Intel Celeron 2.2GHz Reviewed

Detonator 3:16 writes "Black-Ash.net has posted a review of Intels Celeron 2.2GHz Budget CPU; interestingly they have compared it to a common older CPU (PIII-700MHz) to see whether it would be worth using this CPU as an upgrade." Celerons have usually a been a decent processor for the money, and this one looks to continue the trend. It's not the fastest chip ever, but for spending less than $100, it's a good bargain.

Comments

Conclusions

[Rooked_One]

I'm sure this will be /.'ed so heres the conclusions for ye scurvy dogs

Conclusion:

If you are looking to upgrade an older system, and you don't want to spend a lot of cash, then the Celeron 2.2GHz might just be the right processor for you. From my experience with a P4 1.6A processor, that is the first Northwood P4 with 400FSB and 512KB of L2 cache ,I would say that the Celeron 2.2GHz performs a little slower, maybe 5%.So, you are getting a 1.5GHz + P4, at a price of 75-85 USD compared to the P4 1.5GHz costing from 99-127 USD. Combine that with an Asus P4B266 motherboard at 50 USD and a stick of DDR266 memory at 22 USD only, you are looking at a total renewal of your old system for as little as 157 USD which seems quite ok for me. Do note though that you will need an ATX case for the motherboard and a P4 power supply, as your older one will probably lack a special connector that P4 motherboards require to power the CPU.

PROS:

Good All Round Performance

Price is very good, around 85 US dollars at most

Performs similarly to a fully fledged P4 2.2GHz in certain apps

CONS:

Not as good as a P4 2.2GHz in gaming

128Kb of L2 Cache

400Mhz FSB

Looks like a great CPU for granny!

Decent review

[Pharmboy]

Short, straight to the point. Is it me, or is the gap between Celeron and P4s in performance getting larger? Seems this would make AMD a better choice, dollar per dollar, if the big resellers would use them.

My point of comparison was a Dell 2.0ghz Celeron system I purchased at Christmas for my parents. Good thing they don't play Quake III. Now I wish I would have gotten them the AMD system from someone else.

Re:how about celeron vs athlon

[biggknifeparty]

For the same price here you can get an XP 2200+
(Both retail with cooler)
Celeron 2Ghz $149.95 CDN
Athlon XP 2100+ $146.95 CDN
The Athlon will kill the Celeron too!

Re:Mud, meet Stick. Stick, Mud.

[Russ Steffen]

Any frame rate that exceeds the refresh rate of your display is effectively wasted. You just won't see the extra frames. A 23% improvement just means that many more frames you won't see.

That would only be true if the work required to draw a frame in a game was a constant. It's not. When these benchmarks show frame rates beyond a resonable display refresh rate it's a (crude) measure of the system's ability to hold a playable frame rate when there is a lot going on on-screen. It's also a measure of excess capacity that may not be used in the benchmark game, but might be used by, say, it's sequel.

My 2Ghz celery

[Kegetys]

I have a 2 GHz Celeron here, overclocked to 2,6 GHz using the retail fan with 7 volts (12v default). Although its not the best numbercruncher out there, its definately worth the money I paid for it plus the heat generation is so low that it allows me to overclock it and still run the retail fan with a lower voltage than default to keep my system very silent. Comparing to my old 566 Mhz Celeron which I ran at 850 Mhz its fast; using a software called PiFast to calculate 4194304 digits of pi took about 85 seconds with the old CPU and now it takes about 39 seconds with this CPU, although the biggest difference in this benchmark propably comes from the increased memory bandwidth, thanks to the DDR memory. I do some gaming with it too, and im happy with it.