Nintendo Switch review: Hands on with the intuitive modular console and its disappointing games…
I've been offerd a very good value PC that I would like to give to my mother.
She is currently struggling on a 600MHz P3 machine and I thought that an upgrade was due.
The PC has a 2.6GHz Celeron processor, 512MB RAM, 128MB Video. Just how much slower than an full P4 of the same speed would this be?
It really will perform now where near P4 or AMD XP, chip however as the man above me states it will be great improvement over the current set-up............... Personally I would'nt put a celeron in my alarm clock........
you get what you pay for:
celeron = aimed at poor students/businesses
p4 = aimed at rich students or ppl with sugar daddies!
though saying that the new prescott versons of p4 which bassically just hav a bigger cache are slower at processing small-med amounts of data and use A LOT of power
the celeron is ok if you are not going to play games.
That would be a rather nice step-up & setup for your mother, & should serve her for a while depending on what she plans to do or run on it.
I have a Celeron 600Mhz, which is not as good as your mother's P3, but find it very satisfactory for the tasks I run on it (don't play games or do any video editing, etc). I have the old Win98se & over 30 programs loaded from MS Office 2000 to Norton Internet security (the latter is supposed to be notoriously resource hungry) but hardly notice a strain. I find that regular basic maintenance & a few basic tweaks makes it run at top performance.
I went from a celeron 600Mhz to a P4 2.6 Ghz and the real difference for me was the speed of the internet. (NTL600K on both) My ram went from 192 to 500 and I found a considerable difference in speed in general processing and multi tasking.
I think even with the cheaper option of the celeron the speed should be fairly noticeable. My celeron(win 98) machine got clogged in the end and kept freezing, probably due to the fact that I didn't then understand the need for regular maintenance and tweaks that Crossbow7 mentioned.
You can play games with a celeron processor, however it will advised to be part of a "gaming machine".
Games that rely heavily on the CPU such as the Unreal will see quite a heavy drop in performance...
The celeron is a good processor for your average joe user, however any number cruching or graphics based tasks will not run as well as a P4 or AMD XP CPU......
If general word processing and web surfing is what you do it's fine just dont ask anything to demanding of it as it is what it is a stripped down pentium cpu.......
The Dell I had before this PC had a 2.2 celeron, 512 ram and onboard sound and graphics.
It did everything I wanted it to do including video editing. The only thing I didn't do with it was play games and that was because it had onboard graphics.
I'm sure she will be more than pleased with it.
Is there any difference between CPU L2 cache and MB L2 cache?
Thank you all.
My mother doesn't play games on her PC. She does do some photo manipulation since she bought herself a Sony digital camera last year, and has take to the internet like something possessed.
She uses AOL and has just discoverd video linking with her friends in Australia and America. Now she has ADSL, she's at it all hours of the day and night, keeping up with all the news. I reckon for a 78 yr old lady that she's taken to the thing like a duck to water.
I can't abide being in the same room as her when she's typing though. She's still rocket-fast on the keyboard and you can almost feel the heat coming from the keyboard as she belts away.
I've placed the order for the PC tonight.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.