Celeron D 2.8 GHz

[Tostada]

I've always heard that the Celeron D was a decent cheap processor (at least compared to older P4-based Celerons). I really have very little experience with them, though, since I always built Athlon XP systems (and now Socket 754 Semprons) when someone wanted a cheaper system.

My GF's cousin is obsessed with The Sims. Her dad got a new PC so she could play Sims 2. I simply can't imagine why such clueless people would buy a $700 PC without asking the opinion of someone who knows something about computers.

This new machine of theirs is pretty terrible. I'm really shocked that IBM is selling such a weak system for $700 with no monitor.

IBM ThinkCentre A50 model 8085-E1U

It's a Celeron D 2.8, 533 FSB, 256K L2. I'd hate to see the models with 128K L2.

It has an 865GV chipset, built-in Intel Extreme Graphics 2 and no AGP slot -- real good choice for your daughter to play games on!

It has 256MB of PC2700, a combo 48X CD-RW/16X DVD-ROM and a 40GB 7200RPM HDD.

They tell me that it wasn't running Sims 2 so I asked them for the model number on the front of the box and look it up and I'm not too surprised. Then they tell me that recently the machine just gives a black screen with an error when they turn it on. I go over there and turn the machine on. The error is NON-SYSTEM DISK OR DISK ERROR. I pop the 3.5" floppy out and XP starts to load. There was much rejoicing.

It's a very new machine and it just boots up like a real dog. About the only thing loading is Norton AV, which I disabled, and it's still just a ridiculously slow machine just getting to the desktop. I installed the latest i865G video drivers from Intel's site (as opposed to the generic i845G/i865G drivers IBM has). I installed the latest patch for Sims 2. The load times were truly unbearable -- over 5 min to get into the actual game. I popped in another 512MB taking it up to 768MB, and load times are now perfectly reasonable, but the game has to be played in 800x600 with graphics set to minimum.

I'm really just surprised how laggy the machine is in general. It's a 2.8GHz machine with a modern 7200RPM hard drive and it runs XP about like P3-600 with a 5-year-old 5400RPM drive. It's using XP Home SP2. There isn't much running on it, and it's new enough that I'm afraid wiping it and doing a clean install of XP Pro SP2 probably wouldn't speed things up much.

I guess I'm just looking for some general opinions. Is this the way Celeron Ds behave in general? Do IBMs just suck? It's such a waste having a "new" machine with the worst possible integrated graphcis and no AGP slot. I thought it was ridiculous when people were selling P3s on i815 boards with the original Intel Extreme Graphics and no AGP slot. I just can't believe new machines are still being made that are so crippled.

 

[Appledrop]

ouch, i feel for you (/ your relatives). Hmm, did you install all of the motherboard chipset drivers etc first of all? If windows itself feels sluggish it could be the problem.... It should not be too slow with 2.8 CD and 768 ram, although games will be - my short experience with Intel Extreme 2 showed me it couldnt even handle CS 1.6 at a steady framerate over 50ish. Maybe you could get a new motherboard for the machine, a cheap p4 one with agp slot for around $30? (dont live in US dont know prices) but then again IBM may use proprietary parts *shrug*

 

[Tostada]

Originally posted by: Azzy64
Hmm, did you install all of the motherboard chipset drivers etc first of all?

IBM didn't have any chipset drivers and the only thing I found on Intel's site was that "INF updater" think which I didn't end up installing. Since it's a new machine and was already running SP2 I assumed it was pretty up to date.

 

[Vegito]

its the buyer that bought the wrong computer as you stated.. its like everyone else here that bought a dell with 256mb and complains about performance..

see if the onboard video can be disabled via bios.. you can pop in a pci video card.. i had to with some of the hp my friends bought.. the onboard became 2nd video..

 

[Deadtrees]

All I can say is that it's not the cpu but the RAM. 256MB is just too small for XP system. Upgrade to 512MB and there'll be a noticable difference.

EDIT: I read it again and saw that you put another 512MB. By that, I think the problem is the Video Card.

 

[orchiduk]

Most likely the rubbish video. My wife plays Sims2 on a 1.2GHz Duron, 384MB PC133 and a GeForce3 Ti 200. It plays just fine with medium/low settings.

 

[WackyDan]

Not IBM's fault at all. It's the buyer.

 

[mindwreck]

I previously owned a cele-D and generally its pretty fast. I would blame you onboard video.

 

[ssvegeta1010]

The onboard video is horrible, I run Sims 2 on a 64MB FX 5200Go and I run 1280x1024 with 2XAA and 8XAF on med/high quality.
I can manage 18-40 FPS which is fine for the gameplay of Sims 2.

 

[XBoxLPU]

Yes the video sucks but why the slow load times???

 

[FreshFish]

Celeron D's are nice for their price and easy overclocking capabilities

 

[Tostada]

I don't see how the onboard video could be making XP sluggish outside of games.

 

[Tostada]

Originally posted by: WackyDan
Not IBM's fault at all. It's the buyer.

Sure, you can blame the buyer, but it's still disgusting that IBM is selling machines for $700 (without a monitor) that have worthless video and aren't upgradable.

 

[Vegito]

Originally posted by: Tostada

Originally posted by: WackyDan
Not IBM's fault at all. It's the buyer.

Sure, you can blame the buyer, but it's still disgusting that IBM is selling machines for $700 (without a monitor) that have worthless video and aren't upgradable.

dell has the same thing and everyone complains about them too.. their 300 dollar system on tv is pretty much the same, etiher 128 or 256 mb of memory

 

[DotheDamnTHing]

Originally posted by: Tostada

Originally posted by: WackyDan
Not IBM's fault at all. It's the buyer.

Sure, you can blame the buyer, but it's still disgusting that IBM is selling machines for $700 (without a monitor) that have worthless video and aren't upgradable.

no one made them buy the computer...but i sympathize with the OP

 

[GoSharks]

IBMs are not made to be home machines.

 

[WackyDan]

Originally posted by: GOSHARKS
IBMs are not made to be home machines.

SPecifically the S50 they bought... it's a SFF built for the business environment, hence the integrated video.

Not everyone is a gamer.

 

[Tostada]

Originally posted by: WackyDan

Originally posted by: GOSHARKS
IBMs are not made to be home machines.

SPecifically the S50 they bought... it's a SFF built for the business environment, hence the integrated video.

Not everyone is a gamer.

It's an A50, not an S50. It's not SFF.

 

[Arcanedeath]

The Intel "Extreme Graphics" is the culprit here for the poor gameplay, I'd also suggest looking in the bios or using the Hitachi Feature tool to make sure AAM is not enabled on the HDD that could be killing your performance and making the system feel slugish in additon to the bad graphics.

 

[robinoldfield]

I have the same model, 8085-EIU and also found that adding memory was a good idea. Not a gamer, at least no yet, but have also thought about installing a video card. I realize the lack of an AGP slot limits choices, so what is a "value" priced PCI solution?

 

[magomago]

hmmm...I would think there is osmething you are missing for the chipset drivers. Did you install the Intel Application Accelerator?

That computer should be dog slow at games because of the video card...but even OUTSIDE of that, you shouldn't be that sluggish at loading up windows, especially if only Norton is enabled.



gyus, realize he is not complaining about the GAME, but rather he complaining about GENERAL USE and booting up...

 

[Tostada]

Originally posted by: magomago
hmmm...I would think there is osmething you are missing for the chipset drivers. Did you install the Intel Application Accelerator?

That computer should be dog slow at games because of the video card...but even OUTSIDE of that, you shouldn't be that sluggish at loading up windows, especially if only Norton is enabled.

gyus, realize he is not complaining about the GAME, but rather he complaining about GENERAL USE and booting up...

I looked at the application accelerator, but I assumed it was irrelevant because it says it's for RAID and SATA (and I only saw the previous version which was from 2003 so I thought it was an abandoned product).

What exactly does the INF Update Utility do?

The Intel® Chipset Software Installation Utility installs the Windows* INF files. The INF files inform the operating system how to properly configure the chipset for specific functionality, such as AGP, USB, Core PCI, and ISAPNP services.

**Important**
The Intel Chipset Software Installation Utility provides _functionality_ for AGP and USB, _not_ AGP or USB drivers. DO NOT DOWNLOAD THIS UTILITY IF YOUR DEVICE MANUFACTURER IS RECOMMENDING IT TO CORRECT AN "AGP DRIVER," "AGP GART," OR "USB DRIVER" ISSUE; IT WILL NOT CORRECT YOUR ISSUE.

Doesn't sound all that useful to me.

With 768MB, Sims 2 plays OK (obviously not the best graphics, but load time isn't bad and it's perfectly playable), but Windows just seems a little slow. I even disabled Norton. I just thought maybe it's the way a Celeron 2.8 D was, but judging by the responses here it should be an OK CPU.