Originally posted by: ttlntl
Where can I buy a cheap HS for this CPU?
Originally posted by: cremefilled
"Beefcake", the Celeron D's are a separate chip. They are based on a 90 nm process; the old one is 130. The Celeron D's generally overclock quite a bit better -- 3.0 should be a minimum, 3.3 to 3.6 with decent cooling, and as high as 4.0. Also, the faster FSB makes a huge difference. And the 256KB cache versus the 128KB cache on your Celeron makes a difference, as well.
Think of the Cel-D's as a faster, cooler-running version of the original 256K cache Pentium 4's.
Both the Sempron and Celeron combo deals are pretty hot, IMO.
Originally posted by: cheetoden
You may also want to check out getting a Microcenter Visa. If you buy a cpu/motherboard combo, you get a $100 rebate. I suppose you could make money on this deal.
Originally posted by: cremefilled
Now, if you know what you are doing, and if you are planning to overclock, the 2.4 can be a better chip overall than the 2.8. The reason is that both have identical Prescott cores, and at this point in their production cycles, they are probably not even bin-sorted. They are just stamped with a different label, and the multiplier is locked in.
Since both should overclock to about the same speeds overall, a lower mulitiplier on the 2.4. means you can achieve a higher FSB. Actually, a 2.4 -> 3.6 overclock, running at a 200 MHz FSB, is certainly possible when bumping the voltage up.
Ditto. It's almost the same sort of thing, with the Tualatin P3 Celeron chips - they were quite competitive to the prior-gen Coppermine P3 non-Celeron chips. As much as I'm not a huge fan of the P4's NetBurst architecture - the P4 Celeron-D chips are a very good choice for a budget overclocker. If you can get 3.4Ghz+ out of them, they are rather performance-competitive with older Northwoods, and cheaper too! (AMD CPUs like an Athlon XP3200+ still spank them in the gaming performance dept., but at this point, are likely to still cost more.)Originally posted by: cremefilled
I don't mean to pound this into the ground, but the Celeron D is not "the identical core."
It is based on 90 nm process, versus the old 130.
It adds the SSE2 & SSE3 instruction sets.
It runs on the 133 MHz FSB, versus 100.
It has 256 KB cache, versus the old 128 KB.
I think you understood this, Beefcake04, but I wanted to clarify this for anyone who has misconceptions about the "weak Celery chip." The Celeron D, esp. if overclocked, is quite competitive. It is really almost identical to the Pentium 4-533's from a generation back (before Hyperthreading), except that it overclocks better and runs cooler.
Originally posted by: cremefilled
I don't mean to pound this into the ground, but the Celeron D is not "the identical core."
It is based on 90 nm process, versus the old 130.
It adds the SSE2 & SSE3 instruction sets.
It runs on the 133 MHz FSB, versus 100.
It has 256 KB cache, versus the old 128 KB.
I think you understood this, Beefcake04, but I wanted to clarify this for anyone who has misconceptions about the "weak Celery chip." The Celeron D, esp. if overclocked, is quite competitive. It is really almost identical to the Pentium 4-533's from a generation back (before Hyperthreading), except that it overclocks better and runs cooler.
Originally posted by: b00b
looks like they usually sell for around $90 so yeah I guess it's hot... if you can call a celeron hot.