Hot? OEM Celeron 335 for $59.99 at Microcenter

[ttlntl]

Where can I buy a cheap HS for this CPU?

 

[MarlboroJones]

Stupid newb question: how reliable are OEM CPUs? As I won't be able to put together the component pieces until middle of next month; should I hold off on getting this? (It seems like a very sweet deal - thanks op - and just what would fit the bill for a budget linux system I'd like to build. But, I am a bit concerned by a 30 day warranty - that is the warranty term, correct?

Thanks!

 

[happyshopping007]

nice price, good

 

[tallman45]

Originally posted by: ttlntl
Where can I buy a cheap HS for this CPU?

Not wise to go cheap with a Precott Core Celeron D, Go with an XP-90. They can be had for around $40 wtih a fan

 

[happyshopping007]

no bad.

 

[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.

 

[ttlntl]

I ordered the Intel CPU combo last night. Now I got the cancellation email saying that the CPU is not available.

 

[Tu13erhead]

Shit!

Edit: I just called and they told me both my items were in stock and should ship Monday.

Sure this is what you ordered?

http://microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0185640

 

[Beefcake04]

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.

Oh, yeah, I know they're separate chips -- sorry if I gave the impression that they weren't... I was just trying to answer the question of how it would perform. I.e., if my older generation, less capable chip can handle all my everyday stuff, then the Celeron D clearly will be fine.

You and I are basically in agreement as to how much you can OC it, since a 2.8 GHz, is stock 133(533) FSB when overclocked to 150(600) is 3.15 GHz, and 3.5 GHz at 166 FSB... you were just talking GHz and I was talking FSB. I think you'd have to have an amazing rig to get it up to 4 GHz (although it can be done). As I said, though, you'll never get it to 200(800) FSB -- 4.2GHz (as another poster asked) without some holy water and a monkey's paw.

 

[Beefcake04]

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.

You CAN. I did it about 6 months ago with a different combo, and they paid the Visa rebate pretty quickly. I guess you sort of have to, because once you start to get involved with credit card - related promises, you are in a bit more trouble if you don't honor them.

 

[cremefilled]

Looks like the Celeron is gone -- I woke up this morning to find it removed from my basket, and it shows "not available" when you click the link.

For those intrigued by the Celeron D, the 2.4 GHz starts at $61 on pricewatch. 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.

I agree that a 4.0 overclock sounds unlikely, but there are a couple of people on Anandtech who have such systems in their signature.

Here's a heatsink/fan that's cheap and has a good reputation.

 

[Delbert]

Weird.
Got a cancellation notice email early this morning, then just now got a shipping notice with tracking number.

 

[RBBRMADE]

I ordered 4 of the intel combos and received shipping confirmation pretty quick.
That was Friday ~2PM that I ordered.

I also ordered 5 stock Intel skt478 HS/Fans for $40 shipped from here.

Just in case that link does not work Here Is The Home Page.

Ron

 

[MustangSVT]

too bad cellys are gone

how would it compair with sempron combo?

 

[ttlntl]

My CPU was cancelled this morning. I called, and they offered me a D325 which is 2.53GHz for the same price as the D330. Regular price for the D325 was about $5 more but the sales guy just gave it to me for the same price. I took it since it is still cheaper than other places with the MB combo.

 

[Beefcake04]

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.

I've got a 2.8 GHz Celeron (normal, not "D", but still the identical core, on the .13 process), and for this very reason I wish I had bought the 2.4. Since they're multiplier locked, I'd get the same GHz out of both, but with a higher FSB on the 2.4, netting higher overall performance.

Live 'n' learn.

 

[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.

For not too much more money, one can get into the Athlon-64 range, and Intel isn't competitive there -- at all. But for $60, there are pro's and con's for the Sempron versus the Celeron D.

 

[VirtualLarry]

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.

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.)

 

[gwag]

it also hastwice the L1 cache 16k vs 8k in last gen celeron and P4's I think....

 

[Beefcake04]

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.

Forgive me for misspeaking... I actually didn't realize about the SSE2/3 sets. I thought the cache/FSB/process were the only differences.

 

[MustangSVT]

is celery D better than mobile celeron chips?

 

[Sm0kes]

How would this Celeron 355 (2.8) compare to an Athlon XP 1700 (1.47GHz)?? Wondering if this is worth upgrading my secondary desktop ...? If not would holding out for a sempron be a better bet? Not going for the overclock at all .... just stability.

 

[QTPie]

I went to MC this weekend and the Celeron was sold out, so I bought the Sempron 2400+ $47.49. It hits 2.0G (200 x 10) without any mod on the crappy ECS MB that I bought in a combo at Fry's couple months ago. It's very cool, too (around 40C)

 

[mudboy]

I picked up one of those about a month ago with an el-cheapo motherboard for $80. Sold the board for $35 so I got myself a decent CPU for $45.

Performance-wise, it's not terrible. I put one in my Dell 400SC (needed a BIOS flash) with a gig of PC3200 and a 36GB Raptor and it gets the job done as a development server -- the 256K cache and 533 FSB makes a big difference over the older S478 Celerons.

Pete

 

[cholley]

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.

true, athlon xp would be much better