Slashdot Mirror
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.
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!
they have compared it to a common older CPU (PIII-700MHz)
The 2.2Ghz versus the 0.7Ghz. *drums in background*
Oh the excitement!
Note to self: get smarter troll to guard door.
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!
An Athlon 2200 is $71.04 on Pricewatch right now. Pardon my feigned ignorance, but how exactly are you saving money while still buying an inferior CPU?
-theGreater Sarcasmic.
The tests used in the review are two Quake III based tests and 3d Mark 2001. Part of the reason for such a small increase (23-48%) with 300% of the processor is not just the difference between PIII and Celeron architectures, but because the 3D Card is a more important consideration then the processor in these types of tests. Some office benchmarks or video encoding speed would have been valuable metrics for comparing processors.
I understand that the review is somewhat game centered, I suspect the review site is as well, but this review does nothing for me.
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.
In all honesty, since he had to replace both the CPU and the Motherboard, the improvement provided by the combination will touch a few other things that should be presented. Since he chose to use the same video card, how much of the processing load was offloaded to the card? Is there a way to see comparable information wrt the hard drive?
For a closer to purer CPU comparison, I would like to know what kind of improvement to processing Seti@home blocks, or any of the other distributed computing projects.
-Rusty
You never know...
ok. So option one:
buy a 2.2 ghz celeron for $70 and get a computer that performs like a 1.5ghz p4
Option two:
buy an AMD for $70 and get a 1.8ghz chip that performs like a 2.2ghz p4
I think he should have mentioned this in his article. AMD affors excellent alternatives if price is an issue!
Pardon my ignorance here but why the 3d tests? It says right in the article that this is not the CPU to get for gaming. Wouldn't it make more sense to compile some software or something of that nature and see the differences? Anyone know of a hardware review site that has useful benchmarks for those of us who don't care about pc gaming? I want to see kernel compile times or something. Something I can relate to.
Check out my life
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.
A realistic graphics benchmark would be a program that drew more and more polygons until the frame rate started to drop. That would actually tell you something useful. That's what you care about, after all.
It's amusing how much weight people give to those "refreshes faster than the framerate" benchmarks. NVidia drivers used to spinlock when waiting for vertical sync, instead of blocking. That didn't affect game benchmarks, but that CPU hogging forced OpenGL programs to 100% CPU utilization. I spent some time convincing NVidia's developers that they should block when waiting for vertical sync. The convincing argument was that benchmarkers turned off wait-for-sync, so it wouldn't affect benchmarks. NVidia then fixed it.
Multithreaded game programs speeded up, too.
As for the review, do the grey letters on a black background indicate that it's addressed to an audience that likes "shades of black" games?