I've a question about Celeron D. In short - is it worth buying?
Right now I've AMD 1Ghz Thunderbird, 512MB SDRAM@133Mhz on Asus A7V133
motherboard. My OS is Windows XP Professional SP2. What I do with it:
Dreamweaver MX, MySQL, PHP, OpenOffice, Winamp, some adventure games,
email etc. Nothing really demanding. However I usually run many programs
at once which has a tendency to slow my system down (no surprise here).
What really annoys me is that whenever I want to open .ape file with
'insane' compression I've to wait few seconds. Whats more - my system
goes into deep-freeze mode.
That fact made me wonder if it is a right time to upgrade my computer. I
don't want to spend to much cash right now nor do I think that it is
necessary for me to have Core 2 Duo so I thought about Celeron D.
Does it make any sense to buy it? Something like Celeron D + 1GB DDR2 on
mb supporting Core2Duo? Then after a year or so I could upgrade
processor to Core 2 Duo if I had cash and need for extra 'power'. Would
Celeron D with 1GB DDR2 give me significant gain in overall performance?
Towarzysz 47 wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've a question about Celeron D. In short - is it worth buying?
>
> Right now I've AMD 1Ghz Thunderbird, 512MB SDRAM@133Mhz on Asus A7V133
> motherboard. My OS is Windows XP Professional SP2. What I do with it:
> Dreamweaver MX, MySQL, PHP, OpenOffice, Winamp, some adventure games,
> email etc. Nothing really demanding. However I usually run many programs
> at once which has a tendency to slow my system down (no surprise here).
> What really annoys me is that whenever I want to open .ape file with
> 'insane' compression I've to wait few seconds. Whats more - my system
> goes into deep-freeze mode.
>
> That fact made me wonder if it is a right time to upgrade my computer. I
> don't want to spend to much cash right now nor do I think that it is
> necessary for me to have Core 2 Duo so I thought about Celeron D.
> Does it make any sense to buy it? Something like Celeron D + 1GB DDR2 on
> mb supporting Core2Duo? Then after a year or so I could upgrade
> processor to Core 2 Duo if I had cash and need for extra 'power'. Would
> Celeron D with 1GB DDR2 give me significant gain in overall performance?
>
> Any suggestions/opinions would be appreciated.
>
> regards
> t47
The Pentium D 820 is not very expensive ($118). And you might not even be
interested in Conroe, once you've used it for a while.
> The Pentium D 820 is not very expensive ($118). And you might not even be
> interested in Conroe, once you've used it for a while.
Still Celeron D is ~50% cheaper. Wouldn't Pentium D 820 be an overkill?
And would it run fine on 350W Chieftec? I heard that D805 is great
because it's v. easy to overclock it. Perhaps if Pentium D then D805
would be a better choice? Or am I wrong?
"Towarzysz 47" <madzio@o2.pl> wrote in message
news:eh84h3$sl4$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl...
> Hi,
>
> I've a question about Celeron D. In short - is it worth buying?
>
> Right now I've AMD 1Ghz Thunderbird, 512MB SDRAM@133Mhz on Asus A7V133
> motherboard. My OS is Windows XP Professional SP2. What I do with it:
> Dreamweaver MX, MySQL, PHP, OpenOffice, Winamp, some adventure games,
> email etc. Nothing really demanding. However I usually run many programs
> at once which has a tendency to slow my system down (no surprise here).
> What really annoys me is that whenever I want to open .ape file with
> 'insane' compression I've to wait few seconds. Whats more - my system
> goes into deep-freeze mode.
>
> That fact made me wonder if it is a right time to upgrade my computer. I
> don't want to spend to much cash right now nor do I think that it is
> necessary for me to have Core 2 Duo so I thought about Celeron D.
> Does it make any sense to buy it? Something like Celeron D + 1GB DDR2 on
> mb supporting Core2Duo? Then after a year or so I could upgrade
> processor to Core 2 Duo if I had cash and need for extra 'power'. Would
> Celeron D with 1GB DDR2 give me significant gain in overall performance?
>
> Any suggestions/opinions would be appreciated.
>
> regards
> t47
You can't be serious. Celeron is a ridiculous chip in today's market. For 20
bucks more, get a much faster Amd or Intel. Good grief. BTW, OO will boot up
much faster with a newer chip.
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 20:55:53 +0200, Towarzysz 47
<madzio@o2.pl> wrote:
>Paul wrote:
>
>> The Pentium D 820 is not very expensive ($118). And you might not even be
>> interested in Conroe, once you've used it for a while.
>
>Still Celeron D is ~50% cheaper. Wouldn't Pentium D 820 be an overkill?
>And would it run fine on 350W Chieftec? I heard that D805 is great
>because it's v. easy to overclock it. Perhaps if Pentium D then D805
>would be a better choice? Or am I wrong?
>
>regards
>t47
Yes the Celeron will be a significant performance increase
over the current CPU, and with many uses going up to 1GB of
memory will help a lot too- though right now you can already
get a gauge of your memory needs by looking at the memory
figures in Task Manager.
As for whether it's better for you to buy that Celeron right
now or put it off long enough to save up the difference
towards a Core2Duo, I can't answer that... but if you aren't
looking to reuse the Celeron to build another system for
some other use, I would hold off and just buy one CPU.
A Chieftec PSU isn't so good, for it to be from the earlier
Athlon era, it's not likely to have enough 12V current to
support a modern system.
kony wrote:
> Yes the Celeron will be a significant performance increase
> over the current CPU, and with many uses going up to 1GB of
> memory will help a lot too- though right now you can already
> get a gauge of your memory needs by looking at the memory
> figures in Task Manager.
I worked on a Sempron machine for a while and I must say that it was
quite good. Windows XP was running smoothly and there were no freezes.
However since it wasn't my machine I couldn't check how it behaves when
I do what I usually do. I wonder if Celeron D is faster than Sempron. If
it is or at least it's equal then I think that it might be ok.
> As for whether it's better for you to buy that Celeron right
> now or put it off long enough to save up the difference
> towards a Core2Duo, I can't answer that... but if you aren't
> looking to reuse the Celeron to build another system for
> some other use, I would hold off and just buy one CPU.
Well, I don't know whether I'll need anything more than Celeron or D805.
That's the question. I know that Core2Duo is fast but I don't know
whether I need it. You don't need a Ferrari to go shopping, do you?
> A Chieftec PSU isn't so good, for it to be from the earlier
> Athlon era, it's not likely to have enough 12V current to
> support a modern system.
Pete wrote:
> You can't be serious. Celeron is a ridiculous chip in today's market. For 20
> bucks more, get a much faster Amd or Intel. Good grief. BTW, OO will boot up
> much faster with a newer chip.
I've had enough of AMD. What other Intel for 20$ more did you have in mind?
As for boot time - I know that OO boots faster on newer chips - I'm not
THAT lame ;). And I don't really care if it boots 5-10 seconds faster
because I boot my computer once a day. Even 10 seconds doesn't matter ;).
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:46:01 +0200, Towarzysz 47
<madzio@o2.pl> wrote:
>kony wrote:
>> Yes the Celeron will be a significant performance increase
>> over the current CPU, and with many uses going up to 1GB of
>> memory will help a lot too- though right now you can already
>> get a gauge of your memory needs by looking at the memory
>> figures in Task Manager.
>
>I worked on a Sempron machine for a while and I must say that it was
>quite good. Windows XP was running smoothly and there were no freezes.
>However since it wasn't my machine I couldn't check how it behaves when
>I do what I usually do. I wonder if Celeron D is faster than Sempron. If
>it is or at least it's equal then I think that it might be ok.
It depends quite a lot on the speed of each CPU, and the
specific task as they're different architectures.
>
>> As for whether it's better for you to buy that Celeron right
>> now or put it off long enough to save up the difference
>> towards a Core2Duo, I can't answer that... but if you aren't
>> looking to reuse the Celeron to build another system for
>> some other use, I would hold off and just buy one CPU.
>
>Well, I don't know whether I'll need anything more than Celeron or D805.
>That's the question. I know that Core2Duo is fast but I don't know
>whether I need it. You don't need a Ferrari to go shopping, do you?
If I needed one for other uses and could only have one car,
I suppose I'd have to do the shopping with it.
I wouldn't consider Core2Duo a Ferrari though, there are
multiple speed grades.
The best value in the low end is probably an Athlon 64.
Whether it makes the most long-term sense might depend on
how much time passes before you were to replace the CPU, if
you bought the Celeron based system.
>
>> A Chieftec PSU isn't so good, for it to be from the earlier
>> Athlon era, it's not likely to have enough 12V current to
>> support a modern system.
>
>This PSU of mine is ~1 year old.
The overall quality is still lower than average, but it
might be optimized for 12V current being new(er) and thus
sufficient for a basic system.
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:52:32 +0200, Towarzysz 47
<madzio@o2.pl> wrote:
>Pete wrote:
>> You can't be serious. Celeron is a ridiculous chip in today's market. For 20
>> bucks more, get a much faster Amd or Intel. Good grief. BTW, OO will boot up
>> much faster with a newer chip.
>
>I've had enough of AMD. What other Intel for 20$ more did you have in mind?
>As for boot time - I know that OO boots faster on newer chips - I'm not
>THAT lame ;). And I don't really care if it boots 5-10 seconds faster
>because I boot my computer once a day. Even 10 seconds doesn't matter ;).
>
What's "had enough of AMD" mean? Whatever you buy new today
has a different CPU architecture and motherboard chipset,
the only commonality is who made it.
Until Intel came out with the Core series of CPU, AMD was
still the performance per dollar leader. By buying the
last-generation Celeron you'd getting less value per dollar
than going with AMD. However, I don't know what pricing
is like there, in the US it won't be long until Core 2 Duo
is down at entry level price points, is already around $180
USD for an e6300.
>>> As for whether it's better for you to buy that Celeron right
>>> now or put it off long enough to save up the difference
>>> towards a Core2Duo, I can't answer that... but if you aren't
>>> looking to reuse the Celeron to build another system for
>>> some other use, I would hold off and just buy one CPU.
>> Well, I don't know whether I'll need anything more than Celeron or D805.
>> That's the question. I know that Core2Duo is fast but I don't know
>> whether I need it. You don't need a Ferrari to go shopping, do you?
>
> If I needed one for other uses and could only have one car,
> I suppose I'd have to do the shopping with it.
What I meant was: I probably (~90%?) won't use extra power provided by
Core2Duo for at least 2 years.
> I wouldn't consider Core2Duo a Ferrari though, there are
> multiple speed grades.
>
> The best value in the low end is probably an Athlon 64.
> Whether it makes the most long-term sense might depend on
> how much time passes before you were to replace the CPU, if
> you bought the Celeron based system.
Well - compared to my Thunderbird it is a Ferrari ;). I replace CPU
rather rarely. I started with 386DX, then there was PII 350Mhz and now
I've Athlon 1Ghz.
As for Athlon 64 - I've one at home already - s939 X2 3800 (too bad I'm
not the one working on it ;)). It's nice and fast but I heard that
Core2Duo is much faster. And that's why I want an Intel system. The idea
is for it to be easily upgradeable to Core2Duo (which is faster than
AMDs as far as I know). Btw: will Core2Quadro work on Core2Duo motherboards?
kony wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:52:32 +0200, Towarzysz 47
> <madzio@o2.pl> wrote:
>
>> Pete wrote:
>>> You can't be serious. Celeron is a ridiculous chip in today's market. For 20
>>> bucks more, get a much faster Amd or Intel. Good grief. BTW, OO will boot up
>>> much faster with a newer chip.
>> I've had enough of AMD. What other Intel for 20$ more did you have in mind?
>> As for boot time - I know that OO boots faster on newer chips - I'm not
>> THAT lame ;). And I don't really care if it boots 5-10 seconds faster
>> because I boot my computer once a day. Even 10 seconds doesn't matter ;).
>>
>
>
> What's "had enough of AMD" mean? Whatever you buy new today
> has a different CPU architecture and motherboard chipset,
> the only commonality is who made it.
Well - nothing really important. I've been using AMDs for few years and
thought that I'd try Intel for a change ;). If I find out that AMD is a
better buy I'll probably go for it (again). However possibility of easy
upgrade to Core2Duo is really tempting.
> Until Intel came out with the Core series of CPU, AMD was
> still the performance per dollar leader. By buying the
> last-generation Celeron you'd getting less value per dollar
> than going with AMD. However, I don't know what pricing
> is like there, in the US it won't be long until Core 2 Duo
> is down at entry level price points, is already around $180
> USD for an e6300.
I know. Prices will fall - it's the matter of time. Right now I can get:
X2 3800 - $212
Geode NX2001 - $100 (what is that anyway? it's for SocketA?)
Celeron D 326 - $66
Sempron 2800+ - $53
E6300 box - $245
E6400 box - $296
E6600 box - $433
D805 box - $135
D820 box - $156
so it seems that prices in my country aren't as nice as in US ;).
Maybe if I wait till, let's say, January it'd (c2d) be cheap enough for
me. But still I'd like to buy cpu, mb, 1gb memory for ~$330.
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 20:01:13 +0200, Towarzysz 47
<madzio@o2.pl> wrote:
>As for Athlon 64 - I've one at home already - s939 X2 3800 (too bad I'm
>not the one working on it ;)). It's nice and fast but I heard that
>Core2Duo is much faster. And that's why I want an Intel system.
But, you're not BUYING a Core 2 Duo. If you were only
considering the upgrade-it-later strategy, then the same
applies for buying a socket AM2 Athlon 64 based system.
I'm not trying to talk you into AMD, rather suggesting that
if the ultimate goal is performance, you're going the
opposite direction with buying a Celeron now.
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 20:30:36 +0200, Towarzysz 47
<madzio@o2.pl> wrote:
>I know. Prices will fall - it's the matter of time. Right now I can get:
>X2 3800 - $212
>Geode NX2001 - $100 (what is that anyway? it's for SocketA?)
>Celeron D 326 - $66
>Sempron 2800+ - $53
>E6300 box - $245
>E6400 box - $296
>E6600 box - $433
>D805 box - $135
>D820 box - $156
>so it seems that prices in my country aren't as nice as in US ;).
>Maybe if I wait till, let's say, January it'd (c2d) be cheap enough for
>me. But still I'd like to buy cpu, mb, 1gb memory for ~$330.
I have no idea why you are ignoring the appropriate AMD
choices per your budget. Not Geode or X2 3800, rather the
AMD CPUs closer to $60-100 USD. If you really can't find
anything from AMD like an Athlon 64 (not X2, why only
consider X2 CPU if you were considering a Celeron which is
not dual core either?), then the Celeron may make more
sense, but you are looking at opposite extremes rather than
what would be of most benefit- buying the CPU with the most
performance per $ that fits into your present budget.
If none of those are available, then the Celeron makes more
sense.
>> As for Athlon 64 - I've one at home already - s939 X2 3800 (too bad I'm
>> not the one working on it ;)). It's nice and fast but I heard that
>> Core2Duo is much faster. And that's why I want an Intel system.
>
> But, you're not BUYING a Core 2 Duo. If you were only
> considering the upgrade-it-later strategy, then the same
> applies for buying a socket AM2 Athlon 64 based system.
>
> I'm not trying to talk you into AMD, rather suggesting that
> if the ultimate goal is performance, you're going the
> opposite direction with buying a Celeron now.
Well... hm - you're right.
I thought this way:
I'll buy Celeron D now and if I want an upgrade then I can do it easily
(just buy c2d) while if I choose AMD then I don't know if newer (faster
or equal to c2d) cpu's will use AM2. This means that pga775 platform is
"better" beacuse right now it is possible to build better system based
on it.
Now I see that I was to much into "upgrade-it-later" strategy. Maybe
it's because I'm really tired of freezes that I've to bear each day. I
just thought that I've to buy something faster ASAP. Now I see that it's
not really good thing to do. Maybe it would be better to bear the
freezes a bit longer and drop the upgrade-it-later strategy.
kony wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 20:30:36 +0200, Towarzysz 47
> <madzio@o2.pl> wrote:
>
>
>> I know. Prices will fall - it's the matter of time. Right now I can get:
>> X2 3800 - $212
>> Geode NX2001 - $100 (what is that anyway? it's for SocketA?)
>> Celeron D 326 - $66
>> Sempron 2800+ - $53
>> E6300 box - $245
>> E6400 box - $296
>> E6600 box - $433
>> D805 box - $135
>> D820 box - $156
>> so it seems that prices in my country aren't as nice as in US ;).
>> Maybe if I wait till, let's say, January it'd (c2d) be cheap enough for
>> me. But still I'd like to buy cpu, mb, 1gb memory for ~$330.
>
>
> I have no idea why you are ignoring the appropriate AMD
> choices per your budget. Not Geode or X2 3800, rather the
> AMD CPUs closer to $60-100 USD. If you really can't find
> anything from AMD like an Athlon 64 (not X2, why only
> consider X2 CPU if you were considering a Celeron which is
> not dual core either?), then the Celeron may make more
> sense, but you are looking at opposite extremes rather than
> what would be of most benefit- buying the CPU with the most
> performance per $ that fits into your present budget.
>
> If none of those are available, then the Celeron makes more
> sense.
Well - the reason was this 'upgrade-it-later' strategy which doesn't
appeal to me anymore.
Reason why I didn't consider AMD in it was the fact that I don't really
know if AM2 platform will be used for next generation AMD CPUs. And I
wanted my platform to be easily upgradeable to something at least as
fast as C2D. Maybe it really isn't that important. Maybe I should just
think about here and now. Get best cpu per buck now and make next big
upgrade in 3-4 years from now (if necessary).
Intel CPUs (s775 only):
Celeron D 326 $66, Celeron D 330J $72, Celeron D 335J $78, Celeron D 346
$83, Celeron D 351 $83, Core 2 Duo E6300 $245, Core 2 Duo E6400 $297,
Core 2 Duo E6600 $433, Pentium 511 $100, Pentium 524 $102, Pentium 531
$107, Pentium 541 $128, Pentium 631 $210, Pentium 641 $226, Pentium D
805 $135, Pentium D 820 $156, Pentium D 915 $175, Pentium D 925 $186,
Pentium D 930 $233, Pentium D 940 $246, Pentium D 945 $220
So let's say I keep an open mind and want only the best performance per
$ and I don't want to spend too much cash (let's say ~$400 for cpu, mb,
and some ram, or should I spend more?). 64-bit would be nice addition,
but not really required. However it must be good in multitasking,
because I usually run many applications in the same time and really hate
when system freezes. I thought that I should choose between X2, Pentium
D and Core 2 Duo. But - maybe I should consider standard A64 and
Pentiums too?
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 13:35:31 +0200, Towarzysz 47
<madzio@o2.pl> wrote:
>kony wrote:
>
>>> As for Athlon 64 - I've one at home already - s939 X2 3800 (too bad I'm
>>> not the one working on it ;)). It's nice and fast but I heard that
>>> Core2Duo is much faster. And that's why I want an Intel system.
>>
>> But, you're not BUYING a Core 2 Duo. If you were only
>> considering the upgrade-it-later strategy, then the same
>> applies for buying a socket AM2 Athlon 64 based system.
>>
>> I'm not trying to talk you into AMD, rather suggesting that
>> if the ultimate goal is performance, you're going the
>> opposite direction with buying a Celeron now.
>
>Well... hm - you're right.
>I thought this way:
>I'll buy Celeron D now and if I want an upgrade then I can do it easily
>(just buy c2d)
True, but I'm suspecting that ultimately you won't, that
enough time will pass that you will find as many do that
paying a premium for the (then) near fastest CPU the
motherboard will support, is a worse or at least similar
enough performance per dollar as just replacing the
motherboard again, plus the better boards for running
Core2Duo tend to be rather pricey.
>while if I choose AMD then I don't know if newer (faster
>or equal to c2d) cpu's will use AM2.
You don't know that newer C2D will use any particular socket
either? AM2 will be replaced by AM3 eventually, and AM3
processors are supposed to be backwards compatible to AM2,
but not AM2 processors on AM3 boards.
Even so, if you want to go Intel I suggest a lower-end
Core2Duo rather than the Celeron, unless you had plans to
sell the Celeron to recoup some of the cost, but it's
uncertain whether it'll even be of much value at that point
in time, as the slowest CPUs any given platform can support
don't tend to hold value very well.
>This means that pga775 platform is
>"better" beacuse right now it is possible to build better system based
>on it.
This is where I disagree, that it's not better unless you
actually DO build the better system, and in the meantime you
end up with a significantly slower system. One issue I'm
looking at is that you are seeking more performance right
now, it's the whole reason prompting the upgrade, no?
>Now I see that I was to much into "upgrade-it-later" strategy. Maybe
>it's because I'm really tired of freezes that I've to bear each day. I
>just thought that I've to buy something faster ASAP. Now I see that it's
>not really good thing to do. Maybe it would be better to bear the
>freezes a bit longer and drop the upgrade-it-later strategy.
We don't know why it's freezing, but it would be a good
thing to look into.
I'm not necessarily trying to talk you out of the Celeron, I
might've suggested it as a good value upgrade from what you
have until you mentioned that you were going to replace it
later with the Core2Duo. Not being as familiar with the
market prices in your area, it might be the best plan for
you, I could only speak on what I would do.
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 14:33:00 +0200, Towarzysz 47
<madzio@o2.pl> wrote:
>Well - the reason was this 'upgrade-it-later' strategy which doesn't
>appeal to me anymore.
>Reason why I didn't consider AMD in it was the fact that I don't really
>know if AM2 platform will be used for next generation AMD CPUs. And I
>wanted my platform to be easily upgradeable to something at least as
>fast as C2D.
"C2D" is not a particular speed, there are several CPUs at
different prices and more to come, and likewise several AMD
CPUs, some of which are faster than the slower C2D CPUs,
especially considering certain applications the C2D doesn't
shine in as much.
Ultimately they are the higher performance option if cost is
no issue, but at the prices you mention, there may be as
much difference in performance between the Celeron and an
Athlon 64 as there is between a later Athlon 64/X2 and
whatever Core2Duo you might consider in the future. We
can't yet make conclusions about where the prices will be in
a year or two.
>Maybe it really isn't that important. Maybe I should just
>think about here and now. Get best cpu per buck now and make next big
>upgrade in 3-4 years from now (if necessary).
That's what I would do, get either a lower-end C2D, or an
Athlon 64.
>
>AMD CPUs I can get easily (AM2 only):
>Sempron 2800+ $53 , Sempron 3000+ $66 , Sempron 3200+ $85, Sempron 3200+
>$92, A64 3000+ $95, A64 3200+ $120, A64 3500+ $133, A64 3800+ $156, X2
>3600+ $175, X2 3800+ $212, X2 4200+ $250, X2 4400+ $297, X2 4600+ $323
>
>Intel CPUs (s775 only):
>Celeron D 326 $66, Celeron D 330J $72, Celeron D 335J $78, Celeron D 346
>$83, Celeron D 351 $83, Core 2 Duo E6300 $245, Core 2 Duo E6400 $297,
>Core 2 Duo E6600 $433, Pentium 511 $100, Pentium 524 $102, Pentium 531
>$107, Pentium 541 $128, Pentium 631 $210, Pentium 641 $226, Pentium D
>805 $135, Pentium D 820 $156, Pentium D 915 $175, Pentium D 925 $186,
>Pentium D 930 $233, Pentium D 940 $246, Pentium D 945 $220
>
>So let's say I keep an open mind and want only the best performance per
>$ and I don't want to spend too much cash (let's say ~$400 for cpu, mb,
>and some ram, or should I spend more?). 64-bit would be nice addition,
>but not really required. However it must be good in multitasking,
>because I usually run many applications in the same time and really hate
>when system freezes. I thought that I should choose between X2, Pentium
>D and Core 2 Duo. But - maybe I should consider standard A64 and
>Pentiums too?
We don't know why your system is freezing. Could be a
hardware malfunction, could be an overloaded CPU and/or
multiple tasks set at improper priority levels, could be
insufficient memory, or even a bad hard drive data cable.
For $400 approximating your prices, I'd get a ~$80
motherboard, 1GB of memory (guessing about $150 there?), and
either an Athlon 3600 X2 or 3500. I'd only get an Intel
based system if it included the C2D E6300 unless you happen
upon a good combo deal where you get a motherboard and the
Celeron as a package deal for lower cost, making the Celeron
practically free.
kony wrote:
> We don't know why your system is freezing. Could be a
> hardware malfunction, could be an overloaded CPU and/or
> multiple tasks set at improper priority levels, could be
> insufficient memory, or even a bad hard drive data cable.
Well - sure - there may be some other causes for those freezes but
they're (the freezes) not the only reason I want to get newer CPU. I
will reinstall OS and move it to the other - newer - hard drive in few
days but the ultimate goal - better performance can be - in my opinion -
only achieved by buying new set. Of course in the short-run optimizing
will help a little, but... I know I want more than this rig can provide ;).
>
> For $400 approximating your prices, I'd get a ~$80
> motherboard, 1GB of memory (guessing about $150 there?), and
> either an Athlon 3600 X2 or 3500. I'd only get an Intel
> based system if it included the C2D E6300 unless you happen
> upon a good combo deal where you get a motherboard and the
> Celeron as a package deal for lower cost, making the Celeron
> practically free.
Uhmmm... Thanks for advice. I'll probably do as you suggest. Maybe C2D
prices will drop enough for me in next 2 months. If not I'll probably go
for AMD X2 system you suggested.
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:516lj2l5jd10046gb7a252uu1sj3gc1snr@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 13:35:31 +0200, Towarzysz 47
> <madzio@o2.pl> wrote:
>
>>kony wrote:
>>
>>>> As for Athlon 64 - I've one at home already - s939 X2 3800 (too bad I'm
>>>> not the one working on it ;)). It's nice and fast but I heard that
>>>> Core2Duo is much faster. And that's why I want an Intel system.
>>>
>>> But, you're not BUYING a Core 2 Duo. If you were only
>>> considering the upgrade-it-later strategy, then the same
>>> applies for buying a socket AM2 Athlon 64 based system.
>>>
>>> I'm not trying to talk you into AMD, rather suggesting that
>>> if the ultimate goal is performance, you're going the
>>> opposite direction with buying a Celeron now.
>>
>>Well... hm - you're right.
>>I thought this way:
>>I'll buy Celeron D now and if I want an upgrade then I can do it easily
>>(just buy c2d)
>
> True, but I'm suspecting that ultimately you won't, that
> enough time will pass that you will find as many do that
> paying a premium for the (then) near fastest CPU the
> motherboard will support, is a worse or at least similar
> enough performance per dollar as just replacing the
> motherboard again, plus the better boards for running
> Core2Duo tend to be rather pricey.
>
>>while if I choose AMD then I don't know if newer (faster
>>or equal to c2d) cpu's will use AM2.
>
>
> You don't know that newer C2D will use any particular socket
> either? AM2 will be replaced by AM3 eventually, and AM3
> processors are supposed to be backwards compatible to AM2,
> but not AM2 processors on AM3 boards.
>
> Even so, if you want to go Intel I suggest a lower-end
> Core2Duo rather than the Celeron, unless you had plans to
> sell the Celeron to recoup some of the cost, but it's
> uncertain whether it'll even be of much value at that point
> in time, as the slowest CPUs any given platform can support
> don't tend to hold value very well.
>
>>This means that pga775 platform is
>>"better" beacuse right now it is possible to build better system based
>>on it.
>
> This is where I disagree, that it's not better unless you
> actually DO build the better system, and in the meantime you
> end up with a significantly slower system. One issue I'm
> looking at is that you are seeking more performance right
> now, it's the whole reason prompting the upgrade, no?
>
>
>>Now I see that I was to much into "upgrade-it-later" strategy. Maybe
>>it's because I'm really tired of freezes that I've to bear each day. I
>>just thought that I've to buy something faster ASAP. Now I see that it's
>>not really good thing to do. Maybe it would be better to bear the
>>freezes a bit longer and drop the upgrade-it-later strategy.
>
>
> We don't know why it's freezing, but it would be a good
> thing to look into.
>
> I'm not necessarily trying to talk you out of the Celeron, I
> might've suggested it as a good value upgrade from what you
> have until you mentioned that you were going to replace it
> later with the Core2Duo. Not being as familiar with the
> market prices in your area, it might be the best plan for
> you, I could only speak on what I would do.
IE7 made my computer freeze. I removed it and all is OK.
-Pete
Celeron D 
Linear Mode
