Celeron 2.4 Ghz -- any good with 3D games?

[Ted Kerin]

We're thinking of buying a desktop computer for our young son, who is
infatuated with using Daddy's laptop to play the online games at Nick.com,
etc. (Much to the annoyance of Daddy -- me -- who is a nice fellow but who
likes to use his own laptop). Obviously we don't want to spend too much,
figuring whatever we buy will be obsolete before he needs a "real" computer
for school.

The cheapest package I've found ($299 from Dell) starts with a 2.4 Ghz
Celeron, 400 FSB, with otherwise adequate specs. My only misgiving is
whether it will handle the graphics on kids' online games -- I rehabbed my
old Win95 (upgraded to Win98SE) laptop for him, but I have to admit that he
has reason to whine at the performance of the 1.33 Mhz processor -- it
cannot handle 3D games at all, and even simple Flash animation is painfully
slow.

Of course I know that a P4 can stomp a Celeron, and that a Celeron is better
suited to web-surfing than to game-playing. So, that answer won't help me
(thanks anyway). But the kid won't be trying to play the latest
super-detailed online interactive games -- I'm looking for adequate
real-time performance at kid-level stuff. Unfortunately, some of that "kid
stuff" can be a bit processor-intensive, but I have no way of knowing what a
Celeron 2.4 would do: I just know that a Pentium 1.33 isn't cutting it.

Let me reduce this annoyingly general "how good is it?" question to a
specific: I wonder if, for example, a Celeron 2.4 can handle any of the 3D
games at Nick.com -- if so, I think we're good to go. If anybody who has
such a processor (or slightly slower) could give it a go, I'd be incredibly
grateful (sorry, Shockwave or other plug-inmight be required for some of
them). It would really help me out!

http://www.nick.com/games/3d/index.jhtml

Thanks very much to anyone kind enough to let me know.

 

[Ted Kerin]

I meant to describe my old laptop as 133 Mhz, not "1.33" -- sorry about any
confusion!

 

[Cuzman]

Ted Kerin wrote:

" Let me reduce this annoyingly general "how good is it?" question to a
specific: I wonder if, for example, a Celeron 2.4 can handle any of the
3D games at Nick.com "


I found the following at http://www.nick.com/games/site_info.jhtml :

Nick Arcade Minimum Requirements:
Win 98 SE, ME, 2000, XP
400 Mhz or faster Processor
64 Mb RAM
14" Super VGA monitor
16-bit graphics (Hi-color)
Windows compatible Sound Card and Speakers
25 MB available hard drive space
Internet Access via 56k Modem

Nick Arcade Suggested Requirements:
Win 2000, XP
800 Mhz or faster processor
128+ Mb RAM
Windows-compatible Card and Speakers
17" Super VGA monitor
32-bit graphics card (True color)
Windows compatible Sound Card and Speakers
100+ MB available hard drive space
Broadband Internet Acess via Cable Modem or DSL

General Site Requirements
PC/Windows:
Operating system: Windows 98 or higher
Processor: Pentium 300 or higher
Memory: 64 MB RAM
Browser: Internet Explorer (IE): 5.0 or higher,
Netscape 7.0 or higher, AOL 7.0 or higher
Monitor: Thousands of colors,
800 X 600 or higher

Macintosh:
G3 preferred
Operating system: MacOS System 9.2 or OS X (10.3) or better
Memory: 64 MB RAM
Browser: Internet Explorer (IE): 5.0 or higher, Netscape Navigator 7.0
or higher, or Safari
Monitor: Millions of colors

 

[kony]

We're thinking of buying a desktop computer for our young son, who is
infatuated with using Daddy's laptop to play the online games at Nick.com,
etc. (Much to the annoyance of Daddy -- me -- who is a nice fellow but who
likes to use his own laptop). Obviously we don't want to spend too much,
figuring whatever we buy will be obsolete before he needs a "real" computer
for school.

The cheapest package I've found ($299 from Dell) starts with a 2.4 Ghz
Celeron, 400 FSB, with otherwise adequate specs. My only misgiving is
whether it will handle the graphics on kids' online games -- I rehabbed my
old Win95 (upgraded to Win98SE) laptop for him, but I have to admit that he
has reason to whine at the performance of the 1.33 Mhz processor -- it
cannot handle 3D games at all, and even simple Flash animation is painfully
slow.

I happen to have a customer's Dell 2.4GHz Celeron in front
of me right now. It's a low-end box with integrated intel
video and is slower-than-snot. An Athlon XP 1.8GHz with
nForce2 will run circles around it for gaming, but even for
regular windows' use. IF it had 512MB more memory and a
decent video card (doesn't even have an AGP slot though, the
board has space for it but the space has no slot), AND if it
had a beefier power supply, it'd be a lot better. Adding so
many parts no longer makes it any kind of bargain for
gaming... it's mostly cost-effective for light office,
email, surfing, etc.

If you get a Dell I have a bit of advice- Wipe the system
completely. Do not install all that Dell crap, nor the
near-useless bloatware trial versions of the McAfee stuff.
Just install WinXP clean and what you choose, preferably
avoiding anything from McAfee or Norton and all of the Dell
support crap. It's a standard box that needs none of the
Dell unique stuff on it.

Of course I know that a P4 can stomp a Celeron, and that a Celeron is better
suited to web-surfing than to game-playing. So, that answer won't help me
(thanks anyway). But the kid won't be trying to play the latest
super-detailed online interactive games

Right now he won't, but when did you plan on buying his next
system? Kids grow surprisingly fast, I think it's something
in the water causing it. ;-)

- I'm looking for adequate
real-time performance at kid-level stuff. Unfortunately, some of that "kid
stuff" can be a bit processor-intensive, but I have no way of knowing what a
Celeron 2.4 would do: I just know that a Pentium 1.33 isn't cutting it.

At many tasks, a Celeron 2.4 isn't much faster than a
Pentium 1.33GHz, in that regard it's not a significant
upgrade. However, if your laptop doesn't have a decent
video card in it, that's where more of the difference lies,
and amount of memory may matter too. Some OEM
configurations cost disproportionately more to buy with
upgraded (or downgraded- cost savings discounts) memory
changes.

It can be cheaper to order minimal memory possible then
name-brand budget grade memory online. Generally that would
mean doing something like getting the base box with 256MB
memory, then adding a ~ $40 module. In the past couple
weeks there have been some less than $40 after rebate(s)
too.

Same goes for video card, it can be cheaper to buy a good
one later, just be sure the board has PCI-Express or an AGP
slot, not only PCI slots.

Let me reduce this annoyingly general "how good is it?" question to a
specific: I wonder if, for example, a Celeron 2.4 can handle any of the 3D
games at Nick.com -- if so, I think we're good to go. If anybody who has
such a processor (or slightly slower) could give it a go, I'd be incredibly
grateful (sorry, Shockwave or other plug-inmight be required for some of
them). It would really help me out!

http://www.nick.com/games/3d/index.jhtml

Thanks very much to anyone kind enough to let me know.

Well, hold on while I fire up that Dell 2.4 box.....

It's a Dimension 2400, has Intel 845(?) chipset
(w/integrated video), PC2700 DDR memory 256MB stock (I may
add 256MB to this box, 256MB on WinXP with integrated video
taking away some of it, is cutting it too close).

Ok, playing Jimmy Neutron Rescue Jet Fusion & Krazy Karts,
they both play better than I expected them to, but not quite
seamlessly, it could be better. Then again, I've never
played these on a gaming system or any other for that
matter, they might seem a little raw because their
implementations of the games just aren't up to modern
standards for framerate of the gaming engine.

There aren't so typical of 3D games though, as they're not
even playing full screen, "Maybe" it's a 640 x 480 window?
I didn't measure it and there's no easy way to get a
framerate count that I'm aware of. I think most modern
low-end systems would play them ok but they aren't a very
good indicator of overall gaming performance.

I guess my recommendation would be to define the budget then
see if you can get an older box (that includes, or...) plus
a semi-modern video card upgrade for it.

I might be making too many assumptions about that Dell
system you're considering though, if it had any video card
at all instead of integrated video, it would be much more
suitable for (more demanding) games of the past few years,
some of which are now relatively inexpensive.

Inherently, anything played online is light on graphics
because the code has to be downloaded quickly, whereas with
a game on CD, it has access to potentially half-a-GB or more
data. I would raise the target a bit beyond nick.com games
by at least adding a video card and >= 512MB memory.

The other alternative might be a Sempron based system. Dell
doesn't do AMD, but if you're looking for OEM boxes then HP
and Compaq do. This DImension 2400 is built a LOT like some
Compaq and HP boxes, though I dont' recall the model
numbers.

 

[Marc Hulsebosch]

The cheapest package I've found ($299 from Dell) starts with a 2.4 Ghz

Celeron, 400 FSB, with otherwise adequate specs.

If you don't want to spend too much, you should look at building one
yourself, perhaps out of used parts. I would use an AMD processor,
because of the price and their reputation at 3D games (Though that
doesn't really matter in online games).

Marc

 

[Ted Kerin]

Thanks for the answers, guys, and for the very helpful details. I appreciate
your time and your insights.

 

[Random Person]

"If you get a Dell I have a bit of advice- Wipe the system
completely. Do not install all that Dell crap, nor the
near-useless bloatware trial versions of the McAfee stuff."

I completely agree. I had a friends comp who had a paid antivirus
program from a well known company and (equally updated) it failed to
detect a virus which Grisoft's antivirus did for free. That paid
antivirus also slowed down the computer a lot, compared to Grisoft's
one.

The problem with buying a budget comp is that often the system won't
support decent upgrades, or a bottleneck somewhere else will
immediately appear if you install that Radeon X800 XT graphics card on
a 2.4GHz Celeron...

 

[Mike Walsh]

My brother bought a low end Dell, a 2.4 Ghz Pentium 4, but it was slow running WinXP because it had "only" 128 MB memory. Adding another 256 MB allowed him to run the bloatware pretty well. It is entirely adequate for his needs now. The onboard video is all he needs because he doesn't run 3D games.

 

[kony]

My brother bought a low end Dell, a 2.4 Ghz Pentium 4,
but it was slow running WinXP because it had "only" 128
MB memory. Adding another 256 MB allowed him to run
the bloatware pretty well. It is entirely adequate for his
needs now. The onboard video is all he needs because
he doesn't run 3D games.

This one had 256MB, which was barely exceeding that amount
in some testing... mostly because of all the stuff Dell (and
printers, AOL, etc) had running in the background. I threw
in another 256MB and it didn't keep it from being sluggish
at basic tasks. Even so, I'm sure it would help more at
tasks that used far more memory like modern games.

 

[Bob]

This one had 256MB, which was barely exceeding that amount
in some testing... mostly because of all the stuff Dell (and
printers, AOL, etc) had running in the background. I threw
in another 256MB and it didn't keep it from being sluggish
at basic tasks. Even so, I'm sure it would help more at
tasks that used far more memory like modern games.

I have the 2.4 GHz Celeron 320 D with 512 MB RAM. It works well for my
purposes, which include the Internet, SOHO apps, commodity trading,
and DVD authoring. I do not have any games so I would not know about
that aspect. My son has lots of games so he got a 3.2 GHz P4 Prescott
with 1 GB RAM. The CPU ran hot with the Retail Box cooler so he had to
get a Zalman 7700. He also put in 3 extra fans like I did.

I am told if you are a gamester then P4 or AMD equiv. are the only way
to go. The Celeron is meant for SOHO machines like mine.

--

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
--Benjamin Franklin