Celeron D's

[ozwald]

I'm building a budget system for some light gaming, and I'm kinda leaning toward the Celeron D 315 processor. Here's what I'm lookin at:

Foxconn 648FX4MR-ES Micro-ATX Motherboard
Intel Celeron D 315
1 gig DDR-400
80 gig 7200 rpm ata-133

The video card I'm gonna go with is my older GeForce FX 5200 Ultra (AGP, 128 MB).

I think this system should be capable of some light to medium gaming - does anybody have any comments on the Celeron D and it's performance versus other budget performance processors (Sempron? Athlon XP?).

 

[endyen]

The celeronD is the best celeron we've seen in a long while. It isn't quite as good as an equally priced socket 754 sempron.
Get the celeron though, the sempron deserves a better gfx card than a 5200.

 

[ozwald]

I know the 5200 is prolly quite weak compared to today's cards, but it's only temporary until I get more money for a better AGP card...would GTA: San Andreas on close to full detail be optimistic with the 5200? The Celeron would do quite well (given it's price) for gaming coupled with a better video card, correct?

 

[endyen]

The 5200 is a good match for that celeron. I wouldn't want to play anything newer than Directx 7 on it though.
If you dont have the ram yet, get a better chip and 512.
Tell us what you need, and how much money you have, and someone will give you a decent recommendation.
Dont expect any Intel systems though, Amd is much better for price/performance.

 

[Nights_L]

5200 isn't too bad on DX8 I think?

 

[DCB_AU]

I'am quite impressed with the new Prescott Celerons. I have a Cel 320D - 2.4GHz overclocked to 3019 MHz, coupled with 3200DDR ram and a high quality Leadtek Winfast GF4 TI4200 graphic card.

It plays DX8.1 games perfectly with details set to Max (haven't tried DX9 games though I assume they would run well too).

I have even OC higher to 3256Mhz and still stable and cool - 50'C with standard heatsink and Vcore set to default. The 320D's canbe OC to approx 3756MHz by Intels specs.

I haven't tried higher OC's - over 3256MHz as no need. I have even reduced it back to 3019MHz as this gives more than enough performance and why push the CPU when there's no need.

<font color=red><b>DCB</b></font color=red><font color=white><b>_</b></font color=white><font color=blue><b>AU</b></font color=blue>

 

[Crashman]

The 5200 is just simply a horrible card. Consider, at a minimum, a Radeon 9550 with a 128-bit memory bus (they come with either 64-bit or 128-bit memory busses, supporting up to 256MB of RAM on either one).

In fact, a 64MB GeForce4 Ti4200 would give you nearly TWICE the performance of an FX5200 256MB. The RAM doesn't help nearly as much as the bad design hurts.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[liquidpaper007]

my fx5200 sucks at high resolutions. 1024x768 my geforce 4 mx440 beat it in 3dmark01

 

[Crashman]

It might even pull better framerates in 3D Mark 03 if that's the case, while producing lower scores because fewer features are supported.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[Clob]

YUCK that 5200 is good for nothing but old school games.

<font color=red>"Battling Gimps and Dimbulbs HERE at THGC"</font color=red>

"<font color=blue> Wusy</font color=blue> <-Professional sheep banger"

 

[Crashman]

Ah, but it supports DX9 features. While it can't perform well enough to put them to any practical use, the fact that it includes DX8.1 features means it will complete a couple more tests in 3D Mark 2001 than the GF4MX, a DX7 card, and several more in 3D Mark 2003, a DX9 bench. So even if the GF4MX performs better, there are tests where it will score worse.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[noko]

I have a Sempron in my laptop and it actually kinda surprised me in the performance department. I would recommend a Sempron over an Anthlon XP, it has SSE2, you can buy more up to date motherboards for it which could save you down the road in buying a faster processor when funds are available. Here is an idea, get a RS200 chipset with built in graphics R-300 based (probably pretty close if not faster then your 52000) and PCIexpress x16 socket. The socket 754 version sells for $82 and has pci-ex16 for a future more powerful video card that would pump out games like nothing. Here is a link for motherboard:

<A HREF="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813153028" target="_new">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813153028</A>

Get that with a 754 Sempron would probably be a pretty potent but yet very upgradable.

Looking at overall cost, a 939 pin version of the same ATI chipset would cost virtually the same and the cheapest Athlon 64 really isn't that much more over the Sempron, here you go:

<A HREF="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103537" target="_new">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103537</A>
<A HREF="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813135191" target="_new">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813135191</A>

This could give more bang for your buck but keeping the costs down in the end. I really don't know too much about the Celeron D but I can tell you the Sempron is no slug either. As for Amd giving more bang for your buck, well I don't believe in everycase that is true. I am leaning more towards Intel this time around with the 820D but that is me and not you or anyone else.



<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by noko on 07/17/05 07:27 PM.</EM></FONT></P>