anyone using Intel Celeron D with AdobeCS & Quark 6.5+

[zultdush]

hows the performance of the celeron d 331(this is what im gonna buy) with adobe CS and Quark express?

anyone have a celeron D and a P4 prescott? Im currious whats the performance gain of the 2MB L2 cahce.

 

I know in alot of things I do my sempy kicks butt; however, ocasionally I get pwnt from my low l2 cache. im just currious if this is Actually the case on the OSx86 with adobe CS and Quark.

 

 

system specs looking to use:

 

celeron D 331 or P4 w/2mb L2 cache (gonna OC either one to atleast 3.3ghz)

915g chipset mobo with DVI addon card.

1GB DDR ram Dual channel

80gb SATA HD

 

thanks guys!

-zulti of the Orcs.

[Eggman]

I have a Celeron-D in a box in front of me, but not actually in my computer. However, I can tell you everything I've researched.

 

The Celeron-D is based off the Prescott architecture. The only real difference is that a Celeron-D has about half the cache of a P4 Prescott.

 

P4 Prescotts didn't last long in the market. It was discovered that these processors generated too much heat and burned themselves out. I found this out the hard way. First, I bought a new processor and motherboard. However, every time I turned on the computer, it would last about one minute before heat protection kicked in and turned it off. It ran at temperatures of 101 degrees Celcius. I got a new one after it died. It ran a bit better, but I had to have a very powerful CPU fan. One day, though, it wouldn't boot. Turns out that the processor had melted the mobo. That was when I bought a Celeron.

 

Now, Intel is making the Celeron-D processor. It uses the Prescott architecture, but has been toned down to prevent overheating. I've heard that it is very stable, reliable, and most important, cool!

 

To answer your question, though, yeah, it should work with Adobe CS. This is just theory, but I know that P4 Prescotts were powerful.

 

Good luck!

[kuruu]

I used a 3.0 celeron D for a while and it had been fine for my windows use, which was admittedly, little. (have used macs instead for anything worth doing)

 

However, it was osx86 the prompted me to upgrade to a p4 630 and the extra cache makes a huge difference. Not overall, but specifically when running ppc apps through rosetta which is what you are asking about. the celly D didn't do so well with rosetta... but the p4 make photoshop run faster on my osx86 than on my macs. (admittedly not a g5 among them)

 

so there you go =)

[New001]

According to Eggman, I think it all grinds down to this:

 

1. If you want to run rosetta quickly, and have a possible MoBo meltdown, buy a P4 Prescott (AKA a 640/650).

 

2. If you want a processor that won't probably melt your MoBo, but is still pretty identical (but not as powerful) to a P4 Prescott, get a Celeron D Prescott (AKA a 336/351).

 

Well, good luck then!

[zultdush]

thanks melchior, thats what i was looking for.

 

Im not worried about heat; unfortunately, cache as I feared does matter.

as far as heat goes Thats something i can handle w/ no prob. tho i dont understand why your cpu would hit 100c. stock HSF? stock thermal pad? what about case fans and air flow?

 

i have a similar post going about the mobo i picked out. found out that 915g sux for OCing... like 20fsb OC is the best it can manage.

 

thanks for the info + help