Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Intel Hardware Technology

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Celeron D Core gets a Speed Boost

Comments Filter:
  • Core (Score:1, Redundant)

    by rfernand79 ( 643913 )
    Is this core closer to the P4 core or a completely different one? I'm not familiar with Intel's current family, but I seem to remember that Celerons were based one on the P2...
    • Re:Core (Score:5, Informative)

      by strictnein ( 318940 ) * <> on Monday June 28, 2004 @12:15PM (#9551520) Homepage Journal
      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.
    • Re:Core (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Orgazmus ( 761208 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @12:16PM (#9551525)
      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.

      Remember my old cellie 633 running rock stable at 950 mhz :D
      • Re:Core (Score:3, Interesting)

        by drinkypoo ( 153816 )
        More to the point, the oldest celerons were P2s with no L2 cache and only the usual (pitiful) amount of L1. Later celerons that got (128kB of) L2 cache had the cache running at full speed and so for tight loops they could execute faster than a P2 of the same clock rate, which had half speed cache.

        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

    • Re:Core (Score:2, Interesting)

      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.
      • There are two reasons for this. The Celeron (in most cases - exceptions are early Pentium IIs, early P4s, P-Ms) runs on a slower bus than an identically clocked Pentium (whatever). However, there was a case when a Mendocino Celeron was faster than an identically clocked Pentium II (with a 66MHz bus). If the processor was working on a dataset that was small enough to fit in the Celeron's cache, it was faster, as the Celeron cache was full speed, whereas the Pentium II cache was half speed.
    • The first Celerons were based on the Pentium II. These were the Slot I Celerons at 266 and 300MHz. They were essentially a Pentium II core, and no cache on the board. Next was the Mendocino core, another Pentium II derived core. It had a small amount of cache on the core itself (running at full speed). It was available in Slot 1 at 300A MHz and up, and Socket 370 from 300A to 533MHz. Then, the Coppermine (second Pentium III core) was released, and a Celeron version was made. This went from 533 to 1100MHz. N
  • Does anyone at slashdot actually use a Celeron, rather than, say, some variant of an Athalon XP?
    • Re:What's The Point? (Score:4, Informative)

      by mOoZik ( 698544 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @12:16PM (#9551535) Homepage
      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.

      • Re:What's The Point? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by GreatDrok ( 684119 )
        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 :-)
      • It gets me when people write "Athalon" instead of "Athlon." Is it so damn hard?

        I still use the Celeron...

        I think you mean "Celron"...

      • 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.
    • Well the Celeron M's are pretty good, but really they are a totally different product, just witht he Celeron name for some reason.
      • Re:What's The Point? (Score:3, Informative)

        by bhtooefr ( 649901 )
        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 l
    • by Anonymous Coward
      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.
      • This is definitely true. While Celerons are processors to avoid, as a rule, you can get a great deal out of a Celeron if you know exactly which one(s) to shop for. I decided to build my passively cooled (well, there's the PSU fan which I dare not remove...) around a Celeron 1.1A simply because it would have been impossible with a Duron. In my case I was willing to sacrifice performance for silence and as it happens, the Tualatin-based Celeron has been a pretty good performer! It's no Duron, but it's also o
    • Does anyone at slashdot actually use a Celeron, rather than, say, some variant of an Athalon XP?

      In my case, it was simply a matter of what they had in stock at the store. The small-form motherboard/case took either Celeron or P4, and the P4 was a pure waste of electricity for the intended use. Would've preferred a Duron, but not enough to wait for a special order.

  • Celeron 2.6GHz (Score:5, Informative)

    by strictnein ( 318940 ) * <> on Monday June 28, 2004 @12:13PM (#9551493) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • Re:Celeron 2.6GHz (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Orgazmus ( 761208 )
      The cellies lost their value when P3 became outdated.
      The Celerons with coppermine cores were kinda fun ;)
    • Last fall I was checking out a notebook with a Celery 2.x GHz chip in it. The damn thing couldn't even play a Divx-encoded movie fullscreen without stuttering like crazy. Pretty pathetic for any chip over 1 GHz. (Hell, even my P3 650 does better)
      • Re:Celeron 2.6GHz (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Fweeky ( 41046 )
        Sounds more like a graphics driver problem than anything CPU related. Pathetic, yes, but not (just) because of the CPU.
      • Last fall I was checking out a notebook with a Celery 2.x GHz chip in it. The damn thing couldn't even play a Divx-encoded movie

        If you were testing it in the store, keep in mind that the default install from the factory will have absurd amounts of preinstalled software, all of which is set to 'fast start' mode where it's already running. So that laptop might not have been as bad as you think.
      • I call bullshit (Score:3, Informative)

        by benzapp ( 464105 )
        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.
      • he damn thing couldn't even play a Divx-encoded movie fullscreen without stuttering like crazy.

        Naaahhh, come on. Something else musta been going on, because I have an old Celery 667 currently acting as a print server here that played DiVX-encoded movies just fine back when it was still on the desktop. Encoding is another story, though - just for shits, I set it loose doing a two-pass DiVX-encoding of a 110 minute movie a while back. Took it about 48 hours to grind through the thing....

    • by IYagami ( 136831 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @12:28PM (#9551644)
      You can find a very good review at er on-d.html

      . 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:Celeron 2.6GHz (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 28, 2004 @12:46PM (#9551791)
      Agreed. I sell computers for a living and I seem to spend all my time explaining to people why an Athlon 2.0GHz (2400+) out performs the Celeron 2.6GHz.

      Intel's insanely high clock frequencies with comparably lower performance are slowly driving me mad from people with questions about the competing Athlon models.

      Perhaps I should just raise my prices, use shitty mainboards, less RAM, less HDD space, shared onboard graphics and install 3.2GHz Pentium 4's in all my computers. The scary thing is they'll probably sell better. :-/
      • Re:Celeron 2.6GHz (Score:5, Insightful)

        by afidel ( 530433 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @12:56PM (#9551878)
        Not only that but the Prescott P4 2.4Ghz is only $10 more than the Celeron 2.8, and the P4 part will wipe the floor with the Celeron even giving up 400Mhz. The worst thing you can do to a P4 core is make it stall waiting for reads, and quartering the cache is guarenteed to do that, so why anyone would consider the Celeron for anything other than a web browsing box I can't fathom (and even then you would have to be stupid to use the fastest part).
      • Re:Celeron 2.6GHz (Score:2, Insightful)

        by sglane81 ( 230749 )
        When trying to teach people about computers, I think it's best to use analogies from things they have at least a partial understanding of. When it comes to CPUs like the Celerons vs P4s, I use the analogy of a Formula 1 car to a school bus. I make it quite clear both vehicles run at the same speed (top end and acceleration). Considering this, you can move more people in the bus than the F1 car. Everyone I've talked to understands this. When it comes to stuff like ports (as in TCP and UDP), I use the an
        • When trying to teach people about computers, I think it's best to use analogies from things they have at least a partial understanding of.

          When my non-techie friends or relatives ask me about things like this, I tell them that a P4 is like a shoebox, whereas the Celeron is more like a dust mop, and then I nod sagely. It confuses the hell out of them, and they never really know what it means, but they don't inquire further. Which is good, because then they leave me alone and I can get some fucking work do

      • Re:Celeron 2.6GHz (Score:3, Insightful)

        by blair1q ( 305137 )
        >why an Athlon 2.0GHz (2400+) out performs the Celeron 2.6GHz.

        Because the Celeron is a deliberately crippled version of the Pentium designed to run slower than the Athlon to attract the same price point while carrying Intel's goodwill, while the Athlon is the best AMD can market?

        What's inside the machine doesn't matter any more. There are so many configurations of pipeline, cache, core, memory i/o, etc. that nobody should give the first thought to the numbers of the chip.

        Especially when the rest of t
    • Re:Celeron 2.6GHz (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DrEldarion ( 114072 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [0791uhcsm]> on Monday June 28, 2004 @01:13PM (#9552078)
      While that is pathetic, most people who buy a computer with a Celeron in it probably wouldn't notice much of a difference. Even a 1GHz processor is enough for what most people do - web browsing, word processing, listening to music, playing solitaire, etc.
    • the 2.x gen celerons were for people like me... sales drone working at a small office. i don't need high video playing capabilities... as long as i can use word, excel, mozilla firefox, setiathome, norton anti-virus and our accounting app, i am good to go. plus they were cheal dell bpxes with good warranties. if i wanted performance i would have gotten us P4's or AMD's nicer stuff.
  • by Apocalypse111 ( 597674 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @12:13PM (#9551498) Journal
    ...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.
  • Market Statistics (Score:4, Interesting)

    by artlu ( 265391 ) < minus bsd> on Monday June 28, 2004 @12:14PM (#9551509) Homepage Journal
    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?

    GroupShares Inc. [] - An Interactive Stock Market Community
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 28, 2004 @12:19PM (#9551561)
      Its all the P.O.S. Hp's and compaqs that keep celerons going. I see celerons all the time and its usually the PC's that make me want to rip my hair out. XP is just not made to runs on a celeron with 128 megs of ram.
      • by Zorilla ( 791636 )
        It seems the usual OEM tactic is to put together a really fast-looking PC and then put a Pic N' Save version of a current generation video card in - one that will be outperformed by a previous generation card that costs less and has more features. A lot of the Dells I've seen recently had GeForce FX 5200s in them, for example.
        • whats wrong with the GeForce FX 5200? what would you recommend from nvidia, for the same price range?
          • by Zorilla ( 791636 )
            Although I have no firsthand information about it, the comments I usually saw about it showed that it was outperformed by the Geforce4 Ti 4600. It also seems to be the OEM card of choice. Previous cards I usually saw in OEMs included the Geforce2 MX and RIVA TNT2 M64, which were also budget cards.

            It's probably true that the performance of the 5200 wasn't neutered as much as it was the case in earlier generation. I don't really think there's anything "wrong" with the 5200, but I very much disliked the TNT2
    • Re:Market Statistics (Score:2, Informative)

      by Zorilla ( 791636 )
      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.
      • Of course, the water cooling system will last through several computers (well, except for the waterblock if the shape/size/attachment mechanism of the CPU changes)
      • Re:Market Statistics (Score:5, Informative)

        by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @12:51PM (#9551835) Journal
        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.
        • Re:Market Statistics (Score:3, Informative)

          by bhtooefr ( 649901 )
          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.
    • Re:Market Statistics (Score:5, Interesting)

      by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @12:29PM (#9551648) Homepage Journal
      with a celeron big names like compaq & etc can build a box that's both cheap and has a 2.8ghz sticker. who cares about what the box can do, it's 2.8ghz baby!

      another reason is that they're good enough for office work by a wide margin.. and cheap..
    • 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 sur
      • Well, when fifty MALWARE processes alone are eating up CPU time (from all that browsing with IE, listening to "MP3s" that are really viral code in WMP, and exploits in MSN Messenger), along with the 128-256MB RAM in these things, you need a 3.6GHz Preshott Pentium 4 and 2 or 3 GB of RAM.

        Oh, did I go into a rant? I'll get back on topic.

        I'm using a 233MHz Pentium MMX with 96MB RAM, and it's more than enough to browse the Internet (with Opera 7.51, and don't suggest Firefox, it's too slow on this), listen to
        • Just don't ask me to browse and play MP3s at the same time without the browser dragging. You don't need that much horsepower if you know what you're doing.

          From the sound of that, it's more like "you don't need that much horsepower if you're not doing anything".

    • When putting together a PC based around a budget CPU most PC builders also go for a slightly lower spec'd mother board, memory, hard drive, graphics card, etc.

      Eventually that $30-$50 saving becomes $150-$200.
  • 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.
  • Duron's success (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 28, 2004 @12:28PM (#9551640)
    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.
    • Re:Duron's success (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Neil Watson ( 60859 )
      It is also important to note that the average user would not notice any difference between the performance of a budget vs a premium CPU. How much speed does one need to send an email to mom?

      If you are buying 300 PCs for an office and can save $20 each buy buying a Celeron or Duron that makes you look good.

    • if it takes 3.anything seconds to render a page you need to put away your TRS-80 and get a new machine
  • by Vellmont ( 569020 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @12:28PM (#9551643) Homepage

    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.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 28, 2004 @12:35PM (#9551702)
      >Who in their right mind would buy one of these chips?

      people who don't visit slashdot? people who's never heard of AMD? and believe me, there are many of them out there.

      i'd bet that you yourself own many, many things of which there are cheaper and better alternatives than what you have - and you bought what you bought because of lack of research, reliance on brand names, indifference, etc. the same can happen with the general public when it comes to computer chips.
      • It is called marketing.
        Why the heck did anyone buy MS-DOS machines in the 80s at all when both the Amiga and Atari ST ran circles around them. Heck even the Macs at the time where not too much more expensive and had very good software.
        Why did people buy Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 when OS/2 was available?
        Why do companies buy Windows Servers when they could use Linux or a flavor of BSD?
        Why do people pay more for a Lexus than a Toyota when they are made in the same factory!
        It all comes down to mak
    • that same $117 will buy you an Athlon XP 3000, why even both with Celeron?
    • 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.

      Actually, SSE2, too - AthlonXP has only SSE. However, these being budget chips, you really shouldn't care too much about SSE stuff.

      the outstanding question is what happens to the Durons next?
      • The lineup was like this at first (on price):

        Pentium 4 vs. top-end Athlon XP
        Celeron vs. low, mid-end Athlon XP, Duron

        Now it's become like this:

        Pentium 4 EE vs. Athlon 64 FX
        Pentium 4 vs. Athlon 64
        Celeron vs. Athlon XP
        NOTHING vs. Duron

        The Duron's been discontinued, and replaced by the processor that it was a crippled version of (even though in many cases it's better than the processor it competed against, even now at 1.8GHz).

        They're going to be replaced by the Sempron, though, Real Soon Now(TM).
    • by Neil Watson ( 60859 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @12:47PM (#9551803) Homepage
      There are many vendors and buyers out there that honestly believe that one should only buy Intel as AMD is unstable. I once had a vendor tell me that. I asked them to cite proof of their claim. They could not.
      • I had a friend of mine that has consistently told me this...or rather he 'warned' me and cautioned against using them in my servers at work. Well thats interesting as I've got SEVERAL AMD machines that have been up for almost 2 years now (running linux, of course). And the only reason any of them ever get shutdown is for hardware failure (I should note I never have had a CPU related issue) or a kernel update that I just can't avoid.
      • by Waffle Iron ( 339739 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @01:19PM (#9552139)
        There are many vendors and buyers out there that honestly believe that one should only buy Intel as AMD is unstable.

        Well, Intel has been making x86 CPUs since 1978, but AMD didn't start making them until 1979. Obviously, AMD has had less time to iron out any stability problems with their products.

      • This FUD comes from experience with the combination of AMD processors and some early VIA chipsets. It was the VIA chipset that was buggy.

        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.

        • Two years without a hitch and then quick decline doesn't really sound like a chipset problem, but a capacitor problem.

          I had a KT7-RAID that worked fine for 2½ years and then blew a cap too, was fixed quicky enough, though, and AFAIK it's still working though not in my possession any more.
          • It was definitely the northbridge chip. It may have been flakey since day one; but, it was intermittent enough that I could get work done and assumed it was a Windows problem. After about two years, it became seriously screwed up. I ran a bunch of diagnostics and found the memory controller in the northbridge seemed to be flakey. If I kept it artificially cool (read as spraying freon on the chip) it would get better...
      • The biggest factor for these kinds of perpetuating myths about AMD instability seems to be errors in mainboard chipsets. The thing is, Intel makes their own chipsets and even a lot of their own mainboards, while AMD has (almost) always left this up to third parties like VIA, Sis etc. Now while these firms do their best, they occasionally blunder and the result will be less than stable mainboards. And ofcourse uninformed people will always blame the cpu when it's in fact the mainboard/chipset that's the culp
    • by Tenebrious1 ( 530949 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @12:49PM (#9551813) Homepage
      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?

      That "Intel Inside" sticker on the case is worth $62... I hear it adds 50 gigahorses of torque to the hard drive.

    • Well, 'got the shit kicked out of it' is a bit of a stretch. The 2.8GHz did compete well in at least half the tests. Of course, one can't help but notice that the fastest Athlon tested was the 2600+. My suspicion is that if you throw the 2700+ and 2800+ into the fray, the picture will look quite different for the Celeron D. And since you can get either for less than $117, I can't imagine why they weren't included except to skew the results.

      Oh, and I was amused to see my lowly 2500+ come out on top in s
    • Who in their right mind would buy one of these chips?

      I am thinking of maybe buying the Celeron that is being mentioned in the article. Lower cost ($65-ish as opposed to the $117 Celeron that you mention), lower energy consumption than Athlons, plus my current CPU sucks. Then again my PC with the slow CPU is only being used for bittorrent leeching/seeding so maybe an upgrade isn't really necessary.

      BTW, Intel's celeron d page is here: e ssors/c eleron_d/
    • by qtothemax ( 766603 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @01:15PM (#9552097)
      Disclaimer: I'm the submitter. I AM NOT an intel fanboy. If I was going to buy a budget processor today it would DEFIATELY be an Athlon. I think a new processor core is always somthing that should be discussed on slashdot. Also, Intel is moving in the right direction by not screwing people who buy Dell and nothing else, or don't know better and think AMD is crap. My girlfriend wants to buy a laptop, and when I told her to get an AMD she kinda sneered because it isn't the intel she is used to. Funny thing is that her desktop is an AMD K6-II, but she doesn't even know it. Like it or not the vast majority of people who don't know better have NO IDEA that the celeron sucks comapred to the Athlon, and that the intel chip is more expensive. This is at least a break to everyone out there who would buy a celeron over an Athlon just because of the vision that intel is the "trusted name brand." Think of it like toothpaste or somthing similar. Do you read up on toothpaste before you go to the store and buy it? I seriously doubt it, but I guarantee there is a dentist somewhere who is seriously pissed off about Crest's poor quality. Most people just want a computer that works, and they buy Intel, because that's what they had before, especially in the budget PC market, just like probably >90% of you just buy the same brand of toothpaste you always get. Woulden't it be nice if they improved Crest with really not much reason to do so, since you're going to buy it anyway? So consider this new celeron as less of a screwing of budget PC buyers, who generally have no clue what they are getting. People who actually follow processor preformance can probably scrape together the extra $100 to get an Athlon64. I personally would still definately go with AMD, but I woulden't have to get in a fight with my GF anymore if she insists on getting a Dell with a celeron in it. I would actually almost consider myself an AMD fanboy, but I found this interesting, and see it as intel throwing to bone to the ignorant.
      • One more point: I thought it was an interesting oddity that the Prescott architecture actually IMPROVED preforamance by a decent margin in a Celeron, while it caused a slight decline in the P4. It shows how the preformance gain from cache really is logarathmic, more then offsetting the preformance loss of the extra pipeline stages. Intel just made an interesting statement about the P4 extreme edition.
      • who is seriously pissed off about Crest's poor quality

        Submitter is Colgate fanboy?

      • Funny thing is that her desktop is an AMD K6-II, but she doesn't even know it

        The K6 series were pretty bad performancewise, but oh so cheap. Until Athlon, FPU performance and AMD was a tragic story.

      • Overall I prefer the AMD on a desktop, but why reccomend a AMD over the Intel Pentium-M? Sure the Centrino chipset doesn't have great linux support yet (or has that changed, rumor is it is coming soon and I've not kept up). Still the Pentium-M used much less power, and in a laptop that is worth the price. Mind the Pentium-M is not a budget processor.

      • Toothpaste is a commodity and there's very little difference among the major name brands. As long as it's ADA approved I bet any sane dentist couldn't care less which toothpaste you chose.

        As far as the "Athlon vs Celeron" discussion goes, people will buy on price 9 times out of 10, and don't even have any idea what Celeron or AMD IS, much less the difference between them. The problem is your summary made the Celeron look like it was a viable choice for anyone that isn't brainwashed into branding. It's q
    • Who in their right mind would buy one of these chips?

      End users buying the CPU itself (a very minor part of the market)? Not at lot. As part of a system? Quite a few more

      One reason is that Dell, the #1 PC manufacturer only ships Intel. And their systems are usually priced pretty competively, at least if you want to use quality components. For companies and non-techies, reliability, support and other parts of the "total" package adds up to be far more important than a few percent performance they woul

      • I used to feel the same way about VIA chipsets as you do but they really have improved dramatically. The rule used to be never use a first-generation VIA chipset, but I know several people who have done just that and with good results.

        Incidentally SiS is making very nice chipsets now. I have an Athlon XP system with one of their higher end chipsets (with the MultiOL PCI) and I think it's fantastic.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 28, 2004 @12:29PM (#9551654)
    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...
  • Nice (Score:5, Insightful)

    by marnargulus ( 776948 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @12:33PM (#9551680)
    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.
    • Actually the Athlon64 is not starved for memory bandwidth like Prescott is, as evidenced by the new socket 939 dual channel CPUs performing pretty much on par with the old socket 754 single channel ones. As for hard drives, existing ones can't even saturate the 133MB/s UDMA PATA interface, let alone the 150MB/s SATA. The problem is the drives themselves need higher rotational speeds/lower latencies.
  • by The Hobo ( 783784 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @12:45PM (#9551776)
    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.
  • by BLKMGK ( 34057 ) <> on Monday June 28, 2004 @01:08PM (#9552016) Homepage Journal
    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....
  • by ayeco ( 301053 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @01:15PM (#9552098)
    See, it's called a "speed boost", not a "speed bump". The Celeron is a Pentium witha speed bump built in.
  • 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 lea
    • At least "Pentium" sounds like "Uranium", and they all learned THAT word watching Back To The Future movies.

      I hate to nitpick but Uranium (and the Word "Uranium") was never used in the Back to the Future trilogy. The time machines either used Plutonium, fusion, or steam to power themselves.

  • anyone here remember the old celeron 300A? You could overclock it to 550 and that was with normal air cooling? And Abit came out with the BP6 that allowed a dual CPU celeron system?

    I feel old.

"My sense of purpose is gone! I have no idea who I AM!" "Oh, my God... You've.. You've turned him into a DEMOCRAT!" -- Doonesbury