G470 2.0GHz is the one I'm a big fan of, but most of them were sold only during Black Friday 2013 day, and there weren't many produced. So I use more G465 1.9GHz instead. Intel blames it on high production costs, anxiously switching to Bay Trail in just three months. Intel first released the Celeron J1800 and Pentium J2900 for Acer PCs on February 2014, first shipped to Walmart stores I still remember on my February 26 store visit.I know that Waltchan is a big fan of the G465 CPUs. He's mentioned them in the past. I've never had the chance to use one, a single-core with HyperThreading is pretty curious. Then again, the AMD equivalent is a single-module Piledriver FM2 APU, and in my opinion, those are pretty slow. Slower than a dual-core FM1 LLano APU.
While ordinarily, the dual core i5-560M in my laptop is more than sufficient for Firefox (and 1080P Youtube), if Windows Update or something else going wrong decides to hog a thread, performance takes a noticeable hit that can be felt. On my desktop's quad i5-4590, I can't even tell an entire core is being pegged.Yea, I dont really buy that the average user mucks up his pc so much that it will slow down a fast dual core. I run a light antivirus, and dont take any extra precautions to keep the PC clean. Only one time did i have a problem (with a virus), and that would have crashed the most powerful cpu. Maybe back in the old days of 1ghz pentiums and 500mb of ram this was a problem, but today, not so much. BTW, I am talking desktop here. But lets remember, the vast majority of laptops are dual cores with a 35 watt or less tdp. Most people must not consider them inadequate, because they are selling better than desktops.
Looks like some new ECS LGA1155 boards are still lying around today. But CPUs are still expensive and almost all are used, which don't match VirtualLarry's interest.LGA1155s aren't really that affordable after 5 years, so the boards and CPUs will always be much more-expensive than FM1s.
Looks like some new ECS LGA1155 boards are still lying around today. But CPUs are still expensive and almost all are used, which don't match VirtualLarry's interest.
http://www.ascendtech.us/intel-lga1155-motherboard_c_mb1155.aspx
You don't need UEFI to run win10Well, Newegg still (sometimes) has G1610 CPUs for $49.99 + $1.99 ship. But of those motherboards, I would only want the ECS mini-ITX for $44.99 or the Flex-ATX for $49.99. The cheaper PCChips models at Ascendtech, only mention 2nd-gen Core and Windows 7, no 3rd-Gen or Windows 8/8.1/10, so likely no UEFI support.
The ECS H81 Flex-ATX at Newegg was $34.99 + $1.99 ship recently, bought three of them, and I picked up some G1820 CPUs for $38 ea. on ebay a few months ago. So the H81 / G1820 solution was cheaper than an H61 / G1610 solution.
Oh yeah, if you don't need features provided by EFI, you are absolutely fine without it. If anything, I'd easily prefer older MBR system w/ more CPU grunt over modern EFI with questionable CPU performance. Of course, ideally, you ought to be shooting for both.You don't need UEFI to run win10
I own and operate three ECS H61H2-M3 V2.0s right now, one with Celeron G465, one with Celeron G470, and the last one I put in my fire-safe. This board was the direct-competitor to A55F-M4 V2.0, and both have Windows 10 secure-boot feature.
Newegg ran a promotion selling them for only $21 AR back in early-2014 for 3 months, and I bought 1 per month per rebate. It was an innovative and a popular SlickDeals thread I wrote back in February 2014.
http://slickdeals.net/e/6701710-ecs...ip-or-less-after-19-rebate?v=1&src=SiteSearch
Best money I've ever spend... Then NIB Celeron G470s retail-box marketed down for $20 clearance in mid-2014, and picked up three. One is unopened and spared in my fire-safe with the ECS board together. Should have bought ten. :\
Yes, I like your response here. A Skylake Celeron single-core clocked at 2.30GHz with Hyperthreading (a must) is a valid marketing idea. I like to name it G2900, rated at 35W low-power. I believe the benchmark score will reach 1800 total easily.I mean single core skylake celeron would be pretty neat, in fact it would probably be faster than some of the C2Qs.
I own and operate three ECS H61H2-M3 V2.0s right now, one with Celeron G465, one with Celeron G470, and the last one I put in my fire-safe. This board was the direct-competitor to A55F-M4 V2.0, and both have Windows 10 secure-boot feature.
Newegg ran a promotion selling them for only $21 AR back in early-2014 for 3 months, and I bought 1 per month per rebate. It was an innovative and a popular SlickDeals thread I wrote back in February 2014.
http://slickdeals.net/e/6701710-ecs...ip-or-less-after-19-rebate?v=1&src=SiteSearch
Best money I've ever spend... Then NIB Celeron G470s retail-box marketed down for $20 clearance in mid-2014, and picked up three. One is unopened and spared in my fire-safe with the ECS board together. Should have bought ten. :\
Actually, slower just got faster than before after I installed Windows 10 with Celeron G465. It's night and day difference to me. Intel, please bring back the single-core with hyperthreading.Slow machines are slow, and they will only get slower.
+1, kinda. Have a 4770K @ 4.6GHz in my gaming box, but 2x X5675s in one of my servers.am i the only person here whose gaming box does not house the most powerful CPU they own?
For single purpose computer, those single core celerons are really cheap to own and operate and are considerably better than comparable AMDs (single core sempron 145, C-60, E-350/450) or Atoms, this CPU feature dual channel memory controller and iGP. In the future we might see some ultra low power(up to 5W) CPUs featuring one core with HT, that could easily be used in embedded applications and be considerably faster and responsive than Atoms, or they could replace some of the ARM-based CPUs in TVs and Networked home appliances connected to IOT infrastructure. Complete rig uses some 20W in full load - something I haven't yet noticed in my power bills in some 3 years I'm operating it, add a 24" LED LCD to it and you have full featured desktop PC with just some 30W of power draw, which is less than in some mainstream laptops. Performance wise it is good for office stuff, internet browsing and watching movies/videos and hosting NAS/FTP server and also pairs well with Windows 10 optimizations, there are no cons to it, just being not enough for encoding/rendering and gaming new games which are all domain for quad core CPUs now.I just still really can't understand this. My brain is unable to parse the reasoning behind this. Slow machines are slow, and they will only get slower. A fast machine will, yes eventually get slow, but it will be viable longer than a slow machine will. Many many many years longer.
Explain your thought process on this like you would to a five year old.
You're the second person I found after me who realizes a single-core with hyperthreading isn't as bad as what most people think. Intel processors tend to do really well in single-thread, and everything works and downloads like an instant after you install Intel Rapid Storage Technology software.For single purpose computer, those single core celerons are really cheap to own and operate and are considerably better than comparable AMDs (single core sempron 145, C-60, E-350/450) or Atoms, this CPU feature dual channel memory controller and iGP. In the future we might see some ultra low power(up to 5W) CPUs featuring one core with HT, that could easily be used in embedded applications and be considerably faster and responsive than Atoms, or they could replace some of the ARM-based CPUs in TVs and Networked home appliances connected to IOT infrastructure. Complete rig uses some 20W in full load - something I haven't yet noticed in my power bills in some 3 years I'm operating it, add a 24" LED LCD to it and you have full featured desktop PC with just some 30W of power draw, which is less than in some mainstream laptops. Performance wise it is good for office stuff, internet browsing and watching movies/videos and hosting NAS/FTP server and also pairs well with Windows 10 optimizations, there are no cons to it, just being not enough for encoding/rendering and gaming new games which are all domain for quad core CPUs now.
Yes, Micro Center did have $3 AR power supply before. Picked up three.$3 power supply?
You're the second person I found after me who realizes a single-core with hyperthreading isn't as bad as what most people think. Intel processors tend to do really well in single-thread, and everything works and downloads like an instant after you install Intel Rapid Storage Technology software.
VirtualLarry missed all the G400 series deals back in 2012-2014, so he'll never know.
He can still get some of the used ones since they do appear from time to time on ebay or some local reselling sites. But I'm sure he doesn't plan to do so right now after he bought 10 A4sYou're the second person I found after me who realizes a single-core with hyperthreading isn't as bad as what most people think. Intel processors tend to do really well in single-thread, and everything works and downloads like an instant after you install Intel Rapid Storage Technology software.
VirtualLarry missed all the G400 series deals back in 2012-2014, so he'll never know.
Yes, Celeron G440 1.6GHz is the only one to avoid in LGA1155 as it lacks hyperthreading and EIST voltage downgrade, and not many were produced. When I think of a cheapest LGA1155, only Celeron G460 1.8GHz with hyperthreading and EIST comes into my mind, since it was the best-seller in G400 series, so easy to find as used and cheaper than G440.Well, I may have missed out on experiencing the single-core with HT, but I've used Sandy Bridge Celeron 847 CPUs (1.1Ghz dual-core), Ivy Bridge Celeron 1007U and 1037U (1.5Ghz, and 1.8Ghz, respectively, both dual-cores), and they were fairly snappy.
In particular, the 847 seems a bit better performer than the Celeron 440 (Core2 single-core, no HT, 2.0Ghz) that it replaced. The biggest difference was WU and other programs that might chew up an entire CPU core. On the single-core Celeron 440, it made the PC virtually unusable. On the lower clockspeed 1.1Ghz 847, the PC stayed responsive.
I'm pretty happy with my assortment of dual-core CPUs. Quad-cores are nice, but unnecessary for most desktop / browsing things. They may be faster, by some amount, but you have to keep price in perspective too. The dual-core chips cost nearly 1/4 of the quad-core chips. Which means that the quad-cores have a 2X price premium per core. So, if you can manage your workload with a dual-core, then they offer better value, IMHO.
I was talking about the Core2 Celeron 440, not the G440.Yes, Celeron G440 1.6GHz is the only one to avoid in LGA1155 as it lacks hyperthreading and EIST voltage downgrade, and not many were produced.
Oh, right. I just pulled out two Celeron 450 2.2GHz recently and replaced them to Pentium E5700. It was nearly a free upgrade, loving the depreciated prices only from LGA775.I was talking about the Core2 Celeron 440, not the G440.
No EIST... I had forgotten about that. Back in the "bad old days", when Intel intentionally gimped power-saving technologies on their Celeron lines. You want a power-efficient computer? Don't buy a Celeron.
Well, I still plan on trying to obtain a G3900 to test for you, escrow4.
At least, I want to run one through some daily usage and see how it performs.
Also, waiting for the ASRock mobos with "Hyper BCLK OC". If they do come out, and are cheap enough, then a massively-overclocked Celeron G3900 CPU, and some DDR4-2400 RAM might make a potent combo.