Is their much difference in these processors?
- Thread starter tomzic
- Start date
Washrag
New Member
TrainTrackHack
VIP Member
Depends on your needs and budget (£55 is a lot of money). The celeron is a single-core, and will do for basic computing. I have a lappy with a celeron CPU running Vista Home Basic, and it works just fine, even for all the games I play (granted they're all at least 5 years old 
). If you do anything heavier than word processing, spreadsheets, internet, watching movies, music, MSN etc. etc. (you get the idea), the second one is worth it.
). If you do anything heavier than word processing, spreadsheets, internet, watching movies, music, MSN etc. etc. (you get the idea), the second one is worth it.Sir Travis D
banned
I can't believe anyone would recommend a single core processor with the option of a dual core.
hack is right. Not everyone needs an 'OMG, Uber teh fazztest n3west CPU'. I work with a group that's CPU-of-choice is a Celeron D 330.
Last edited:
Kill Bill
Active Member
That isn't the newest CPU and hes doesn't have a group. And celeron wont even play movies smooth.
AGREE!
Sir Travis D
banned
But a 1.8ghz core 2 duo is not fast. It is getting old. An uber teh fazztest cpu would be a 2.8ghz x9000 cpu. The celeron has 1mb cache, and the dual core has 2mb and faster fsb.
TrainTrackHack
VIP Member
Sure, you're right. If you have a P2 celeron, that is. However, the one we're discussing in this thread is based on Core2 architecture, just in case you didn't realise. My lappy with a 1.8GHz celeron plays movies&DVDs just fine, never lags or stutters.
Sir Travis D
banned
If someone asks if it's worth it to get something, they have the money to get it but are unsure whether or not to get it. So, since c2d provides so much performance compared the the celeron, he should get it.
TrainTrackHack
VIP Member
And how would you know? Does the OP say that (s)he's got the money? Maybe he just wants to know if it's worth the extra work and waiting to go for the better CPU.
I already said that it depends on his needs, and like imsati said - Not everyone needs an 'OMG, Uber teh fazztest n3west CPU'. Even if the c2d is much more powerful and so much worth it, is there really a point in putting in an extra £55 if you don't need the "so much better performance compared the the celeron"? Sure, you can say the dualcore is more futureproof, but if the computer is only used for word processing and such, there isn't much to futureproof, is there? When do you think we'll have IMs that take full advantage of multi-core CPUs? Hmm...
You're entitled to your opinion, and you even have the right to freely express it, but please don't start PREACHING. Ok, ok, I'm being overly mean, but at least don't tell people that they *SHOULD* get something, unless you're absolutely sure that they *NEED* it. Please.
A Sabatier and a claymore will both cut an onion - one is simply more feasible to do so with. We still don't even know what the OP is looking to do. If it's something as simple as listening to music while web-surfing then buy the Celeron, save the money, and put it towards something else. Most performance doesn't always equal the best thing for the specific job. Again, hack hit the nail on the head with asking the specific question instead of giving the normal blanket-style answers.
Six to one, half dozen to another I suppose. Eh.
Kill Bill
Active Member
Forgetting performance per watt basic. 55£/$ may be alot but in a year your paying 100$/£ more