Avoid Celeron laptops ?

Should I avoid laptops with Celeron processors ? Are they really that "bad".....

 

Probably depends on what you'll be doing with your machine, and what you're allowing for your budget.

I have a cheap desktop with a Celeron which is fine for surfing the Net and checking email. In a pinch, my son has used it with his iPod. Nothing very challenging, but it was a $450 dollar machine when new. LOL

 

Newer Celerons are based on the Core 2 architecture, so basically you're getting a Core Solo minus some cache.

In essence, they're a lot better than they were before. If all you're going to do is surf the web and type word docs, then it should be just fine.

 

Not sure about laptops, but desktop wise, I'd rather sell an arm or leg to get something better. IMHO, avoid them like the plague @_@

 

Why? That's a pretty strong opinion.

 

I find the idea of avoiding a cheap CPU quite bizarre. Five years ago when I bought my last laptop, I deliberately went for about the cheapest CPU available, a 2.0GHz Mobile P4, and it was absolutely the right decision. I've used it not just for web surfing and email, but games, VHDL simulation and video encoding, which it's perfectly capable of doing.

Fact is, any modern CPU is fast enough to do most things. Only if you play the latest games, have a specific CPU-intensive application in mind, or are terminally impatient, do you actually need to be picky.

My new laptop has a T7500 (2.2GHz Core 2 Duo), and in everyday use it doesn't really feel any different to my old one - in other words, both CPUs are plenty fast enough. In terms of benchmarks, though, it's about 4 times faster, and so it's capable of playing the games that I bought it for.

 

i'm using r60e laptop right now. it's a celeron with 512mb ram. i think the unit is fine with word processing and internet surfing. but for games and photo editing, it's a real shame. it hangs all the time with the red alert game that i installed in it. and with canon zoombrowser software for photo editing, you'll feel like you're with the slowest snail in the world! omg, i wanna upgrade real soon...

 

I think Celerons don't have Speedstep, so they're much noisier and have reduced battery life compared to their more expensive cousins.

 

I agree completely! My first laptop had a celeron and it struggled with internet/media player and MSN being open at the same time. e.g. when i went to change a track using the WMP toolbar it would stall for 5 secs before responding with another pause before choosing the next song. Those 3 apps are pretty standard though, if it cant handle that then it really is unacceptable imo.

I will never touch a celeron again!

 

You guys that hate celerons obviously got an idea about them in the past and now despise them. While I agree that in the past celerons were absolute crap, you can't just base your decision on past experiences and say all celerons ever made were crap.

If you actually were to use one today, you'd be surprised. The Celeron M 550 is basically a 2.0GHz core 2 duo with only 1 core active, 533MHz bus and 1MB cache. While the bus is a little slow, and there's only half the cache, you can't ignore the fact that it's got 2000MHz worth of a core 2 architecture in it.

 

If the price low sure, but since I can get a Pentium Dual Core notebook for $550 I would not pay much for a Celeron. After going Dual Core I would have trouble going back to any single core setup.

 

Yep, today's celeron is no longer a crappy GPU. Merom based CPU with only one core that active. Preferably, I'd pick the Pentium Dual Core for a budget than a Celeron. Others may differ but that's me

 

I would DEFINATELY buy a Celeron lappy, considering the chipset could take a Core 2 Duo...

I bought an Acer Aspire 3680 with the 1.6ghz Celeron, and ugpraded it to a T5300 1.73ghz Core 2 Duo, along with others on the forum. I paid $75 for the T5300 on ebay and paid $400 for my laptop. If i were to buy an already equipped Core 2 Duo lappy, it would be $849 ( at Microcenter - I already checked this out) Btw, I have the 943GML/i940 chipset.

Yes, both cores work. Yes, it was plug n' play with no modifications. The BIOS recognized it immediately and it SCREAMS now when I turn it on.

So bottom line is- I do not regret buying my Celeron laptop at all. Its not the end of the world, people.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=206137

 

I have a Celeron-M in my L100. I used it for uni work (plenty of multitasking - 8 apps open at once) and since then basic stuff like browsing, IM, office, email, photoshop, writing DVDs. I have done somelight gaming but that was hindered by my integrated graphics controller.

With a Celeron-M you get a chip that's based on the latest mainstream chip, but it only has one core. It also has 1MB L2 cache as opposed to 2 or 4 for a Core 2 Duo and it lacks speedtepping. The realistic implications of that are that your battery life is slightly reduced (not an issue for me as mine is plugged in most of the time), you lose the heavy multitasking ability (light multitasking is fine) and you're a tad down on power, which is only really an issue if you're wanting to do heavy gaming and/or very cpu intensive tasks such as major photoshopping, lots of encoding and/or lots of compiling.

I am very happy with my Celeron-M. I'd probably go for a Pentium Dual Core or Core 2 Duo for my next laptop, but the Celeron-M has served me well and been far better than a lot would give it credit for.

Unless you're into heavy usage a Celeron-M should be fine.

 

Yes...that's what I did....the "dual core" is not the "dual core" of old. All speed tests and architecture are very close to the T5250. The T2310 and T2330 are a C2D with 533 Bus and 1 MB cache. But the best thing is, it's priced about the same as the Celeron...maybe $20 more. I see these lap tops between $399-$449 on a regular basis.They will do some decent gaming as well along with respectable speeds for everyday tasks. Keep looking and you'll find a deal. I'd go with 2-cores to keep in pace for the future. Now there are quad cores, so pretty soon these X2 Chips will be "ancient"....

 

I got a Celeron 410MLaptop about 1.5 years ago so I could have a working Internet/email/office computer. It works great and all my gaming was done on consoles, so nothing lost there. It still works fine (i'm typing on it right now) but sadly my needs have grown as I do a lot of work with 720p video now and the laptop is not up to snuff anymore. I just ordered an Inspiron 1520 (T7500/8600GT/BluRay) and it should be here by Wednesday.

 

The PDC is now the budget chip of choice IMO. The Celeron-M is a chip from THe Dothan times that should possibly be retired now. It's still very capable but PDCs are now very much in the same price bracket and are more desirable.

Unfortunate, but true. Still, Celeron-Ms are by no means bad chips.

 

Simply Celerons used to avoided by anyone doing anything more than basic computer applications. Now days it has been improved and it considered (still) a budget solution but is much more powerful than it's former self. I still suggest something better for gaming but if you are on a budget it will do you fine. There is nothing wrong with using one.

 

Celeron processors over all just plain suck. Unless you're most hardcore game is PONG or Tetris, then the celeron will LAG even when web browsing and going on msn.

Get a Pentium Dual Core if you're REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEALLY strapped for cash, if you're cheap then get a Core 2 Duo T5250 or something like that.

Do NOT get a celeron. Ever.

 

If you're not a gamer, a Celeron is fine for most apps.

If you're cheap?? What does that mean? What if a person is not cheap, but is broke and would like a computer? What if the person is an old man with no interest in gaming and with no need for power and could buy whatever sort of computer he pleases, but prefers a Celeron just because you seem to put the knock on it so vehemently?

 

It's not the processor which is the performance bottle neck, but the HDD. Celerons run fine for basic computing operations. Let's not forget that the EEE PC is using a "crippled" celeron processor, yet it boots up faster than very many notebooks with "real" processors.

 

So, if I sat you down in front of a brand new PC, and asked you to work out what kind of CPU it had just by actually USING it - without running benchmarks or playing the latest games - you reckon you'd be able to tell straight away?

Web browsing is a trivial task for any current CPU. Only people making money by selling CPUs would try to tell you otherwise.

 

Sorry but this argument is stupid and does not help the poster in any form. First off Celerons don't plain suck. They DONT lag when browsing the web or msn. I don't know what gave you that idea but it's not true. I take it you haven't owned one since you would have a better idea if you did.

The celerons were a cheaper version of the pentium chip that had less L2 cache. They targeted low end computer systems and did their job well. They were less power consuming and cheap for manufactorers to implement. I purchased a celeron in 2002, I gamed with it too. No problems what so ever. Obviously I wasn't playing Crysis at max graphics but it did the trick.

So in a break down...

1) The Celeron does not lag in web browsing, if the computer lags in web browsing it is not your celeron it is something else

2) The celeron can game, but a lower settings.

3) The celeron is cheap and therefore affordable.

4) The celeron will do what it was designed for and compute basic needed tasks for ordinary people.

 

OOooOOo I see, TETRIS and PONG, yeah TECHNICALLY it can "game"...

Look, the celeron CPU is a low end processor, you could argue until you are blue in the face, it sucks!

If all you do is go on firefox and have ONE TAB open, and want to play tetris all day, then yes, the celeron is RIGHT FOR YOU!

After 4 years of using a celeron, I want to pull the hair outta my head because it drives me crazy!

Dual core is the only way to go these days!

You want a HARD CORE computer? Check out my specs below LMAO

 

No, which is the point being made by so many of the folks who have answered your previous post.

 

Yeah of course, Intel would make a cpu that lags doing the remotest task in a 5 year old operating system...

Please stop filling the forum with this gross misinformation.

 

Look, the celeron is a low end CPU, period. In my opinion, a low end CPU = a CPU that sucks? That's my opinion, I think that this processor sucks, especially after using it for 4 years.

Don't hate me because I'm beautiful!

 

I have a ULV U1400 processor running with much less power than a celeron. I can reguarly browse with many pages open in FF, and even some games can work. I get around 15FPS in Halo (the original one) which is quite good for something like a 'celeron' with the weakest known Intel GPU.

Celeron's now are basically Core 2 Solos with a fraction of the cache, and that means they'll be surprisingly powerful at times despite the brand name.

Yes, dual core is more efficient and more useful...at times. For office tasks like browsing the internet, checking email, etc, etc...this processor would be lower powered, lower heat output, and longer battery life if SpeedStep is enabled.

Your oversized PC is definitely powerful, but please keep in mind that not everyone needs as much power as you believe you do. Don't fault them for it, don't insult them for it.

Next time you answer a question, keep the user's needs in mind AND NOT YOUR OWN. Keep spreading inaccurate information, and you might find your ability to post being hampered by administrators on this site.

 

I don't think Celerons have the SpeedStep feature... unless that's changed?

 

Like I said, if they have that feature. If they don't, there might be a little more power drain but not too much more.

 

Apparently, you're right, at least with respect to mobile processors, swarmer.

 

Depends, keep in mind that not everybody needs a laptop or a rig that can run games at 45000x32000 with 200X AF and 500AA at 800 frames per second.

I'd take a Celeron or an older P4 based mobile system or a tower computer if all I will be doing is surf the net and do office work. Otherwise, if I will be running benchmark software or running heavy games at full resolutions and graphics options then by all means I will move on to something different.

(Hi Rob)

 

)) depends on which you'll do on your laptop, if games ,graphics, - you'ld rather avoid it, movies .... - you cant take it.
and the plus it's cheaper

 

Any modern CPU is fast. They even have dual core Celerons for desktops now.

 

It depends what the laptop is used for.

I had a celeron base laptop acer travelmate 2350 with a celeron M360 and wasn't bad at all. I used it for photoshop and autocad mainly, and to watch avi(s). The laptop had a large heatsink so under normal load the fan was only spining from now and then.

I think that as long as the OS is Windows XP celeron are quite fast. Where I dont wont one is with windows vista. With vista even a duo core pentium T2060 is slow.

 

Hey you're right!

Has anyone had a chance to try these out? How do they compare to Pentium Dual-Cores and Core 2 Duos?

 

Somewhat OT, but here's a review for the E1200. For a $50 chip it definitely doesn't look too bad.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/celeron-e1200.html