's why I want an Intel system. The idea
is for it to be easily upgradeable to Core2Duo (which is faster than
AMDs as far as I know). Btw: will Core2Quadro work on Core2Duo motherboards?

regards
t47