Where the poor CELERON CPU failed the most

5rtytry56

Nowadays becoming history do you remember using PC's either at work or for leisure that 'fell over' because they had a 'Celeron' CPU.
Do you recall any particular Application that would make a celeron processor based PC ultimately fail?
Running early DVD's is one area I seem to remember that would make a celeron cpu feck up.
Go on. Tell your tale...

TerrorFirmer

Modern Celerons since the Celeron D and Core 2 Duo era are largely fine, but Celerons until around 2004 were totally lacklustre for almost everything bar browsing the web and common office type tasks. Even trying to play basic games was a hassle - games that asked for a 266mhz PII ran like crap on a 500Mhz Celeron.

The modern Celerons (at least the proper core i-series derived ones, not the crappy N-series CPUs) are excellent, an average user would never tell the difference between a Celeron and i3 unless they were doing atypical tasks like fairly heavy editing or gaming.

5rtytry56

DELL gaming Celerons in desktop machines from around 2004 seem to have been reliable alright.
Reliable celerons in laptops would come about 2006.

yoyo

5rtytry56 wrote: »

Nowadays becoming history do you remember using PC's either at work or for leisure that 'fell over' because they had a 'Celeron' CPU.
Do you recall any particular Application that would make a celeron processor based PC ultimately fail?
Running early DVD's is one area I seem to remember that would make a celeron cpu feck up.
Go on. Tell your tale...

Celeron PCs and Norton Security Suite... Took about 20+ minutes just to remove the thing. I remember people with Celeron PCs who happy waited 5+ minutes for their computer to startup, going off and doing something else during the time. This was largely accepted not even that long ago!
AMD also had their own variant, the Sempron, equally rubbish. Who remembers Iqon PCs you used to see "on offer" in Tesco probably 10-12 years ago now! Absolute junk!

Nick

TeaBagMania

We called them Celery; actually a stalk of celery was more powerful. We avoided buying them at all costs

5rtytry56

Bit horrifying that one large PC retail giant is marketing i3 machines as games machines. Centrino processors are not much different from celeron either.

TerrorFirmer

5rtytry56 wrote: »

Bit horrifying that one large PC retail giant is marketing i3 machines as games machines.

Modern i3's are suitable for gaming builds. Not as fast as i5's, but still perfectly acceptable for the latest and greatest.

5rtytry56

5rtytry56 wrote: »

Centrino processors are not much different from celeron either.

Centrino is just a brand name to indicate that the laptop contains a combination of an Intel processor and an Intel wireless adapter. And Celerons didn't qualify as Centrino compliant. Had to be a Pentium M, Core 2 Duo or i3 at least.

Gyck

I have fond memories of my Celeron 300a twinned with an Abit BX6, easy overclock to 450 MHz. Playing Quake 2 at an amazing 800x600 resolution with buttery smooth frame-rates - what could be better?

unkel

Karsini wrote: »

Centrino is just a brand name to indicate that the laptop contains a combination of an Intel processor and an Intel wireless adapter.

Feck me, I never knew that. Every day is a school day

FGR

I couldn't figure out how companies were able to ship Celeron PCs with Windows Vista nevermind XP after the SP2 update - out of the box they were slow beyond belief - my Pentium 4 ground to a halt on XP SP2 nevermind the celerons pre M/Core2Duo days.