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
...AMD has recently announced that they will be producing a dual-processor board for its own low-end CPU's. Computers built with this hardware will specialize in playing 80's MP3's.
They're calling it the Duron-Duron.
There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
Does anyone have a good website which outlines just how many low-end processors are sold every year? From my POV, I cannot understand how the low-end processors survive. Granted, they use less power for mobile applications, but I would rather spend an extra $30-$50 on a processor then most other components of the system.
Or is it all just marketing?
Aj
GroupShares Inc. - An Interactive Stock Market Community
-------
artlu.net
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
Looks like its close to the P4, like the old cellies were P2's with less cache, and then the coppermine cellies with P3 cores.
:D
Remember my old cellie 633 running rock stable at 950 mhz
The system had the verbosity of HTML combined with all the readability of compiled assembly viewed as bitmap images
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.
In every case, with every Celeron I've ever worked with, I've found "regular" (i.e. non-crippled) chips running anything near half of the Celeron's posted speed, to be far far more capable.
I'd rather be running an old PIII coppermine, or tualatin than any Celeron p.o.s. I've never seen any use for them except to snare uneducated consumers.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Budget chips CAN create excitement. At least they should. I remember when Duron was a new thing. I bought the 750MHz model and got 1/3 to 1/2 more speed with the same amount of money..
I was really suspicious about the Duron but later on I learned that it was just a rather cool hack at the time. They removed some expensive gate (or something alike) from the cpu and replaced the same function with some very clever engineering.
They gained some speed and lost one of the most expensive parts of the cpu with one strike. Someone else might be able to recall the details better.
Anyways the point is: The fact that it is a budget chip means nothing. Some budget chips can wipe the floor with some more expensive "premium chips" if they fit your application. I am always interested in the budget versions since that's where you see what the basic technology tweaked to maximum can do.
Budget chips are also a huge market since lots of embed stuff and alike (terminals etc) will in time utilize that. Many people also want to read their email and do their banking and do not care wether it takes 3.5 or 3.2 seconds for the page to render.
My father-in-law is still using a dual 400Mhz Celeron BP6 based system. I set it up as his NFS/YP/SMB server recently as it had been gathering dust for a while. Turns out that it is really snappy (running RH8 with yum updates via fedora legacy). A pair of 400s in a server seems to be quite nice compared with a single 800Mhz processor.
:-)
Ah, the BP6, those were the days
"I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
This Celeron may be able to compete with AMD's offerings based on more then name brand alone
Ummm.. what? The fastest $117 2.8ghz celeron got the shit kicked out of it by a lowly $55 Athlon 2400XP. Who in their right mind would buy one of these chips? I guess if you really want SSE3 or the only game you play is Quake3 it's a good deal, but otherwise there's no point.
AccountKiller
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
Intel has announced their new Xeon line will now incorporate an additional 4 hamster bus. The Xeon line is well known for having quick hamsters parse data in a quick, while adorable manner...
Not everyone is a geek, and i know plenty of non-geek regular people buy Celerons. From any, say...Best Buy ad, you can see cheap celeron based pc's aimed at families buying their (possibly first) computers. All they need is to browse the internet, listen to some mp3's, instant message, and thats about all. Celerons can accomplish that. They don't really care about overclocking or playing doom 3 or benchmarks or much of that. Also, dell likes to use celeron processors for its lower end systems, so i'm sure dell contributes alot to that.
A speed boost is always nice, but is it really necessary? I think faster RAM would be a better advance, and faster bus speeds for harddrives as well. While the processor might be able to handle more data, we still are having trouble getting data there in the first place. Bring on the 2 gig on-die cache where I run all of my current apps and OS straight on the proc. That is what I'm looking forward to.
From TFA:
Holding in the middle of the pack is definitely not a disgrace for these budget processors.
I don't understand, a chip that costs less, has more cache, and has been a proven good chip (the Athlons) beat this new processor which is considered budget...
I myself bought a Duron 650 3 years ago, it lasted me that long. When my PSU died, I decided to upgrade to a 2500+, and left my old computer alone. Last Christmas I went home and set up some new Dell PCs my family bought with 2.4 Celerons, and just from watching a fresh install of XP running (which is usually fast) I almost swore that the 2.4 Ghz Celerons were slower than my rebuilt Duron 650 Mhz, and this is without benchmarks.. it probably wasn't 'factual' by a stopwatch's perspective, but it shows just how bad these chips inherently are.
There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
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.
AMD is putting the NX processor command into it's low end CPUs, I didn't see any mention of this in the article. Does anyone know if Intel is following suit with it's low end CPUs? Anyone tested the effectiveness of the NX command on an AMD CPU with Linux or the beta SP for XP? IMO if it's as good at stopping overflows as claimed this could provide a competitive edge to the company that has it if the other doesn't....
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
See, it's called a "speed boost", not a "speed bump". The Celeron is a Pentium witha speed bump built in.
GRAMMAR :D
-Jesse
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
Yes! I use Celerons when I need to put a rack of 1/2U machines up to serve web pages. As long as I can keep the ethernet adapter saturated with a good server like thpptd, there's no need for a faster or more expensive processor.
Best Buy can have you arrested
Incidentally AMD had some interesting cache speed stuff going on then as well. Systems had either half speed or third-speed cache memory on them, the 700 MHz being the last unit with half speed and the 733 and up having third-speed. Hence a 700 was usually faster than a 733 under load.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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
Being near-jobless (as in, I work long hours at non-tech jobs because my home town sucks), most of my coworkers are tech illiterate. They know what a Pentium is, at least they know the bigger the number, the better it is. They still don't know the clock speed, but if they say it's a P2, then I can safely assume it's between 233 and 450 mhz, faster than their brains, at any rate.
Now comes Celeron. First of all these people will have a hell of a time remembering that name, because it is gibberish. At least "Pentium" sounds like "Uranium", and they all learned THAT word watching Back To The Future movies. Now consider that Celerons aren't adorned by a model ID (Celeron 2 wasn't an official name), and these people won't tell the diff between a Coppermine 300a and a Prescott 2.8ghz. These are people who paid to get an 8meg ATI Rage Pro installed because they heard "sideways monitor plugs are bad".
So why not just call it a Pentium IV Lite or something cute like that ? Or just make the older P4's cheaper and begone with the whole Celeron debacle.
Last time I checked, AMD Durons had vanished from the market. Now that you can get an Athlon XP for about $80 canadian ($60 USD), they've pretty much trumped the whole point of budget cpus. Now I still can't grok how Intel gets away with charging 2-3x the price for roughly equivalent performance, but it's probably thanks to Compaq, HP and Dell who have their established clientele of rich ignorants, not all of them, but with all the government and fortune 500 contracts they've got their steak well covered.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
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.