I didn't even realize netburst processors were even still being made. :laugh:

The models planned for retirement are the desktop 90nm 2.53 GHz Intel Celeron D 326 (256 KB L2 cache)

:eek: I'm shocked that they were still making 90nm processors, hell i now consider 65nm to be a little dated...

I don't think they've been manufacturing Prescott based CPUs, they are just emptying stocks.

AlCaboneI don't think they've been manufacturing Prescott based CPUs, they are just emptying stocks.

Well then, I'm surprised that they had produced so many netburst processors that they're only now getting rid of them... :banghead:

This is not good news nor bad news. I thought it was dead already anyways.

Are Intel Celeron D good? if you have say 3.0ghz or 2.4ghz on it?

u2konlineAre Intel Celeron D good? if you have say 3.0ghz or 2.4ghz on it?

not really. in some of my testing i have done i have found that a 3ghz P4 would take a 3.6-3.8ghz Celeron to get close to the same performance

You'll be suprised probably to know that up until recently intel still produced 80486 CPU's ( source: wikipedia ) ... a cpu that appeared in 1989. Not for PC's anymore of course, but for embedded systems.

The US space shuttle still uses the porcelain capped processors.

MightyG80You'll be suprised probably to know that up until recently intel still produced 80486 CPU's ( source: wikipedia ) ... a cpu that appeared in 1989. Not for PC's anymore of course, but for embedded systems.

Was it anything to do with being able to handle EMP better.

p_o_s_pcnot really. in some of my testing i have done i have found that a 3ghz P4 would take a 3.6-3.8ghz Celeron to get close to the same performance

Cool I like dead / old hardware

u2konlineCool I like dead / old hardware

may i ask why?:confused: i like to mess around with stuff around the P4 time but i wouldn't ever go back to something like that. i know my hardware isn't most up to date but still it beats the P4/Celeron D then laughs at it because it turned golden brown trying to even touch it. hell my Sempron 3200@3.1ghz beat a P4@~4ghz in alot of benchmarks but i had mine tweaked to hell and back so i could get the most from it... to my knowledge that i had at the time it was the best that i could do but now looking back with what i know now i know i could have done even better.(Bus, HTT,RAM all could have been tweaked more)

Actually that was suppose to make everyone chuckle , and it was kinda of a joke. I like all hardware tho, i mean i have my limits. P3 and up. Old hardware gets the job done if you are using the right setup. Most people are not into things like that, because they want the new technology. Nothing wrong with new technology, its the way of the future, but there is nothing with old technology either.

u2konlineActually that was suppose to make everyone chuckle , and it was kinda of a joke. I like all hardware tho, i mean i have my limits. P3 and up. Old hardware gets the job done if you are using the right setup. Most people are not into things like that, because they want the new technology. Nothing wrong with new technology, its the way of the future, but there is nothing with old technology either.

except for the fact that it's incredibly slow compared to today's tech.

I thought all the celerons were dead, and if I could pick one to be alive I'd pick the D 356, that was dreadfully fast for its price, I remember getting one for 8 bucks and it hit 5 Ghz on air and murdered my old 3ghz p4 with HT, that I bought for 80

never go back though

kick the best ever intel cpu made before the 65NM and now back to made new 90NM , that's bullshit

u2konlineAre Intel Celeron D good? if you have say 3.0ghz or 2.4ghz on it?

The last generation cedar mill Celeron D's weren't that bad tbh, these were the ones that finally got the 512k L2 cache (made a large difference over the 256k L2 parts). They clocked like wild fire and were a decent alternative to the Sempron at the time. My parents pc is still running one clocked at 4.3ghz (up from 3.33ghz). It is fine until I compare it to my desktop (single core vs quad core :cry:)

Xaser04The last generation cedar mill Celeron D's weren't that bad tbh, these were the ones that finally got the 512k L2 cache (made a large difference over the 256k L2 parts). They clocked like wild fire and were a decent alternative to the Sempron at the time. My parents pc is still running one clocked at 4.3ghz (up from 3.33ghz). It is fine until I compare it to my desktop (single core vs quad core :cry:)

And compare that to the old Tualatin Celeron's with 256k cache (compared to 128 like in the Pentium IV's). They were faster than Pentium IV's of comparable clock speed.