New Celeron D Core gets a Speed Boost 173
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."
Celeron 2.6GHz (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, last time a celeron interested me was when the good old Abit BP6 board [firingsquad.com] was out.
celeron's are terrible (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Core (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:What's The Point? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Market Statistics (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Celeron 2.6GHz (better oveclocked) (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:Market Statistics (Score:5, Informative)
Re:celeron's are terrible (Score:5, Informative)
From a December 2003 article [anandtech.com]:
Of course we use Celerons. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Submitter is Intel fanboy? (Score:3, Informative)
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 call bullshit (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:What's The Point? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Market Statistics (Score:3, Informative)
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.