Slashdot Mirror
New Celeron D Core gets a Speed Boost
qtothemax writes "The new Celeron core was released on the 25th. The processor, using Intel's new model number naming convention, looks to be quite a bit faster than the old core. The new core is based on the 90nm Prescott, which offers respectable performance, compared to the very slow Northwood based Celeron. It features a 256kB L2 cache, and a 533mhz FSB. Looks like Prescott's longer pipeline is more then offset by the better branch prediction and most importantly the doubled cache when it comes to the smaller cached Celeron. This Celeron may be able to compete with AMD's offerings based on more then name brand alone. Reviews and benchmarks are at Anandtech. I couldn't find any other good reviews, as budget chips rarely generate much excitement."
What Anandtech's review really seems to show is what an absolute piece of shit the 2.6GHz celeron was. In most of the benchmarks it was beat by the 1.6GHz Duron for fuck sakes. It was also beaten by a P4 1.8GHz, which wasn't too suprising, and even an AMD Athlon 1700+ (which runs at 1.47GHz - we're talking a 1.13GHz gap here).
Of course, last time a celeron interested me was when the good old Abit BP6 board was out.
Casual Games/Downloads
Never will buy another celeron, having had some very bad experiances with them. If you want a good, cheap proccessor it's always better to go with AMD, becuase their Duron series is much better than the celeron series.
In the beginning the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry and is widely considered as a bad move.
I'm not familiar with Intel's current family, but I seem to remember that Celerons were based one on the P2
The first ones were based on the P2. Then they based them on the P3. And then the P4. And now this one is based on a newer P4. As any intelligent manufacturer would do, their cheaper product line is simply based upon older versions of their more expensive product line.
Casual Games/Downloads
It gets me when people write "Athalon" instead of "Athlon." Is it so damn hard?
I still use the Celeron, because at the time, it was a good option. It is perfect for an average PC for an average user, but the prices on the ATHLONS have fallen so much so that it wouldn't make sense to get a Celeron.
A blog like any other.
I cannot understand how the low-end processors survive.
Several years ago, it used to that Celeronswere known for their great overclocking capability, although I doubt that's as much the case anymore. When you could get a 20% speed boost, it was worth it. Now, it seems to be more economical to just buy a higher rated processor than to spend even more money on a water cooling system, since that's the kind of effort it takes.
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
You can find a very good review at
l er on-d.html
;-) )
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/ce
. They show that a Celeron D overclocked to 3.8 Ghz (yes, really) can outperform even a Pentium4 3.2E (Ok, only sometimes
Sorry about my english
The original 300MHz Celerons were very overclockable. Intel had a much higher yield than they expected, and most of them could run at 450MHz with no extra cooling. The same thing happened with the AXIA T-Birds (Athlons), where the 1GHz version could be pushed to 1.33GHz (again, with no extra cooling). The yields on 90nm chips are such that this kind of thing probably won't happen again for a while.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The Tualatin-core Celerons from 1.0 thru 1.4GHz with 256k cache were some of the best bang for the buck processors in that clock speed range for Linux servers. They overclock quite nicely too. I'm running a pair of servers based on these chips that cost me only about $100-150 per server to build. And that was with brand new compact micro-ATX cases too! They made for me the perfect "server appliances" to be my Internet firewall, web, email and general purpose fileservers.
I owned one of these; it did run for two years without problem before the chipset started to flake out.
As far as I can tell, VIA has fixed it's problems.
I have a Celeron 600mhz Sony Vaio laptop I got for $900 nearly 3 years ago. At the time, it was the cheapest laptop I could find from a name brand manufacturer at the time.
I was watching DivX movies on it the moment I got it. These days, I watch Xvid encoded movies no problem as well.
While I obviously have no idea if the laptop you were using was defective, I can tell you without a doubt that if a Celeron 600 can play DivX movies, then a Celeron 2000 can as well.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
Celeron D means that it is the D revision of the Celeron. If you look at the alphabet, D is the fourth letter. Look at it this way:
Covington (Cacheless P2): Celeron
Mendocino (P2 with less, but faster cache): Celeron A
Coppermine-128/Tualatin-128 (P3 with less cache, slower FSB): Celeron B
Williamette-128/Northwood-128 (P4 with a LOT less cache, slower FSB): Celeron C
Prescott-256 (P4E with less cache, slower FSB): Celeron D
The Celeron M is another story. It's a Celeron of the Pentium M. Half the cache, and less power management. And no, the M does not mean that it's the 1000th Celeron - it actually came before the Tualatin-128, NW-128, and Prescott-256. It's the Banias-512 core, if you were wondering.
The ORIGINAL 300MHz Celerons were the Covington core, which only ramped to 300MHz, from 266, and had no L2 cache. At all.
You're referring to the Celeron 300A. Most of the earlier Mendocino (300A to 533 in 33MHz increments) Celerons could take an overclock to (whatever their multi was) * 100MHz. It's not uncommon to see a 366 upped to 550.