Information

Dear forum members,
We are delighted to inform you that our forums are back online. Every single topic and post are now on their places and everything works just as before, only better. Welcome back!



Discussion

Discussion on Article:
Budget CPU for Enthusiasts: Intel Celeron E3300 Processor Review

Started by: jonup | Date 08/06/09 08:47:49 PM
Comments: 15 | Last Comment:  02/18/11 11:40:16 AM

Expand all threads | Collapse all threads

[1-10]

1. 
If you have always associated the “Celeron” name with very affordable and slow processors, then time has come for you to change your opinion.Ilya, I guess you do not remember the days of the Celeron 300a and the tualatins...Back in the day the Celeron was the CPU to have. Less L2 meant more Hz.Actually I am really disappointed that the modern CPUs with less cache do not overclock better than the full blown ones. I guess Intel will not repeat its mistake and the Celeron will remain being an affordable and slow CPU.
0 0 [Posted by: jonup  | Date: 08/06/09 08:47:49 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
I remember... Celeron 300A is a legend of XX century. Last Celeron models mostly were a peace of crap. But new E3300 looks much better than predecessors.
0 0 [Posted by: Gavric  | Date: 08/06/09 09:21:24 PM]
Reply

2. 
Only one comment:
I sure hope that after giving VT to Celerons, they'll enable VT on all series of CPUs that they produce. Including processors of previously released series that are still producing, like E5000 for example.

Too bad that our company desktops have E2xxx CPUs, so no XP mode here
0 0 [Posted by: LuxZg  | Date: 08/07/09 12:55:44 AM]
Reply

3. 
Useful results. Higher load processor power consumptions for E5200 than reported elsewhere by almost 10W. Probably the VRM is inefficient at low to moderate power levels. If you used a micro-atx or mini-itx motherboard that would likely be tuned to lower power processors with more efficient VRMs. And be more suitable for these processors.
0 0 [Posted by: CSMR  | Date: 08/07/09 04:54:12 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
It's system power consumption, not processor power consumption; all the juice consumed by all the parts is measured. Since the only difference is the processor, the processor makes the difference to the power consumption. Other reports will have a different base system, and this will account for the difference in system power consumption.

You almost never see processor power consumption reported, because to do that you'd need to know the system base power consumption.
0 0 [Posted by: philosofool  | Date: 08/07/09 08:34:08 AM]
Reply
 
Yes it's rare but done here and elsewhere, just look at the power consumption part of the review.

Here is another old review that gets lower figures for the E7200 than the E5200 gets in this review. Maybe the difference is the VRMs.

http://www.behardware.com...l-core-2-q9300-e7200.html
0 0 [Posted by: CSMR  | Date: 08/07/09 11:17:44 AM]
Reply

4. 
So yeah, you achieved 4 GHz, but at 1.6 volts? I have an E6600 myself (65nm) and the absolute maximum safe voltage according to Intel's spec is 1.6, and you're using that on a 45nm CPU? Way too high to be safe for 24/7 use. If I recall correctly max voltage is 1.3625 for 45nm CPU's. Some people might say 1.45V, depends where you are looking. Still, good article. Keep up the good job
0 0 [Posted by: Simppi  | Date: 08/08/09 05:23:14 AM]
Reply

5. 
el boton de impresion ha desparecido
0 0 [Posted by: smartshaded  | Date: 08/09/09 12:56:36 PM]
Reply

6. 
0 0 [Posted by: smartshaded  | Date: 08/09/09 01:00:32 PM]
Reply

7. 
Please bring back the print article option! It is extremely nice to be able to scroll rather than loading 10 different pages to read.
0 0 [Posted by: Springfield45  | Date: 08/09/09 01:12:09 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Find it at Services tab on top of the page
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 08/09/09 11:00:43 PM]
Reply

8. 
show the post
0 3 [Posted by: Nintendork  | Date: 08/10/09 08:47:20 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Yeah I was wondering that as well. I can't even buy a E3300 in Aus yet but the X2 240 is available, so I was surprised that the review didn't include it. Other than that, it was a good review.
0 2 [Posted by: genie  | Date: 08/12/09 06:13:22 PM]
Reply

9. 
Shame on you, the Athlon X2 has been discontinued for some time, the Athlon II is their budget processor at the moment. You should have more fairly compared the Athlon II to the Celeron E3000 to give us a more realistic picture.

Bottom line:

Athlon II 240 65w @ 2.8ghz 2mb cache = $60
Celeron E3300 65w @ 2.5ghz 1mb cache = $60

P.S. You can actually upgrade with the AMD platform down the line, something you can't do with the Intel one.
0 0 [Posted by: sazerac85  | Date: 11/03/09 12:43:18 PM]
Reply

10. 
sazerac85 i totally agree.

Are Xbit editors corporate shills for intel? the x2 240 is the same price and it destroys the e3300 but you use the ancient 5600 in the benchmarks?

The LGA 775 is being phased out so why is intel releasing new chips(e3400)?Its because They are fully aware that 6 months down the line users will be throwing away their geriatric 775 rig and spending $$$$ upgrading to the expensive LGA 1156 plus DDR3 and another intel chip.


despicable profit hunting and brand engineering by Intel.
0 0 [Posted by: Boom  | Date: 01/29/10 03:49:19 AM]
Reply

[1-10]

Back to the Article

Add your Comment