Should I buy these parts?

It would around a Celeron :D But its a Celeron D and a 2.9 is far superior to an XP 3200+. Its a reasonable enough upgrade. I can't remmember if there are Celeron Ds at higher numbers but its worth a look if you wanted something considerably faster than the XP.
 
Lord Kalthorn said:
It would around a Celeron :D But its a Celeron D and a 2.9 is far superior to an XP 3200+. Its a reasonable enough upgrade. I can't remmember if there are Celeron Ds at higher numbers but its worth a look if you wanted something considerably faster than the XP.

Dude, You better retract this comment. How can anyone recommend a stupid Celeron D over an XP 3200? What are you braindead?
 
I can recomment it because the Celeron D 2.9 is a Prescott Celeron D; its well over 2 years newer than that 3200 XP has superior FSB, Core Design and in all simpliness it has far superior benchmarks too. I would have thought we were all old enough to realise; but if we wish to look at any benchmarks even gaming ones Celeron D 2.8 (most don't have 2.9 on) is only 14 Frames down from the XP3200 on Quake III 640, only 20 behind on Quake III 1280, and so on with the Graphics Marks, it goes without saying but its a Budget PC obviously; and not only will he not see the difference in the Frame Rates but he's not going to want games all the time when for the price and power he could get a Console so much easier and better for less.

Sempron is a lost cause against a 2.9; benchmarks to prove otherwise do not exist. If he wants a 2 year old Processor - which he obviously doesn't - he'd be upgrading not rebuilding. He wants a new processor which is better, however much by its certainly faster and newer and has more raw umph than a processor that needs to be killed thoroughly. If there was a Celeron D 3.06 or 3.2 I would say go for one of those, or a low Pentium like a 520.

There is an offer on here for one only a little over the price of the Celeron 340, and even normally its $50 more. I think in the long run that would be more worth it but I think, Giancarlo obviously doesn't, that the Celeron D is more than worth it. Especially taking into account that the only other option they've given you is to keep your 3200, which pushes back motherboard and ram upgrades which would also be useful. Maybe eventually they'll try and help you instead of bringing up their own agenda, you might even be lucky and they'll bring up an alternative that makes sense... :D
 
I can't believe I'm saying this...

I have to agree with the thought of staying away from the Celerons. There are many reasons but I'll just explore a couple.
First they are slower than granny. They have no L2 cache which means they are at the mercy of how fast the ram goes. Slow ram= bad performance.
Second thing is a major part of the motherboards out there if they support a Celeron that's all you can put on it. Which means a new motherboard if you want to go up to a faster p4 type cpu.


Both Intel and AMD have good and bad points.
I personally feel AMD is better if you're going to be a serious gamer. Now Amd does well in the office enviroment but just isn't as popular as the Intel in this respect.
Intel on the other hand is more for serious number crunching like in an office/industryial enviroment. Not really a gaming cpu. Although some do use it for that.
Do your homework. Shop around. Make sure all of the componets will work together. And don't over task the system.
 
Back
Top Bottom