If it's anything like the Dell Zino HD, I'd prefer to go with the better CPU and integrated graphics for $100 more. Lots of people bought the Zino expecting it to be the next big thing, just like the NUC. Unfortunately, many of them soon discovered that the lower-powered CPU and graphics just didn't hold up to expectations. I upgraded my Zino with the better CPU and Radeon GPU and I'm still using it today for streaming Blu-Ray rips from my server using XBMC.
The moral to the story is pony up the extra cash and go with the better CPU. I'm not saying that the Celeron version of the NUC isn't up to the task, but it's better to be safe than sorry. Perhaps when the Celeron NUC gets into the hands of more testers this notion will disappear. I just know that spending the extra $100 or so on the Zino upgrades was the better decision.
It's funny, you would think posting in internet forums would have taught me my lesson by now: there is no substitution for pure speculation even in the face of hands-on experience and testing. This is a lesson I seem to need to learn over and over again. Maybe this time it's finally gotten through my thick skull: trying things and sharing those experience with the community is clearly a waste of my time.