Have you ever used a celery core? I have before and god damned

>>60180827
There was the 300MHz Slot 1 version. That CPU could overclock to 500MHz and outperform a Pentium II.

File: image.jpg (147KB, 407x390px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 407x390px

INTEL CLOCK STRONK

>>60180827
try atom

>>60180827
My father had a Celeron 2.0 GHz. Also my first PC was a laptop (Thinkpad) with a 300 MHz Celeron. AOEI startet to lag when you played with too many enemies on a large map.

Will be using a Pentium 645 at the end of the week, I bet it will feel faster than my Phenom II X4.

I'd rather have a Celery than an Atom.
Right now I have two Atoms and an i7.

>>60180862
i still have a slot 1 pentium 2 sitting by my desk to remind me how much of a dumbass i was back then

>>60180827
I did, 601MHz, until 2007. I think any CPU manufactured in 1998 would have been shit by then.

>>60180827

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHWBEK8w_YY

>>60180827
Celery?
No, you just got CelerOWN'd

I had a celery in a Toshiba Satellite back in like 2003. It was a piece of shit.

Celerons have long since been usable. Even the SOC ones for basic tasks.
We aren't in 2005 anymore.

>>60180827
e3300 4.0 ghz. my first ever gaymen pc

the CIA doesn't want you to have xeon processors or cd roms, they just want a herd of nigger cattle with underpowered pc's and cloud storage

File: prod_SatA135_GTP_01.jpg (60KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 300x300px

>>60180827
I have a toshiba satellite a135-s2246 running a celery m 430, 1.7GHz. Tried running Debian for a few months and surprisingly that didn't run as well as windows 7 starter. It's not entirely unusable though I am looking at giving it something a little bit better.

>>60180827
Celeron are actually pretty good since Sandy Bridge. They outperform even the best Core 2 Duo ever manufactured.

Newer ones like Skylake or Kaby Lake do that by a quite large margin, over 40%.

>>60180862
>>60181443
Good times. Late 1998 had me putting together a system based around an Abit BH-6 and Celeron 300A clocked to 500. Nothing I put together since went together so perfectly or had such an amazing price/performance ratio.

>>60180862
CPU manufacturers used to design a lot more headroom into their chips.

These days OCing a 3.5Ghz part to 4Ghz or calling a 3.5Ghz to 3.7Ghz upclock a "turbo boost" of any description is laughable.

An old 486DX33 chip could do 50 without any heatsink at all, or 66 with a wafer-thin aluminum sink glued on.

Celeron 300A did 500 with the stock cooler easy, and some people pushed it to fucking 700Mhz

>>60180862
There was once. I miss my Abit BP6 - 2 Celerons OCed to 533 MHz. Ran like hot shit.

Not many motherboards have a wikipedia article.

>>60185970
>BP6
>all those dual-proc fags bragging in newsgroups about their rig while running Win98 on it

>>60186007
SMP=1

make -j4

File: snapshot_17.27_[2016.07.28_08.31.17].png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>60180827
northwood celeron
it was piece of shit though

>>60186506
same

to be fair the new skylake celerons are just okay.
but none of these where built with games in mind so......

File: 1457212030128.png (973KB, 801x1500px) Image search: [Google]

973KB, 801x1500px

>>60180941
>Netburst
>2.1V
FUCKING HOUSEFIRE

>>60185939
>headroom into their chips.
That isnt headroom, thats wasted potential.
Shit shoyld go as fast as possible OOB

File: 39d46970_vbattach235789.jpg (76KB, 404x384px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 404x384px

>>60187042
>2.1 volt.
that's not the highest though.

that why I loved socket 775
the OC was a dream boat.
total house fire but stable lol.

My E1200 could get almost a 60% overclock

Good value for money.

>>60180941
>8.2GHz at 2.1v
How the hell..

>>60187387
>2.95GHz at 2.25v
That's normal at least.

>>60187387
note the OC is on FSB because speed on this CPU was bottle necked by its Frount side bus and OC'D the ram really had more effect then OC the clocks.

remind you of something.
I this is why I was right about faster ram on ryzen working to speed it up because its the same idea as netburst but it was fixed and working.

my celeron 540 still can play 720p30 videos and browse quite well (even with multiple tabs), they are resilient little fuckers

>>60187442
there are more ways to OC a CPU then you think all have mostly possitive results.

but boasting the clock only works for so long before you stop seeing improvement.
because FSB and Ram speed catch up and slow you down and you lose the FPS gains.

hence is why I did mine this way.

keller had the same idea.
too bad intel didn't get their netbursting working like it does on paper. working.

;_;

File: 1487373074730.jpg (35KB, 500x471px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 500x471px

>>60180827
Thrash the fuck outta my 2.2GHz little ol' laptop with KVM and LZ4 root compression.

Ran a P2 smelleron 433 for years, was a pretty good chip and stable platform.

>>60180827
Back in my days it was awesome /s

Hmm, maybe once. It was fucking awful

>>60181411
what's the point? celerys are atoms with half the cores disabled

>>60180827
I upgraded my dad's shitbox from some unidentified 2,4GHz Pentium 4 to a couple-year-old celeron, and the difference is like heaven and hell. The answer to OP's question in this context is yes.
It cost me 30$, so I'm fine with it.

>>60180827
They're ok for barebone normie stuff but that's it