Celeron D -builds and opinions-

I am debating on whether to build a new computer or not. I finally got some leeway from my parents after the last computer I built. They saw that I could put together a PC and get it running without wrecking the parts. I don't know for sure if this is the right forum but here goes:

Iv'e been thinking about getting a socket 478 or LGA 775 Celeron D and throwing it on a cheap mobo with a 512 stick and crap video card.

I want to know what you guys think of the Celeron D. Is it a big enough improvement over the Northwood Celeron? Can it run games decently enough or is it still severely handicapped like my old Northwood 2.4GHz? I figure that they aren't possibly THAT horrible. I don't want any David vs. Goliath comparisons. I just want opinions and facts.

Also. If anyone has overclocked a Celeron D tell me the stock speed and what your final speed was. I might try to get the 2.66GHz to like 3.0GHz or so. I also want to OC the 2.13GHz model. Tell me what I might be able to hit and what a reasonable goal is for stock cooling.

I want you guys to put together systems as well. Go on newegg or zipzoomfly or something and throw me together a decent system based off the Celeron D. Budget is around 320-350 dollars. No monitors or speakers. Just the box. Video is preferrable. Like a low level AGP card that is better than integrated and can handle Half Life 2 at modest settings. It sounds crazy but I think it's possible. Iv'e been trying myself and have gotten close.

Leave room for like $38.00 s+h, except for zipzoomfly which has free shipping. If you can get the system together I might actually build it and tell you how it goes.

Thanks in advance

Regards, Estuansis

 

Unfortunatelt; by default, there is a good chance that celerons will always be handicapped. It is the nature of the processor market. They hope that you'll try to upgrade, and get irritated with the low FSB, the lack of cache, or some other problem, and upgrade right away. That way you just paid for two processors.

I doubt their will ever be a celeron that is a good gaming buy. Even if you can find one to run current games; it will quickly become useless again, the competitive lifespan is just far too short.

As much as I dislike amd, you may be able to get a better bargain chip from them. And ultimately, you'll see performance that is equivalent. This would probably be a better investment. You should also check some of your local pc chop shops. I found a good 3.2Ghz 64bit P4 with 1gb ram, GeForce FX6200, and a 160gb HDD for under 400 fully assembled, new. This might be a way to go for you as well...

 

Coming from a sempron as well. Going to a celeron d is not upgrading. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's not.

 

Oh, no. You guys took it the wrong way. I am in no way trying to upgrade. I know that they aren't as good as my sempy ^_^ This computer is just something I want to do for fun. I just want to see what I can do with it. I might upgrade it to a P4 but I just want to mess with it for now seeing as they're so outrageously cheap.

My system could kick the crap out of anything a Celeron D can do. I wan't to see if they are a viable budget gaming solution as I have never used one before. I hear that they are quite zippy for Celerons.

Again, post anything you can whip up. I just want to check it out.

 

So I'm confused.... I'm not really sure what kind of a system you're looking for here. Just something cheap as a scrap together?

If that's all your looking for; I found a place that will build a 2.4ghz P4 system with GeForce6200 and 512 mb ram, a CD/DVD burner and an 80gb drive for about $350

 

Wow... Ok, I want to see the capabilities of a "budget" Celeron D system. I want to see how it performs and what I can do with it. I am NOT looking for an upgrade.

Look at my sig... no Celeron D could keep up with it. I KNOW THAT! This would just be for kicks and giggles as I have *now* found a job and have backing from my parents to mess with computers.

But I now see that you guys don't have a sense of fun and should drop the thread because I'm getting frustrated. I am a white, redneck loser who lives in in my "lair" with nothing better to do but play games and tinker with computers. So either do what I asked in my starting statement or just forget it... -_-#

 

The celeron D will be annihlated by the cheapest of Sempron socket 754 systems. Or, how about this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813185063

 

lol; as for the geeky lair thing; just remember, most of us are too.


------------------------------------------------------------------
Processor:
Intel Celeron 2.80Ghz (Skt 775)

Mainboard:
Asus p5GPL-X

Memory:
1.0GB DDR400 (2x512mb)

Video Card:
512 Mb GeForce 6600 PCI-Express

HDD:
80gb 7200rpm SATA II

CD-Rom:
52x24x52x16 Combo

-Floppy Drive
-Onboard 6 Channel Intel Audio
-Raidmax ATX 228SP Atx Case w/380w Generic Power Supply
------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm suspecting that this is more the sort of thing you were looking for? I wouldn't personally blow the $464 on this system; but it's a start, and could probably run current gen games well enough. But if I were to upgrade in reality; I would be worried about getting anything less than a GeForce 7 series. Why? Because I was just given an FX5700le 256mb card for my birthday in January. It breathed a lot of new life into my system; and it's already too decrepit for some new games like Oblivion. That's got me all kinds of pissed.


For comparison; here's my ACTUAL system:

------------------------------------------------------------------
Processor:
Intel Pentium 4 2.40Ghz

Memory:
1.0GB DDR PC3200 (2x512mb)

Video Card:
256 Mb GeForce FX 5700LE AGP
HDD:
160Gb 7200 IDE w/16mb buffer
200Gb 7200 IDE w/16mb buffer

DVD Burner:
Sony Burns DVDs up to 8x, RW 2.4x, Burn CD at 24x, read at 52x

-Floppy Drive
-SB Audigy 2
-Generic 300W Power Supply
-Antec Pre-mod case filled with 2xCold Cathodes, and 5x blue led fans (Looks pretty through side-window)
------------------------------------------------------------------

I could definitely stand to do some cable management; and get some hard drive coolers for the long term sessions; but it works well enough.

 

Yes but a FX5700LE was a low to mid end card really, it's the slowest version of the 5700, which wasn't a greatly fast card. Not to put down your system, but you can go a long way above it for not much money in today's market. If you can stretch to it, an X700 Pro is a pretty good bet, or a 6600GT. I'd still recommend something like a Sempron 3000+ though.

 

Finally we have conversation!!!

Handsom, looks like a good system but if you really look in low places you can go MUCH cheaper. I configured a R9600Pro based system at about $290 with 512MB of RAM. lol Nothing much but back when HL2 first came out R9600 was pretty good. I remember using the 5700LE PCI in my Northwood Celeron 2.4GHz DELL and being impressed with its performance. lol

I have configured systems that were Sempron based and MUCH better and cheaper than $464. If you look in my sig there's a system that was not THAT much more expensive and is way more powerful. That 3100+ is getting upgraded to a Mobile Athlon 64 4000+ DTR pretty soon. I'll just have to trim down the HS/F Bracket with a razor or something so the heat sink sits on it right.

sammorris, I remember also when I built the system in my sig. It had a 6600GT but I found that X800GTO for about the same price($150) at the local PC shop. I got a refund because of newegg's superior customer service and got the X800GTO. The performance jump was bigger than I expected. The X800 series is FAR superior to 6600GT or X700 series. Both of those are about equal to a 9800Pro. My friend used to have one. Back around when HL2 and FarCry came out that was the highest of the high-end cards or pretty close.

AMD and ATi to intel and nVidia is how it should be... but nVidia is either higher priced or more rare in AGP 8X... which is what a "Budget" Celeron D would probably have. The R9500Pro is completely out of existence and the R9800 got phased out too soon. It's a shame. I could probably have found a 9800 at the local PC shop for around $90-$110... oh well.

 

Wow, I've found someone who I can really relate to at AD! Funnily enough I've always paired AMD/ATI and Intel/nvidia together, since the first combination are the companies I know, like and trust and the second combination are the companies I don't trust and consider marginally inferior - I sound like a right fanboy don't I?

But in all reality, any company that biases inferior hardware to get far higher performance in 3DMark than any other game, making it appear faster is bad in my books. They may have learnt something with the 6 & 7 series, but really in a large number of cases, nVidia stuff is expensive for what it is, especially with AGP. I can get an AGP X800GTO a fair bit cheaper than a 6600GT and I know what I'd rather have.

I might also add just for consideration of the companies that the 7900GTX has had the "vapourware" problem, whilst the X1900XT/XTX certainly hasn't.

 

I have p4 2.8HT, 756mb ram, asus mobo, and a Geforce5600FX slightly OCed and i can run HL2 with settings on medium at 50-60fps, and it peaks 80 in somelocations, Fps source performs the same, very very playiable, oh yeah and im usign 4x AA and 4x AF. So imo the 5700fx is still avaliable.

 

Viable, or available?
I'm not saying the 5700LE is bad, but you can do better these days, and lots of use like high resolutions!

 

Iv'e found that AMD and ATi both give me more "bang for my buck."

When I had the 5700LE PCI reference card in my DELL it gave me nothing but trouble... the cooler failed and burnt out. I had to replace it with one from Arctic Cooling. Then it decided to zonk out on me eventually and leave me stranded with Extreme Graphics 2...YUCK!!! The performance wasn't even that good to begin with...

My X800GTO was $154.95. It gives equal performance to about a 6800GT... maybe a little less. Now, tell me what a 6800GT costs!!! It's about $250-$300. What good is SM 3.0 when my SM 2.0 card can keep up with the SM 3.0 card easily. Imagine if the X800GTO were SM 3.0. It would render the NV6800 series absolutely useless for the price.

I also find that my Sempron 3100+ gave me MUCH higher performance even with its lower clock speed. Then I decided to OC. My sempy now equals a 3.4-3.6GHz Pentium 4 at only 2.4GHz. From what I've read a Celeron D can't even pass up a 2.8GHz P4 when at 3.5GHz.

I question how intel and nVidia do their business. ATi and AMD always seem to be MUCH cheaper. Even if intel has lower priced budget processors it is hardly worth the $55 for a Celeron D when my Sempy was only $85 and gives me performance that makes even the highest Celeron D processors sweat bullets.

Even with MUCH higher overclocks the Celeron D series seems to avoid any sort of performance jump when my Sempron OCs only 600MHz and absolutely blows away the $250+ intel processors.

 

Do you have my brain too?


[/quote]Imagine if the X800GTO were SM 3.0.[/quote] Then look at the X1600XT, that's not vast amounts of money and that's SM3. It ain't as cheap as an 800GTO but it costs less than a 6800GT where I live.

Me too. nVidia because of the 3Dmark scandal, and Intel because they're such a vast company. Not that there's anything wrong with that (ahem Micro$oft) but the fact that they're using their market position to bully the big companies into only using their (imho) inferior CPUs is I think genuinely harming the market. More people are buying slower intel chips, and not allowing the superior brand AMD to advance by constricting sales. Had AMD had more of a market share by last year (say if Dell were allowed to use both CPUs in their dimension PCs) then there may well had been a chance that you'd see Macs with Athlon64s. As it is, productivity wasn't high enough.

LOL!!!!! But true.

 

Hmm, what does the X1600XT equal in the X800 line? I should look into that. It might just be what I've been looking for...

I agree with you on intel's "inferior" cpus. For what they are they perform well. I have yet to see an FX-60 multitask as well as Pentium Extreme Edition 3.46GHz. But in real life you aren't running enough programs to even push either cpu off their idle temp so it never matters.

For white knuckled, underwear burning, skull crushing, application power AMD screams ahead of intel. They have much shorter piplines which don't allow high clock speeds but they get VASTLY improved efficiency in exchange.

Intel has longer and deeper pipelines that allow for MUCH higher clock speeds. They have now made them longer and deeper in their processors that will come out late this year. They take an even bigger efficiency hit than they already are taking and just keep driving themselves into the ground.

The day is going to come when intel has a 10+GHz processor that performs no better than a 3-4GHz AMD. But maybe by that time intel will be out of business leaving companies like IBM to finally bring out PowerPC processors en masse and actually give AMD a FAIR competitor.

Coming from a Celeron 2.4GHz I can tell you that AMD offers better real world performance for their prices. IMO intel isn't even trying to give you any performance. AMD's processors always give me more performance for my money... well the Sempron 3100+ does any way.

You notice that an Athlon 64 X2 3800+ has a label that places it as high as a 3.8GHz single core Pentium 4. I'm not going to explore the actual performnace but it looks like it lives up to it's label. So what are you gonna take? The actual dual core or the single core that "thinks" it has dual core? One is like $250-300$ while the other is almost $700!! Notice that two cpus can perform seperately while one cpu will still get bogged down eventually. AMD single core solutions perform just as well as intel in multitasking and two would perform much better... don't you think? One and a half doesn't cut it because you are drawing from resources that don't exist.

Pentium D does perform all around better in multitasking. But it can't stand its ground when it is faced with two cores that were more efficient and powerful to begin with. Intel just keeps digging its grave deeper and deeper because it will not deviate from its traditional clock speed race. AMD has already dropped out of that race and intel is just running itself ragged because its too blind to see AMD waving at them on their millionth time around the track. AMD goes and gets a bike and while not expending as much effort as intel is still passing them up.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=238&model2=207&chart=68

Look at this. FarCry is an extremely processor intensive program and even the budget AMD cpus (A64 3200+) are passing up the Pentium Extreme Edition by a huge margin. Its funny because FarCry tends to like higher clocks speeds. I know that Tom's Hardware tends to be biased but they are not going to lie on something this comprehensive.

It's not just FarCry either. Results are the same across the board. Even when the Pentium EE 3.46GHz wins it is only by a small margin. What are you gonna choose? A $1000+ chip or a $140 chip that beats out the more expensive one almost every time?

I'd also like to take this chance to flame nVidia. The NV6800Ultra came out a year and a half ago now. As did X800XL. These two are straight forward competitors. No doubt. But the 6800Ultra is still $400+ while the X800XL can be found for as little as $250-$320. Even though the NV 6800Ultra has "marginally" better performance wouldn't you think the X800XL would be the better value? Again, I want you to notice that the X800XL has SM2.0 while the NV6800Ultra has SM3.0. That small difference is the only thing holding the X800 series back from being king of the mid-level enthusiast market.

 

Agree with most of that, although with the Conroe intel are taking a leaf out of AMD's book with lower core speed efficient processors, the so called "FX-60 beater" (it's not, but it ain't far off) is 2666mhz. However, with a 2007 launch rumoured, AM2 will be well and truly in its place before AMD have to deal with that scenario...

The 6800 Ultra will out the X800XL by a small margin, maybe 10% at best, but admittedly the XL is a lot cheaper. Cheaper still is the pretty much identical GTO16.

 

Unfortunately the X800XL and X800GTO16 are both out of my reach. When I start working more this summer I might invest in one after I upgrade my processor

As for the Conroe core... I didn't know that... I saw it in a magazine(CPU) but maybe I misinterpreted it. Oh well... Maybe when the Conroe core comes out it will drive down the prices of the Pentium 4 to a reasonable price and we can finally get a price/performance ratio that actually makes sense. AMD is still my #1 choice though

 

Oh well, start saving! ;-)

 

I myself am looking into a new system sometime hopefully in the next six months. Although I'm also examining the 360 scene well; waiting for someone to make it run linux; because that is a monster processor that I would be perfectly satisfied with a a machine, and hard drives aren't even an expense issue as far as I'm concerned. The main thing is that I hate to spend more than $400 on a computer that's just going to be outdated in another year or so. I refuse to let myself into that situation again.

So; here's hoping for a quick linux or even windows crack to the 360 or even the PS3. Either one would make a great new (AND TINY) computer for my gaming purposes. (I can always go through the trouble of a little extra soldering for some additional ram...)