intel(R) Celeron cpu [email protected]?

So this is a cut-down C2D, right? how does it perform generally?

Saw a laptop, DELL INSPIRON 1545 with this CPU - since I need a budget laptop, might just get it.

1545 should have 4500 GMA right? then put that with this CPU, it could play CS 1.6 in theory?

 

I would generally keep awy from Celerons - no matter what they are based on.

 

okay. Lower cache and FSB are the only differences I could see though.

 

Takes away some performance...

Then no Intel Speedstep I believe....
If I remember correctly a Cleron processor always runs on the hihest mutliplier...

 

Celerons have garnered bad names over the years, hence a bit the letdown towards them. They're basically among the lowest of the Intel line. Yes, they're based off Core 2 architecture. Same with the Pentium line. The difference is that the silicon which didn't rise up to Core 2 standards was put down to the Pentium line and the ones that didn't withstand the Pentium standards went to Celeron.

 

Ouch... better stay away then.

 

It's also single core.

 

i am answering your question.

you can play cs 1.6 without any problems it will run cool but you wont be able to play counter strike source.

gma4500mhd can run css but i dont think with celeron.

you wont be happy if you buy it.

 

This is a Penryn 3-M with one core, 2MB of the cache and Vanderpool VT disabled - so it's a core 2 solo with 1mb cache.

Advantages are that you can very easily overclock them by making them run at 1066mhz FSB via a pin-mod.

I would go for one of the dual core Celerons though, as they're only slightly more expensive and have both cores enabled. There is no difference between the dual core celerons and the dual core pentium except for the clock speed (1.8 and 1.9ghz for the celerons vs 2.0ghz for the pentium, which is negligible in real world)

All of them have the speedstep but the Pentiums and Celerons miss out on the VT (who actually uses this anyway??).

 

uuu.. People who use the ever popular VMware... VMware is a HUGE deal and its used by people who do more than check emails and browse the web....

 

I have a celeron 900. I overclocked mine using the pll mod. Check my sig. It also downclocks using the FSB, not the multiplier, so the lack of speedstep doesn't mean anything. I actually keep it on power saver mode all the time which is at 1.2-1.4Ghz or something like that and it is more than enough for anything on the desktop.

That's not true. The numbers they make are based on demand, not on what the chips can do. Intel doesn't exactly have trouble making high speed penryns.

 

People who buy lower end processors chat to their friends on MSN and do inane quizzes on Facebook. Might even plug their digital cameras in on occasion and do some very basic photo editing, before leaving their notebook on the floor for the cat to pee on.

I think that we "enthusiasts" forget that the VAST majority of users will have never heard of VT, let alone conceive a use for it.

BTW... I run expert systems that won't work at all on Vista, and even I find VT less useful than a simple dual boot.

 

I never mentioned anything about production numbers

 

Celeron is basically cheap crap and even AMD processors are way better than it... stay away from it...

 

That phrasing indicates that AMD processors aren't much higher up the ladder.
i.e. not good too -> bad

While I personally would always tend to Intel (good experience) - I wouldn't call AMD bad.

 

You said that pentiums are ones that aren't up to core 2 standards and that celerons are ones that aren't up to pentium standards. I really doubt Intel does any sort of binning when my desktop penryn (which should meet even lower standards than one for a notebook) celeron can go to 4Ghz. All the notebook processors are the third revision of penryn and they all clock very well. Intel is far from having yield problems and just pumps these out to fill all the demands in the market, not because they can't make it as a core 2 duo or quad.

Most of your posts have a tendency to bash things you don't know about. It seems like you would talk bad about anything that didn't let you play crysis maxed out at 1080p. You should act more mature. For doing anything online or using desktop applications, my celeron 900 at only 1.4Ghz is more than adequate. I have no reason to run it overclocked or even at its stock speed.

 

There's a lot of confusion in this thread . . .

Baseless comments like that don't help anyone - please avoid saying things like "this sucks" for everyone's sake. Thanks.

Going back to the OP's question - yes, the Inspiron 1545, regardless of configuration, will play CS 1.6. However, I would caution you away from the Celeron for several reasons. For starters, it's single core; new software and operating systems are coded to run more efficiently with multi-core processors, and even if all you are doing is basic tasks, a dual-core processor will help smooth out your computing experience. The Pentium Dual-Core T4200 is $40 more than the Celeron 900 on Dell's Inspiron 15 configurator page. It is an excellent processor for the money; I tested a notebook with a similar processor earlier this year:
http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=4847
Bottom line: it's a Core 2 Duo with reduced specs. Spend the extra $40.

 

I really don't agree if all someone is doing is basic tasks. I have a handful of 1545's at my disposal, and I can't tell the difference between the celeron at its slowest speed and a P8600 at full speed. For internet, flash, java, and playing media, the celeron is more than adequate. If someone is really looking for a budget laptop, the money on a T4200 is wasted. Trust me, I have three of those. But yeah, the T4200 is a good processor. It is the same as a T6400 without VT and 1MB of cache. Don't know why anyone would choose a T6400 over that. The T4200 is the best value for the money, but I don't think the average user is going to need that.

 

We all have our own experiences; my experience as a user that only uses a web browser and a few other basic programs (iTunes, Word) is that going from a single-core to even a modest dual-core like the T4200 makes a noticeable difference. For any sort of HD video, having a dual-core is rather important for smooth playback. Furthermore, it's a good idea to be somewhat future-proof.

$40 is a small price to pay for the extra security.

 

They do offer dual core Celeorns that can play flash HD.

 

Single core ones can too.

 

How is that so, when people with the slight more powerful Core 2 Solo, are struggling to play flash HD smoothly.

 

The celeron is a lot more powerful than the core 2 solo. The core 2 solos are only 1.07 or 1.2Ghz, about half the stock frequency of the Celeron.

 

Frequency isn't all you know.

Its easy to believe it, but its not.

Best example:

Pentium 4 went to 3,2GHz in one extreme that I once found.
Pemtium M came around an was 1,3GHz or 1,2 up to 2,2GHz I think.

Was any one of the Pentium Ms weaker? no.
(except maybe most powerful P4 against weakest Pentium M)

Its important how much is computed in every step.

Thus, look at the "flops".

 

That was apples to oranges, but this is bananas to bananas. All the chips talked about in this thread are all R0 stepping Penryns.

 

I thought Core 2 Solos were 1.4ghz and had more cache. But, still even people who own the Dell 11z, which as the Celeron you have can't play flash hd smoothly. Speed is not really the matter I think its the extra core that really helps make flash hd run smoothly.

 

You are right about the core solo. The current penryn ones are 1.2 and 1.4Ghz. Also, you have celerons confused. The one you are talking about in the Dell 11z is the celeron 723 at 1.2Ghz and the one in the Dell 1545 is the celeron 900 at 2.2Ghz. Cache has negligible effect on these sorts of things. Increasing cache makes a difference doing operations that the computer can't anticipate, like gaming.

 

Is the Celeron 900 dual core, and what are the specs compared to the 723? I have read stories of people saying they disabled one core on their dual core T or P machine and it still kind of struggled to play flash hd files. I am just tying to get things cleared up here.

 

Physically speaking, they use cheaper materials for cheaper CPUs. It's a cost equation here. Some materials are physically(and on the molecular level) made to be less resistant than others. Why pay premium for materials which will not be used for premium products? It's simple economics here. I'm fairly certain that the silicon used in a Celeron isn't of the same quality as one used in an i7.

They stress test each CPU they make sure they can take a certain amount of stress(i.e. usually that margin of overclock people are able to attain has alreayd been tested by the manufacturer) then they downclock them to so-called "stock levels". What happens when a piece of silicon doesn't pas stress testing? Well it doesn't go well that's what.

Do you realize how much money you'd lose if you didn't properly evaluate the levels of ruggedness of the material before actually making(and stress testing) the CPU? You could literally fry half of them if the materials don't withstand the stress. The silicon(and other materials) used for CPUs have to pass a certain standard before they are used for production for a certain product. I7s have a standard, Core 2s have a standard, Pentiums have a standard and Celerons have one. While the process works one way(you can use a more expensive silicon to create a lesser Celeron), you can't work it the other way(use a cheaper silicon to create an i7).

 

Physically speaking, they use cheaper materials for cheaper CPUs. It's a cost equation here. Some materials are physically(and on the molecular level) made to be less resistant than others. Why pay premium for materials which will not be used for premium products? It's simple economics here. I'm fairly certain that the silicon used in a Celeron isn't of the same quality as one used in an i7.

And yes btw, they stress test each CPU they make sure they can take a certain amount of stress(i.e. usually that margin of overclock people are able to attain has alreayd been tested by the manufacturer) then they downclock them to so-called "stock levels"(how else do they define stock levels). What happens when a piece of silicon doesn't pas stress testing? Well it doesn't go well that's what.

Do you realize how much money you'd lose if you didn't properly evaluate the levels of ruggedness of the material before actually making(and stress testing) the CPU? You could literally fry half of them if the materials don't withstand the stress. The silicon(and other materials) used for CPUs have to pass a certain standard before they are used for production for a certain product. I7s have a standard, Core 2s have a standard, Pentiums have a standard and Celerons have one. While the process works one way(you can use a more expensive silicon to create a lesser Celeron), you can't work it the other way(use a cheaper silicon to create an i7) hence my analogy.

The hand-me-down analogy is more or less an assumption based on the fact that Celerons have lesser standards than other CPUs simply because they aren't built to take as much stress CPU-wise as the higher end CPUs.

 

Excellent example of a reality creationist. You cant just make things up and believe that they are true. What you posted is laughably incorrect. Please stop making things up.

 

i think what Forever Melody said is true. For instance look at RAM chips. The high quality ones have better silicon than value ones. its just by chance that you get good ones.

As for the main ques, the celeron should be aqeduate for simple web surfing, flash games and Office. But if you're multitasking, it'll jam. So as someone said previously, go for at least Pentium M. (in my experience it can play Warcraft III smoothly with 915 chipset )

 

If you're going to tell me I'm wrong at least take the time and effort to correct me. I'm willing t admit I'm wrong, but I'd also like the luxury of being corrected and enlightened as to what IS the right answer.

 

This is not true. It is the same exact process, using the same exact materials, made using the same equipment.

They don't stress test each CPU. Every cpu they make they put on a machine that inputs certain codes to see if it returns the correct results to make sure everything is electrically sound. Intel stress tests some processors though; however many they feel the need to. If they are getting excellent yields they would cut back on testing. If their yields were bad they would test more. Whatever batches test the absolute best would go to extreme processors, then xeon, mobile, and regular desktop stuff. Nobody but Intel is really sure. The way they test everything leaves a ton of overlap and gray area. If they are getting excellent results from all of their processors they could stop binning them at all and just make whatever whenever with what is on hand. This is probably what they are doing now since they are in the third revision of Penryn on a fully mature process. This is supported by the fact that every 3rd generation penryn on the desktop is able to reach over 4Ghz, including my lowly bottom end penryn celeron. All mobile penryns are 3rd generation, or R0 stepping.

As I've said before, this isn't true, and in addition, the silicon used for nehalem is the same used for penryn. Intel has a certain way for making 45nm processors and all are made the same way. Intel and other chip manufacturers need to come up with improved ways of making chips each time they change the scale. 45nm and 32nm chips utilize similar but different techniques in manufacture, and different companies will come up with novel ways of doing it. All of Intel's chips made to the same scale are made the same way though. It takes little effort to change between different die patterns in comparison to the effort needed to change to a smaller scale. Better materials may be a part of this and the substrate(s) may be different or more refined.

ALL penryns are built to the same standard.

 

There are two Penryn dies, the Penryn and the Penryn 3-M. They are different in size and Intel will get more 3-M out of each silicon wafer, so I suppose you could argue in that respect, the lower end processors are cheaper to make.

However, the standard of silicon/lithography is NO different, and when I say "lower end processors" I mean any of them with 3MB or less cache (including the P8xxx series).

 

trottel is right about how cpus are made.
google cpu binning, if it seems difficult to understand.

 

At least Trottel bothers to give me the right answer rather than simply say I'm wrong. Thanks Trottel

Anyhow, back to topic, are we for or against Celerons?

 

depends on if you're feeling lucky or not.

You never know, you could get a celeron that overclocks to 4ghz.

 

The whole point is you just make things up out of your head and think they are real. Reality is not what you make believe it is. It is VERY essential to combat post like yours. Just look at my sig....

Say nothing or "I dont know" instead of posting made-up misinformation literally out of nowhere. Why would you do something like that???? This is BIG problem with online forums and one of the main reasons there is so much misinformation out there.

 

Ok how exactly are YOU combating my post? You only said I was wrong. You provided nothing with which to actively combat my misinformation by providing the right information.

I don't go see small school children who don't know things and laugh at them do I? I have to teach them the right things. Same thing. When confronting someone with wrong information, you provide the right information to them.

To provide further example, take the OP; if my information is wrong, he's going to be confused. That's why, in order to set things straight, you have to provide the OP with the right information rather than simply bashing me for posting the wrong one. Trottel did this, while you did not. End of story.

I was wrong, I'll happily admit it. However, you did nothing to "combat" me other than pointing it out and that's a half-assed method because I could go around saying factual information is wrong all day and it'd bring nothing. When you point out something is wrong, it's logical to bring out the right information to assert how wrong the other guy is.

If you truly have a problem with this philosophy, then I'm sorry, but your "campaign" against misinformation is bound to fail without people like Trottel backing you up(and providing that crucial bit which is "informing people of the right facts").

For the record, I myself was misinformed since someone told me this was how it was done. So really, I didnt't make anything up(once again, you jump to conclusions).

 

Im sorry but I simply do not believe that...

 

I believe it, there is a lot of crap on most forums.
And it gets repeated a lot so people start to believe it.

Then the info reaches this forum and gets shot down.

 

let's get back to the topic.
i think a dual core celeron is still the way to go if your really on a budget. t3000 i think?

 

lol I can't believe every time a Celeron is mentioned, there is so much negative comments on it.

If you only use your computer for basic task you wouldn't even notice the performance difference between this and a C2D. You will find that when people do comparisons on basic apps that a Celeron will somehow feel slower, but most of the time its probably due to the mindset or the fact that Celeron systems are bundled with slower hard drives.

Think of it this way, a task will utilize a Celeron at 20%, whilst it would only tax a C2D at 10%. You wouldn't even feel anything here, only when on occasions where it is pushed to the limit it starts to show

 

I wouldn't call the QX9300 a low end processor, and that is two of the 3MB dies. The E0 and R0 dies are identical for all practical purposes other than the cache difference. The main argument Forever Melody was making was that the lower end processor dies were inferior, which is not the case.

 

Nothing wrong with a Celeron. For most tasks it is plenty fast. Having dual core is nice however. It comes down to if you can't get anything better you are not left with a POS. But if you can get something better spend the extra couple of bucks and get a Pentium Dual Core at least.

 

No, youre right, he was clearly talking bollards.

 

I myself would not touch a Celeron before Core2, they were hot, unreliable, and not near as quick as a similarly clocked Pentium 4.

Now, I believe Celeron is using Pentium Dual Core and lower end Core2 models to fill their roster, so they are much better than the name used to suggest.

Clearly if your on a budget this a great choice, because they can do low-end multi-tasking and are more than enough for most normal tasks.

 

You mean before Pentium M. Pentium M based celerons had nearly identical performance to Pentium M. They were excellent CPUs as far as performance for that time, they just had a bad name due to the awful P4 based celerons which were completely different CPUs.

 

Celeron M = Pentium M with 1MB (instead of 2MB) active cache.

Either of them were (and still are) excellent chips that made the P4 look silly. In fact, they were so good some motherboard manufacturers made desktop boards for them, and even little adaptors to fit them into P4 boards.

Higher spec ones are now available on evilbay for pennies. I bought a 1.7GHz one for £7 (british pounds), roughly US$12 I think...

I would go along with this in part - if we're talking about notebook chips exclusively. Some of the earlier desktop Celerons were brilliant though, the Mendocino, for example, ran rings around the P2, and gave an excellent upgrade path for 440 based chipsets. They ran cool and were good overclockers...