Because we didn't have much money, I eventually upgraded from a Pentium 166Mhz to the Celeron D 2.66Ghz. Yeah, it was never a speedy thing but that performance jump was fun to have. The idea of ever trying GTA 4 on here though, that is ambitious! But also seeing Portal 2 actually playable is a testament to Valve's optimization of Source. The Celeron D got me though all of Half life 2, Vice City and huge stack of Quake 3, Doom 3 and Call of Duty - none of it hit 60FPS but it was playable.
Nonsense. Celeron D at any time was only slightly slower than competition and actually matched AMD's K7 "performance rating" numbers pretty well. Compared to Pentium 4 with Hyper Threading that is one generation newer surely will show Celeron D struggle with new programs but the same result (or worse: programs not starting at all!) would be true for competition's 1c/1t CPU's. This is why Pentium 4 HT were considered superior to even Athlon 64 for anything other than games. Still in any newer game that uses two threads Pentium 4 HT will be much faster and stutter-free than Athlon 64 or even single core Athlon FX.
i overclocked a celeron D well past 5 ghz several years ago and i remember it still struggled to play youtube videos smoothly in 720p. 480p was fine i believe. however this was on windows xp so much less background load
RUclips uses much more demanding codecs now, so I wonder if that would make it even worse. If you still have that machine, it would be cool if you could test it
Prior to the 13700k I got this week, the fastest cpu clockwise I ever ran overclocked for 24/7 was an overclocked Celeron D at 5.15ghz. It was many moons ago.
Man, I recently had to use a Dinosaur equipped with a Celeron D at my workplace. Windows 7, 2GB of RAM. It was lagging badly even to open an ancient version of Firefox. I noticed it was overheating. Time to change the termal paste and clean the thing. No more lags to open Firefox! Great, until I needed to use GMAIL on the thing. Even the mouse cursor would lag when it was loading. 100% CPU usage every single time I tried to load any website. The experience was so traumatizing the next day I brought a Pentium D from my parts bin. It was night and day difference... I could ACTUALLY do something in the machine.
Yeah, for those who have time to fool around with this kind of stuff. P4's are nice foot warmers in winter too. Please use your time wisely as you can never recover it. ✌️
Thanks for the video! This info is valuable to me since I'm looking into some older hardware atm. Were you running XP for these tests? I'm wondering if a Cerelon D would be better for a Win98SE build as opposed to an XP build since it's lacking the additional thread that the P4 has. I have an HP SFF Cerelon D PC but I've found a P4 locally that matches the era of what I'm putting together (just bought a brand new HP CRT from 2005). I'd love to hear your thoughts! Cheers
I benched it with Windows 7. Regardless, I've used them at work even back when they were new in the XP days. We were given over 200 laptops from a state grant, all with similar mobile celerons. They were so bad that after a year we puchased all new cpu's and hired ex students to sit in a room for a week replacing every cpu. Those laptops required the entire case to be taken apart to get to the CPU. They are all awful. Obviously it's your call. However, if you haven't used one before, it would be good for the experience and for the fun of it.
I imagine the Cedarmill D's with 512k cache would at least be able to run Word... but yeah really the Semprons totally annihilated the Celeries back then, especially the K8s. Wasn't even a contest.
Celeron D can be good for the old second generation of Intel Pentium 4 motherboard that max out with the support of the Northwood cpu 512k/533 mhz ! In this case The celeron D will offer a SSE3 support, a feature not seen with the p4 3.06 ghz,, and or with the Mobile Pentium 4 who could be seen with just this standard of the 512/533 mhz.My main abstractive question on the Celeron D ask if this is possible to open the metallic cover and to activate a bigger L2 cache ! The old Celerons D can be modded ?
Netburst Celeron without D was the true disaster with just 128KB L2. Celeron D was at the time of its release (which was almost a year before Pentium D BTW) an amazing improvement.
Ese pentium 4 es super nuevo para compararlo contra un pequeño y antiguo celly, una competencia justa en 775 seria los primeros p4 sin ht ejemplo un 505
What about the real dual core celeron e1600? Those things clocked easily and were "usable" atleast. I haven't had one but the pentium e2140 @3.6ghz was ok for 60€ back in the day
Man I had an E2220 and ended up hating it ultimately. It replaced my Pentium D 925 which I at least felt fondly towards. Everyone says the P4/D sucks yet it performed admirably and everyone said the E2XXX was a Core 2 with a little less cache and a small clock bump would negate the performance hit yet that wasn’t the case at all. Overclocking the E2220 to 3.2GHz and no performance improvement was noticed as the cores are so cache starved (1MB cache vs 4MB Conroe and 1MB vs 6MB Wolfdale)and core 2 had a wide core design with many execution units that without an integrated memory controller was heavily dependent on lots of low latency cache to preform well. Cache cannot be replaced with clock speed despite what people always said online back in the day. Since then I would try and always get the highest amount of cache per cpu I was interested in. Eventually got a Phenom II 920 OEM for $~80 no heat sink and only 2.8GHz stock but full 4X512kb L2 and 6MB of L3 and this CPU was totally satisfying to own.
@@Protoking yeah that used to drive me nuts too, people saying OHH just overclock it. No it doesn't work lol. You'd have to go to 10ghz and probably still would be slower at some things.
@JIMsJunk Why u even compar with p4 6 seriess c1/2t? Ussless comprison, waste of time. Do something real: Celeron D 256KB vs Celeron D Cedar mill 512KB vs pentium 4 500 1024KB seriess.
I'm not sure it would make that much of a difference, frankly. Even a non-HT P4, perhaps even a Northwood, would likely run circles around a Celeron D. They were just that bad.
@@AliceC993 cuz Cel D 256KB opponents was low athlons xp/semprons.. Celeron D Cedar Mill 512KB was literaly performance p4 prescott 512. When 3ghz prescott 512KB losing to 3ghz 512KB Northwood.😂 There was performance diff between 500 and 600 series so where there cel d 256KB.
@@qfortynopeone5247 Having had an Athlon XP at the time the Celeron D was "relevant", if you could have ever called it that, I would rather have the Athlon. Even using Semprons was a better experience, from what I recall.
You have a lot of patience considering these tests equate to nearly a full day, thanks for your dedication
Thank you! Cheers!
You are correct about the Celeron D. At 5.15ghz, it performed about the same as a P4 at 3ghz.
Because we didn't have much money, I eventually upgraded from a Pentium 166Mhz to the Celeron D 2.66Ghz. Yeah, it was never a speedy thing but that performance jump was fun to have. The idea of ever trying GTA 4 on here though, that is ambitious! But also seeing Portal 2 actually playable is a testament to Valve's optimization of Source.
The Celeron D got me though all of Half life 2, Vice City and huge stack of Quake 3, Doom 3 and Call of Duty - none of it hit 60FPS but it was playable.
the D in those Celeron stood for 'Definitely a scam'
nah when Cel D 256KB come there was only P4 Northwood&Prescott 512KB. Cuz oponents to the Celeron D 256KB was Athlons XP/Semprons!
I thought it meant Disaster
Dogshit
I thought it means dick
I remember these back in school, they struggled with basic tasks
Did it lag with the calculater?
Nonsense. Celeron D at any time was only slightly slower than competition and actually matched AMD's K7 "performance rating" numbers pretty well. Compared to Pentium 4 with Hyper Threading that is one generation newer surely will show Celeron D struggle with new programs but the same result (or worse: programs not starting at all!) would be true for competition's 1c/1t CPU's. This is why Pentium 4 HT were considered superior to even Athlon 64 for anything other than games. Still in any newer game that uses two threads Pentium 4 HT will be much faster and stutter-free than Athlon 64 or even single core Athlon FX.
0:10 - The Celeron wasn’t always slow. The Celeron Mendocino was simply fantastic and the Celeron Tualatin was also fast and competitive.
i overclocked a celeron D well past 5 ghz several years ago and i remember it still struggled to play youtube videos smoothly in 720p. 480p was fine i believe. however this was on windows xp so much less background load
RUclips uses much more demanding codecs now, so I wonder if that would make it even worse. If you still have that machine, it would be cool if you could test it
Prior to the 13700k I got this week, the fastest cpu clockwise I ever ran overclocked for 24/7 was an overclocked Celeron D at 5.15ghz. It was many moons ago.
Are we counting moonless nights too?
@@CamelCasee what the hell happened to *your* moon? ours doesn't leave the earth
I had overclocked Celeron D 352 to 4,7GHz on Gigabyte GA-965P-S3 motherboard and it still run Windows 10 like crap.
@@CamelCasee he meant "many months ago" stop the cap
@@AngelaTheSephira horrible comment
Intel made a big mistake having Celeron, named after the Latin word for "Swift", "Celeris", be their low-end.
Man, I recently had to use a Dinosaur equipped with a Celeron D at my workplace. Windows 7, 2GB of RAM. It was lagging badly even to open an ancient version of Firefox.
I noticed it was overheating. Time to change the termal paste and clean the thing. No more lags to open Firefox!
Great, until I needed to use GMAIL on the thing. Even the mouse cursor would lag when it was loading. 100% CPU usage every single time I tried to load any website.
The experience was so traumatizing the next day I brought a Pentium D from my parts bin. It was night and day difference... I could ACTUALLY do something in the machine.
Yeah, for those who have time to fool around with this kind of stuff. P4's are nice foot warmers in winter too. Please use your time wisely as you can never recover it. ✌️
Thanks for the video! This info is valuable to me since I'm looking into some older hardware atm. Were you running XP for these tests? I'm wondering if a Cerelon D would be better for a Win98SE build as opposed to an XP build since it's lacking the additional thread that the P4 has. I have an HP SFF Cerelon D PC but I've found a P4 locally that matches the era of what I'm putting together (just bought a brand new HP CRT from 2005). I'd love to hear your thoughts! Cheers
I benched it with Windows 7. Regardless, I've used them at work even back when they were new in the XP days. We were given over 200 laptops from a state grant, all with similar mobile celerons. They were so bad that after a year we puchased all new cpu's and hired ex students to sit in a room for a week replacing every cpu. Those laptops required the entire case to be taken apart to get to the CPU. They are all awful. Obviously it's your call. However, if you haven't used one before, it would be good for the experience and for the fun of it.
PS - I'm envious, love flat panel displays for their convenience..but looking back really miss the picture quality of a good CRT monitor. Enjoy!
I imagine the Cedarmill D's with 512k cache would at least be able to run Word... but yeah really the Semprons totally annihilated the Celeries back then, especially the K8s. Wasn't even a contest.
Agreed. They weren't 'fast' but they were at least usable.
Celeron D can be good for the old second generation of Intel Pentium 4 motherboard that max out with the support of the Northwood cpu 512k/533 mhz ! In this case The celeron D will offer a SSE3 support, a feature not seen with the p4 3.06 ghz,, and or with the Mobile Pentium 4 who could be seen with just this standard of the 512/533 mhz.My main abstractive question on the Celeron D ask if this is possible to open the metallic cover and to activate a bigger L2 cache ! The old Celerons D can be modded ?
You could try with the 3.33 version, it has 512kb of cache
Why not call it the Celeron Disaster Edition?
Netburst Celeron without D was the true disaster with just 128KB L2. Celeron D was at the time of its release (which was almost a year before Pentium D BTW) an amazing improvement.
Ese pentium 4 es super nuevo para compararlo contra un pequeño y antiguo celly, una competencia justa en 775 seria los primeros p4 sin ht ejemplo un 505
What about the real dual core celeron e1600? Those things clocked easily and were "usable" atleast. I haven't had one but the pentium e2140 @3.6ghz was ok for 60€ back in the day
hmm I'll have to look into it and add it to the 'to do' list. Keep an eye out.
Man I had an E2220 and ended up hating it ultimately. It replaced my Pentium D 925 which I at least felt fondly towards. Everyone says the P4/D sucks yet it performed admirably and everyone said the E2XXX was a Core 2 with a little less cache and a small clock bump would negate the performance hit yet that wasn’t the case at all. Overclocking the E2220 to 3.2GHz and no performance improvement was noticed as the cores are so cache starved (1MB cache vs 4MB Conroe and 1MB vs 6MB Wolfdale)and core 2 had a wide core design with many execution units that without an integrated memory controller was heavily dependent on lots of low latency cache to preform well. Cache cannot be replaced with clock speed despite what people always said online back in the day. Since then I would try and always get the highest amount of cache per cpu I was interested in. Eventually got a Phenom II 920 OEM for $~80 no heat sink and only 2.8GHz stock but full 4X512kb L2 and 6MB of L3 and this CPU was totally satisfying to own.
@@Protoking yeah that used to drive me nuts too, people saying OHH just overclock it. No it doesn't work lol. You'd have to go to 10ghz and probably still would be slower at some things.
Celeron D ildo
why not again Celeron D 347 instead ? double the cache
@@azuredreamer ya know what. You're right. I'll do one on that top. This one I just happened to have plus it was very common in it's time
The cache is so anaemic. That's probably why it performs so terribly.
I hated the Celeron processor it was so slow you can hardly do anything
Ughgh, Celeron was pure trash.
@JIMsJunk Why u even compar with p4 6 seriess c1/2t? Ussless comprison, waste of time. Do something real: Celeron D 256KB vs Celeron D Cedar mill 512KB vs pentium 4 500 1024KB seriess.
Why not? This is the type of stuff people had to deal with in computer labs. Sort of like real life comparisons.
@@DannyDan09 Diffirence betwen thys 2 always was too big to compare it. Its like comparing curently Celeron with core i3.
I'm not sure it would make that much of a difference, frankly. Even a non-HT P4, perhaps even a Northwood, would likely run circles around a Celeron D. They were just that bad.
@@AliceC993 cuz Cel D 256KB opponents was low athlons xp/semprons.. Celeron D Cedar Mill 512KB was literaly performance p4 prescott 512. When 3ghz prescott 512KB losing to 3ghz 512KB Northwood.😂 There was performance diff between 500 and 600 series so where there cel d 256KB.
@@qfortynopeone5247 Having had an Athlon XP at the time the Celeron D was "relevant", if you could have ever called it that, I would rather have the Athlon. Even using Semprons was a better experience, from what I recall.