Originally posted by: Shenkoa
Barton 2500+ is under $100, and much better CPU overall than any Celeron, even at 3.6G.
That was the most far fetched statement I have ever seen. A Celeron 3.6 would stomp the crap out a Barton 2500. I read that the D meant dothan, nm I supose its just another meaningless letter like A, B, C, E, M
Well, I maybe wrong about that statement, I agree that. But reason why I said that is because you said multitasking is important. I mean, Celly is just too bad at multitasking. Not only because it has only 256KB L2 and longer pipe-line, but also worse L2 (4-way, if I remember right, which is half than P4s. That's a huge disadvantage because L2 cache is a huge performance fact to Intel's P4 architecture). If you didn't care about multitasking, then Celeron would be fine choice. But since you said multitasking is important fact (even the title of this thread is "Multitasking"), Celeron is the one you should never even think about. That's why I made such statement.
No matter how fast Celeron would be, Celeron is just a Celeron in matter of multitasking as long as it's P4 based. (If it was P3 based like Tualatin or Dothan, L2 cache difference is not such a huge difference. That's why Tualatin Celeron was such a great choice at that time. But we are talking about Celeron with thankful P4 architecture)