• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Are skt 478 Celerons that bad?

Soldato
Joined
4 Sep 2005
Posts
6,424
Location
Whitwood, West Yorks
I just specced together a pc for my gfs mam, (£220 for the lot!) and the brains of it all is a Intel Celeron D 330 2.67GHz.

its coupled with 512 ddr400.

So how will this pwerform in windows? decent i hope!

She previously had a 997mhz thing so i really hope its gonne wipe the floor with it. if i wont im gonna buy it anyway just to set it alight
 
The celeron Ds are ok, basically a half cache northwood and overclock well so it might be worth putting it to 2.8/2.9 and keeping the memort 1:1 if you can.

It is the northwood celerons that suck, 400mhz fsb and only 128kb of cache.
 
Yeah it will be fine for windows/internet/word etc. If its the 2.66ghz then just clock it up to 3.2 so that the mem runs at 200, but they will go higher, 3.8 or above sometimes.
 
Celeron D's are cut down Prescott P4's with 533FSB and 256kb L2. I had the Celeron D 320 2.4Ghz and it was absolutely fine. Not only that, I got it to 3.4Ghz without having to bump up voltage
 
i love celerons they oc great

cele@4.1.jpg
 
That celeron will be fine for general use. I would recommend, for the same price, going for a Sempron 2800+ though.
 
Nothing wrong with Celeron Ds. They aren't giving super performance, but they are a lot better than the older NW Celerons which really were a bit poor.

It will wipe the floor with any 997mhz system, even a P3-1000EB.

You might want to take a look in the B-grade section of the OcUK website which has the 2.8ghz version priced at £35inc.
 
They're not bad but the Sempron 64 is better and similar money

I'd go for the Sempron 64 - just make sure that you get one with 256KB of L2 cache, not 128KB of L2 cache
 
Back
Top Bottom