Celeron Processer

[Legionary Jezza]

Can anyone explain to me; what Celeron processer is please?

[Incinerate_IV]

Its a striped down Pentium processor, stay away from those processors at all cost!

[SicilianVespers]

Its a striped down Pentium processor, stay away from those processors at all cost!

The Celeron D is actually a Pentium 4 Prescott, but without hyperthreading, less L2 cache (256), and slower bus speed (533).

Some price comparisons:

3.2ghz P4 (774) extreme edition = $1029
3.2ghz P4 (478) = $250
3.2ghz Celeron D (478) = $90

For me, I would rather spend my money on my kids. Taekwon-do & all the other sports take president over a machine that will be outdated as soon as you take it out of the box.

My stategy is to build my PC's for as low a price as possible, so it hurts less when it's time to write it off and build another.

I built my whole Celeron D based PC, for the price of a P4 CPU. (not including my HD's and DVD drives from my old system)

As I said in other threads, I can play with all settings on high, flawlessly, and that is at the stock 3.2ghz.

If you do buy a Celeron, just make sure it is a D. They are much better than the previous versions.

[Ahlerich]

The Celeron D is actually a Pentium 4 Prescott, but without hyperthreading, less L2 cache (256), and slower bus speed (533).

Some price comparisons:

3.2ghz P4 (774) extreme edition = $1029
3.2ghz P4 (478) = $250
3.2ghz Celeron D (478) = $90

For me, I would rather spend my money on my kids. Taekwon-do & all the other sports take president over a machine that will be outdated as soon as you take it out of the box.

My stategy is to build my PC's for as low a price as possible, so it hurts less when it's time to write it off and build another.

I built my whole Celeron D based PC, for the price of a P4 CPU. (not including my HD's and DVD drives from my old system)

As I said in other threads, I can play with all settings on high, flawlessly, and that is at the stock 3.2ghz.

If you do buy a Celeron, just make sure it is a D. They are much better than the previous versions.

exactly my point of view. i have a celeron and a 9800pro ati videocard which is very good but old already in computer terms. both together cost me roughly 250$ when i play videogames the 9800 carries the gameload on its shoulders. a nice p4 without an ok videocard would not perform better...most likely worse.
so 250 bucks for cheap celeron proc and good outdated video card is the better deal..at least for ppl that have to think what they spend there money on

[Roger_27]

Dont buy one, there very old and put out poor performance for todays games....but there actually amazing overclockers, especially the "Celeron D's".

[Lee1026]

Pff... At lower budgets you will be too busy worrying about the graphics card to strain the CPU much. They actually have pretty decent performance.

[Legionary Jezza]

So should i get a, pentium or celeron for rome total war?

[infernalbob]

in between Pentium and Celeron for RTW? i would say pentium 4 definitly. But if you have a choice to get an AMD Athlon process instead then get that. AMD's are way better than intel and surpases them in perfomance.

i like celerons just for working with and all. I have a lapton with an intel celeron that runs at 2.8ghz and it's good for me. If you put in 512 mb it can handle some games too. So it's not that bad.

[Erik]

So should i get a, pentium or celeron for rome total war?

If you have the money buy a Pentium or a good AMD.
If you are on a budget buy a cheaper AMD.

I would never consider a Celeron because for the same money you can buy a much faster AMD.
They are simply bad value for money compared to what AMD has to offer.
And even paying a little more for the cheapest Pentium wil give you better value for money.

[SicilianVespers]

I think it depends on how much you are willing to spend, it's a personal decision.

That said, a good 3+ Ghz Celeron D and a descent graphic card will be more than enough for RTW.

I have a 3.2 Ghz Celeron D, 1 GB Ram (2x512) & XFX GF 6200 256MB AGP, and I can do large battles (13,000+) on high, with no slow down.

[Hadrian]

I think it depends on how much you are willing to spend, it's a personal decision.

That said, a good 3+ Ghz Celeron D and a descent graphic card will be more than enough for RTW.

I have a 3.2 Ghz Celeron D, 1 GB Ram (2x512) & XFX GF 6200 256MB AGP, and I can do large battles (13,000+) on high, with no slow down.

I don't know what PLANET your on,but no system like you just described would run a 13,000+ RTW battle with NO slowdown! Come on,we play the game too. I have a rig, that when in single GPU mode,has a 7900GTX 512MB AND an AMD 4000+ OVERCLOCKED,and there is SOME lag,in the beginning, with those kind of numbers your describing, and all settings on high! Maybe your playing on 800x600 resolution or something!
Pff, CicilianVespers, I apologize to you right now, but you can't really expect us to believe that....
I ALSO have a P4 3.0Ghz with a Radeon X850XT,overclocked to 540/1160, and there is NO WAY it could even run a 10,000+ battle with no lag,especially on all high setting, as you stated earlier!

If you're more comfortable with budget components and you feel your getting your bang for your buck/pound with them, then more power to ya. But don't come on the forum and tell us your Celeron (fancy intel name for simi-disfuctional Pentium) and lightweight VC are outperforming components that far outclass them....Archers right, you get what you pay for.

I,apologize for my outburst...I did not set out to inpune your integrity,your post......unbalanced me.

[SicilianVespers]

I don't know what PLANET your on,but no system like you just described would run a 13,000+ RTW battle with NO slowdown! Come on,we play the game too. I have a rig, that when in single GPU mode,has a 7900GTX 512MB AND an AMD 4000+ OVERCLOCKED,and there is SOME lag,in the beginning, with those kind of numbers your describing, and all settings on high! Maybe your playing on 800x600 resolution or something!
Pff, CicilianVespers, I apologize to you right now, but you can't really expect us to believe that....
I ALSO have a P4 3.0Ghz with a Radeon X850XT,overclocked to 540/1160, and there is NO WAY it could even run a 10,000+ battle with no lag,especially on all high setting, as you stated earlier!

If you're more comfortable with budget components and you feel your getting your bang for your buck/pound with them, then more power to ya. But don't come on the forum and tell us your Celeron (fancy intel name for simi-disfuctional Pentium) and lightweight VC are outperforming components that far outclass them....Archers right, you get what you pay for.

I,apologize for my outburst...I did not set out to inpune your integrity,your post......unbalanced me.

Don't worry, no offense taken.

But, I stand by what I stated. You cannot compare the new Celeron D processors with the old Coppermine Celerons (P3 equivalent).

My system:

Celeron D (Prescott) 3.2 ghz @ 3.67 ghz
1 gb RAM (2x512mb) PC3200
160gb HD (2x80gb)
XFX Geforce 6200 256mb AGP


These are my settings: ( i was mistaken about all setting on high, 2 of them ar medium)

Battle map resolution: 1024x768x32
Campaign map resolution: 1024x768x32
Low Antialiasing
Unit Size = HIGH
Terrain Detail = HIGH
Building Detail = MEDIUM
Effects Detail = HIGH
Grass Detail = MEDIUM
Vegetation Detail = HIGH

Battle Map Shadows = on
Campaign Shadows = on
Smoke Dust = on
Desync Animations = on
Unit Shaders = on

My largest battle was 14,000 or so.

A Celeron D isn't a crippled P4, it's a P4 without Hyper-Threading (only of any value if you plan on browsing the internet while playing RTW), and less cache memory.

[EDIT] I should also clarify that I don't play multi-player, if that makes a difference [EDIT]

[Erik]

A Celeron D isn't a crippled P4, it's a P4 without Hyper-Threading (only of any value if you plan on browsing the internet while playing RTW), and less cache memory.

Cache size is a very important factor in processor speed.
If you reduce cache memory the CPU wil spend a larger portion of it's time waiting on slow system RAM.

Pentiums are designed with a specific amount of cache for a reason.
The Pentium engineers knew the minimum amount of cache needed to keep the CPU utalized for a fair amount of time.
And they also knew that increasing cache above this minimum is expensive but has little effect on performance because there is a limit on how much data the CPU can handle.
So they came up with a perfect balance that provided good performance for as little cost as possible.

But then came along the Celeron engineers, and they are only interested in cutting costs and cutting the cache in half is the easiest way to reduce die size and thus cost.
But this disrupts the balance, so performace is reduced much more than costs are, resulting in less bang for your buck.

You can think of a Celeron as a computer with a 4GHz processer but just 128MB RAM.
This computer is going to perform far worst than a better balanced 3Gz with 512MB RAM.

AMD has a different tactic for their budget line: They simply re-named last years "high-performace" chips and made them compatible with cheaper mainboards.
This way budget buyers still get a well-balanced product.

[SicilianVespers]

Cache size is a very important factor in processor speed.
If you reduce cache memory the CPU wil spend a larger portion of it's time waiting on slow system RAM.

Pentiums are designed with a specific amount of cache for a reason.
The Pentium engineers knew the minimum amount of cache needed to keep the CPU utalized for a fair amount of time.
And they also knew that increasing cache above this minimum is expensive but has little effect on performance because there is a limit on how much data the CPU can handle.
So they came up with a perfect balance that provided good performance for as little cost as possible.

But then came along the Celeron engineers, and they are only interested in cutting costs and cutting the cache in half is the easiest way to reduce die size and thus cost.
But this disrupts the balance, so performace is reduced much more than costs are, resulting in less bang for your buck.

You can think of a Celeron as a computer with a 4GHz processer but just 128MB RAM.
This computer is going to perform far worst than a better balanced 3Gz with 512MB RAM.

AMD has a different tactic for their budget line: They simply re-named last years "high-performace" chips and made them compatible with cheaper mainboards.
This way budget buyers still get a well-balanced product.

It does make a difference, but not as big a difference as you would think.

From my own personal experience, not internet hear-say:

My previous system (before I built this 3.2 ghz) was a Celeron 1.1 ghz (coppermine) 128 cache, 256 RAM, & Geforce 4 mx420.

The 1.1 ghz 128 cache had replaced a Pentium III 600 mhz with 256 cache. This was just a bios upgrade & processor replacement.

The 1.1 ghz Celeron completely outclassed the 600 mhz P3. I would take twice the cpu speed over cache any day.

[NobleNick]

But, I stand by what I stated. You cannot compare the new Celeron D processors with the old Coppermine Celerons (P3 equivalent).

Celeron D (Prescott) 3.2 ghz @ 3.67 ghz
1 gb RAM (2x512mb) PC3200
160gb HD (2x80gb)
XFX Geforce 6200 256mb AGP

Battle map resolution: 1024x768x32
Campaign map resolution: 1024x768x32
Low Antialiasing
Unit Size = HIGH
Terrain Detail = HIGH
Building Detail = MEDIUM
Effects Detail = HIGH
Grass Detail = MEDIUM
Vegetation Detail = HIGH

Battle Map Shadows = on
Campaign Shadows = on
Smoke Dust = on
Desync Animations = on
Unit Shaders = on

My largest battle was 14,000 or so.

I can vouch that SicilianVespers claim looks reasonable. I fought a battle, just the other night, with about 1000 + 1400 against my 1000. Let's see... thats 3,400, right? On ALL high settings (except grass on medium, I think) with no slowdown, on my SEMPRON (dysfunctional Athlon) 3100 and aging 9800 Pro. I think my video setting is also on 1024x768. My system is possibly capable of more than that. I don't know: haven't tried, yet.

It appears that SicilianVesper's CPU -AND- his Video Card would both kick mine to the gutter. (As he pointed out, a Celeron D is NOT the same thing as a Celeron, Just like TE 4.0 is not the same thing as vanilla RTW). So it seems reasonable to expect that his system would EASILY handle twice what mine could, which means I would guesstimate his system capable of absolutely nothing under 7,000 on high. How much higher could his system go? I don't know. But like I said, his claim seems reasonable.

I "poo-pooed" the Celeron and (especially) the Sempron. I only got the Sempron because it was the only way I could quickly get into a motherboard that had an AGP slot for my 9800 Pro. I felt like I had abused my integrity; but technology is changing fast: I was genuinely astonished at how well the Sempron performed. And I am sure the Celeron D would do much better.

[Legionary Jezza]

How much would that cost me?

[SicilianVespers]

How much would that cost me?

From www.tigerdirect.com

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...u=I69-2119%20G

Intel D101GGCL Socket 775 Barebone Kit / Intel Celeron D 355 OEM / 512MB DDR PC3200 / CPU Fan / ATX Mid-Tower Case / Okia 450 Watt Power Supply -----> $179.99 [EDIT] Celeron D 355 = 3.33 Ghz [EDIT]

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...776103&CatId=0

NVIDIA GeForce 6500 / 256MB DDR2 / PCI Express / DVI / VGA / TV out / Video Card -----> $59.99

Search the site. If you are just looking for a motherboard/cpu combo, it will be much cheaper than the barbones kit.

[Legionary Jezza]

There cheap i might be interested.

[NobleNick]

I got a Sempron 3100 and MOBO for $130. Paid too much, and was afraid it wouldn't run RTW, but it runs beautifully with my ATI 9800 Pro. I recently saw a Celeron D and MOBO at the same store for $70. I can't imagine that the Celeron D will be any worse performance than my Sempron. If you have a video card you want to reuse, make sure that slot exists on the MOBO you get. It is getting harder to find the AGP slot.

[HorseArcher]

I usually go like this: I know that getting a somewhat good motherboard will cost me more than 100 bucks. for CPU,the performance price stars around 200 bucks. So when i do search for components, i don't even look anything lower than those prices, unless it's a used or refurbished equipment (which i won't buy).

Same with video cards. Anything that considered good (regardless of what brand name or model), starts around 200 bucks and up. No matter what the box say or what the company websites states, I know that they will not sell their flagship model on bargain price.