Lord Kalthorn said: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.
This is so freaking ridiculous I'm starting to laugh. You need to grow up and learn you can't always win. The Celeron is the lost cause. You are the lost cause. Benchmarks prove my case and they always do. You know what your problem is? You deny facts. And you're also a liar too.
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...
The Celeron D isn't worth anything. It is a piece of garbage. Celeron is a stripped down version and shows you have no common sense. Alternative? You can't recommend junk. Junk isn't an alternative.