HardwareBanter - View Single Post

**Flasherly[_2_]** · May 2nd 17, 03:20 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt

On Tue, 2 May 2017 04:15:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

If you are talking about the Cedar Mill (65 nm) Celeron D, yes they were
quite good. They had more L2 than old Celery. I don't think many people got
one, prabably were waiting for Core 2 in those days.

I briefly noted two production models of the Celeron D listed on the
wiki link. Mine would be a socket 478 model with a reputation for
strong overclocking capabilities. Yes, a Celeron and alternatives of a
likes for AMD K6-s, which had already some miles and time established
when I got into the D model. Still a good choice at around $50, what
I'd consider it cost me, for the added Intel stability, discounted in
that particular model and poised so directly with an aim at a
counterpoint to AMD's price offerings. The ASUS board I ran it with
eventually went south when I switched to my present Gigabyte, updating
over a course of three processors to a Core 2 Quad Q8200 2.33 GHz LGA
775 95W ... also now present in a "maxed out" capacity for Gigabyte
supported processors.

It's been quite a good run and by far above personal prior norms,
these last two Gigabyte builds (I've also a comparable Phenom X4 9550
2.2 GHz Quad-Core). Now that I can't fault either essentially for
much reason, least of all for their continued structural integrity, if
to average for better values across a present range of updates
available to me. AMD prices are of course now much higher, overall,
even in the used and pulled models off Ebay. (I bought both these
quads as used pulls at or under $30 each.) Most of all they're
noticeably off-kilter when placed against the recent AMD price drop,
to a $100 E-series Vishnu octal core, due to a Ryzen release.

And, once more, "the heat" is again on Intel: dropping $100 across
especially their I-series flagship quadcores, also almost to the day
of the Ryzen release.