The Notebook Review forums were hosted by TechTarget, who shut down them down on January 31, 2022. This static read-only archive was pulled by NBR forum users between January 20 and January 31, 2022, in an effort to make sure that the valuable technical information that had been posted on the forums is preserved. For current discussions, many NBR forum users moved over to NotebookTalk.net after the shutdown.
Problems? See this thread at archive.org.
← Previous page

    Celeron processors

    Discussion in 'Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades' started by Noctilum, Dec 4, 2009.

  1. Phil

    Phil Retired

    Reputations:
    4,415
    Messages:
    17,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    455
    2.2Ghz vs. 1.3Ghz is a fairly large difference.
     
  2. occupant

    occupant Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    15
    Get the 900 and swap it for a T4300.

    I'm not biased. :wink: Trust me.
     
  3. H.A.L. 9000

    H.A.L. 9000 Occam's Chainsaw

    Reputations:
    6,415
    Messages:
    5,296
    Likes Received:
    552
    Trophy Points:
    281
    All a Celeron basically is, is a last generation Core 2 archetecture model with manufacturing defects. They take the yield with the highest manufacturing defects and deactivate the defective L2 cache and sell them under a different naming scheme. Celerons don't come off their own assembly line, like the ATOM or Itanium. They basically chew through power like a core 2 model, but just not near as efficient. If you want extreme battery power gains, then go to eBay and get a CULV Core 2.
     
  4. ntheo

    ntheo Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    24
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Reminds me of the Toshiba Tecra I had that was 233Mhz adn 128Mb Ram.

    Have you considered a netbook?
    It's enough to run MS Office but has better batter life.
     
  5. Amnesiac

    Amnesiac 404

    Reputations:
    1,312
    Messages:
    3,433
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Hehe, that's nothing compared to my Pentium III paired with 64MB of RAM and a Savage 4 8MB video card.
     
  6. moon angel

    moon angel Notebook Virtuoso NBR Reviewer

    Reputations:
    2,011
    Messages:
    2,777
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    56
    If you can avoid a Celeron I would. I had one in my L100 and it does suffer with less battery life and more heat related issues than a Pentum or Core CPU. That said it ran perfectly well for years. Like was said above, take the ULV for more battery life and the 900 for more power. Personally I'd take the ULV.
     
  7. occupant

    occupant Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    15
    I'll say again as I've said in many threads, don't discount a $250 laptop until you know what it is and isn't capable of. There's guys out there with those awful eMachines D620 POS's pulling down sick numbers with desktop processor swaps. Another thread on here mentioned the possibility of using Athlon II X4's in there. And I'm just drooling at the mouth to see how they run.

    As far as Celeron 900-based laptops, you can do better. I put a T4300 in my Acer Extensa 5230E, left the memory alone, left the hard drive alone, and love it. $309 for the laptop ($15 shipping), $42.66 for the processor on eBay (a few bucks to ship), a Logitech mouse from Wal-Mart, and I have $387 in the thing and it performs like any other T4300-equipped laptop out there. Those still go in the $600 price range even now.

    It's absolutely worth jumping on a $250 laptop if you KNOW a couple minor upgrades will give it the kick in the rear it needs. A quick hard drive, a dual-core processor, doubling the memory, little upgrades mean a LOT to these budget laptops. And if you play your cards right, you can get the bits you want DIRT cheap.
     
← Previous page