Any new Celeron Benchmarks?

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

I want to upgrade my Celeron 1.7Ghz to possibly Celeron D 335 or P4 2.8B-GHz
(my mobo supports 533 FSB). The P4 is more expensive but I wonder how much
faster it is then the new celerons. But I guess its too early for
benchmarks?
12 answers Last reply
More about celeron benchmarks
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "Libras Renholder" <libras.ren@hushmail.com> wrote :

    > I want to upgrade my Celeron 1.7Ghz to possibly Celeron D 335 or
    > P4 2.8B-GHz (my mobo supports 533 FSB). The P4 is more expensive
    > but I wonder how much faster it is then the new celerons. But I
    > guess its too early for benchmarks?

    http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.html?i=2093

    You will get more and better changing platform to AMD. Just look at the
    prices and performance. Celeron wins only in useless benchmarks (Q3
    640x480) and loses in every reasonable ones (wolf 1024x768).


    Pozdrawiam.
    --
    RusH //
    http://pulse.pdi.net/~rush/qv30/
    Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
    You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    They are pretty tied besides I'm an intel fanboy. However I do have a
    question, I've been comparing these two
    http://anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1956&p=18
    http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=2093&p=8
    but I am not sure if the P4 I mentioned below is a Northwood or Prescott so
    I can compare the two chips I'm considering buying. Is the P4 over the
    celeron worth the extra $$$

    "RusH" <logistyka1@pf.pl> wrote in message
    news:Xns9513BECE770B8RusHcomputersystems@193.110.122.80...
    > "Libras Renholder" <libras.ren@hushmail.com> wrote :
    >
    > > I want to upgrade my Celeron 1.7Ghz to possibly Celeron D 335 or
    > > P4 2.8B-GHz (my mobo supports 533 FSB). The P4 is more expensive
    > > but I wonder how much faster it is then the new celerons. But I
    > > guess its too early for benchmarks?
    >
    > http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.html?i=2093
    >
    > You will get more and better changing platform to AMD. Just look at the
    > prices and performance. Celeron wins only in useless benchmarks (Q3
    > 640x480) and loses in every reasonable ones (wolf 1024x768).
    >
    >
    > Pozdrawiam.
    > --
    > RusH //
    > http://pulse.pdi.net/~rush/qv30/
    > Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
    > You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    RusH wrote:

    > "Libras Renholder" <libras.ren@hushmail.com> wrote :
    >
    >
    >>I want to upgrade my Celeron 1.7Ghz to possibly Celeron D 335 or
    >>P4 2.8B-GHz (my mobo supports 533 FSB). The P4 is more expensive
    >>but I wonder how much faster it is then the new celerons. But I
    >>guess its too early for benchmarks?
    >
    >
    > http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.html?i=2093
    >
    > You will get more and better changing platform to AMD. Just look at the
    > prices and performance. Celeron wins only in useless benchmarks (Q3
    > 640x480) and loses in every reasonable ones (wolf 1024x768).
    >

    Thanks for that link.

    The method used to estimate the performance improvement of Celeron D
    over Celeron--running at an unrealistically slow 2GHz--systematically
    underestimates the performance improvement to be expected from running
    at more like 2.6GHz with larger cache. The direct comparison chart
    shows a performance improvement of 11.7% for Business Winstone 2004; I
    get an estimated improvement of over 24% by pulling numbers off the next
    chart, where the processors are run at full speed.

    As to performance relative to AMD, the improvement seems to get Celeron
    D out of the embarassing category. Someone considering purchase of an
    OEM system might be tempted to consider a P4 Celeron for the right price
    and the right application; the likely buyer that comes to mind is a
    penny-pinching volume buyer for business. As always, we don't know what
    price Dell or HP will be paying.

    RM
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote :

    > As to performance relative to AMD, the improvement seems to get
    > Celeron D out of the embarassing category.

    Yes, looks like those Celerons are now only ~200MHz behind full P4.


    Pozdrawiam.
    --
    RusH //
    http://pulse.pdi.net/~rush/qv30/
    Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
    You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/celeron-d.html
    More great news!
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 17:48:50 GMT, Robert Myers
    <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:
    >RusH wrote:
    >The method used to estimate the performance improvement of Celeron D
    >over Celeron--running at an unrealistically slow 2GHz--systematically
    >underestimates the performance improvement to be expected from running
    >at more like 2.6GHz with larger cache. The direct comparison chart
    >shows a performance improvement of 11.7% for Business Winstone 2004; I
    >get an estimated improvement of over 24% by pulling numbers off the next
    >chart, where the processors are run at full speed.

    Much more important that the clock speed is the bus speed. In the
    2.0GHz comparison both Celeron chips were run with a 400MT/s bus
    speed. The idea behind this was clearly to test the differences that
    the cache and core make, which is interesting in it's own right, but
    not entirely applicable to determining what chip to purchase.
    Comparing the old Celeron 2.6GHz to the new Celeron 330 you are
    looking at the effects of a new core, doubles L1 cache, doubled L2
    cache and a higher bus speed all combined together.

    >As to performance relative to AMD, the improvement seems to get Celeron
    >D out of the embarassing category. Someone considering purchase of an
    >OEM system might be tempted to consider a P4 Celeron for the right price
    >and the right application; the likely buyer that comes to mind is a
    >penny-pinching volume buyer for business. As always, we don't know what
    >price Dell or HP will be paying.

    Actually it finally makes the chip halfway reasonable for those who
    are limited to Intel platforms. AMD processors still offer much
    better bang for your buck. A new Celeron 330 in retail box will set
    you back $99 from Newegg.com, while the AthlonXP 2500+, offering
    better performance, is only $80 from the same store.

    However as you mention, most OEMs systems are limited to an Intel-only
    platform for whatever reasons (95%+ marketing), these new Celerons
    make some sense. HP and Dell get these chips for DIRT-CHEAP. I would
    hazard a guess that they pay somewhere on the order of $30-$40 for
    these Celeron processors, so really there is no real price advantage
    for going for an AMD chip. You end up with somewhat lower
    performance, but it's close enough that no one will notice.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Tony Hill wrote:

    > On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 17:48:50 GMT, Robert Myers
    > <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:
    >
    >>The method used to estimate the performance improvement of Celeron D
    >>over Celeron--running at an unrealistically slow 2GHz--systematically
    >>underestimates the performance improvement to be expected from running
    >>at more like 2.6GHz with larger cache. The direct comparison chart
    >>shows a performance improvement of 11.7% for Business Winstone 2004; I
    >>get an estimated improvement of over 24% by pulling numbers off the next
    >>chart, where the processors are run at full speed.
    >
    >
    > Much more important that the clock speed is the bus speed. In the
    > 2.0GHz comparison both Celeron chips were run with a 400MT/s bus
    > speed. The idea behind this was clearly to test the differences that
    > the cache and core make, which is interesting in it's own right, but
    > not entirely applicable to determining what chip to purchase.
    > Comparing the old Celeron 2.6GHz to the new Celeron 330 you are
    > looking at the effects of a new core, doubles L1 cache, doubled L2
    > cache and a higher bus speed all combined together.
    >

    Double, double toil and trouble...mutter, grumble...details of memory
    operation and latency...

    I guess I just don't really understand the point of the 2.0GHz test.
    When the processor runs at the higher FSB speed, the memory latency
    doesn't change because it's still the same memory running at the same
    conditions (2 x 256MB DDR400 @ 2:3:3:6).

    With fixed memory latency, processor frequency, memory bandwidth
    requirements, and cache size requirements all scale together. A one
    third reduction in processor frequency is like, all other things being
    equal, a one third reduction in required cache size and memory bandwidth
    for equal performance. Things don't scale quite that neatly, but such a
    simple-minded theory goes a long way toward explaining 11.7% gain vs.
    24% gain for doubling the cache size, with the processor frequency being
    reduced by one third for the lower of the two estimates.

    There's little point in having extra cache if you don't have the
    bandwidth to get the data in...but there's very little point in having
    the extra bandwidth if there's nowhere to put the data. The more
    meaningful comparison is the 2.66GHz Celeron D against the 2.6GHz
    Celeron. The discrepancy between 2.66GHz and 2.6GHz can be fixed with a
    little systems engineer's body english.

    What this little diversion highlights is that, as Intel pushed the clock
    on Celeron from 1.7GHz, the cache situation, not very good to begin
    with, got more and more dire, and the Celeron D is an inevitable course
    correction.

    <snip>

    >
    > However as you mention, most OEMs systems are limited to an Intel-only
    > platform for whatever reasons (95%+ marketing), these new Celerons
    > make some sense. HP and Dell get these chips for DIRT-CHEAP. I would
    > hazard a guess that they pay somewhere on the order of $30-$40 for
    > these Celeron processors, so really there is no real price advantage
    > for going for an AMD chip. You end up with somewhat lower
    > performance, but it's close enough that no one will notice.
    >

    I mentioned the actual economic realities because one could come away
    from a discussion like this wondering how it is that Intel ever sells
    processors. Some buyers, it is true, are gullible shoppers at a place
    like CompUSA, but not all of them are by any means. Intel hardware
    commands a modest brand premium, but not as much for buyers of OEM
    hardware as for home-builders.

    RM
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:
    > Comparing the old Celeron 2.6GHz to the new Celeron 330 you are
    > looking at the effects of a new core, doubles L1 cache, doubled L2
    > cache and a higher bus speed all combined together.

    Hey, will those (Celeron 330/2.66D) work in older motherboards? For $99,
    if it would work in them, it looks like a dynamite upgrade for some of the
    1.8-2.4ghz 400FSB P4s and Celerons we've had kicking around here. Most are
    i845 chipset boards, and they've all got PC2100 DDR.

    --
    Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

    "Wanted: One .Sig-quote. Must work cheap."
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 03:57:11 GMT, Robert Myers
    <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:
    >
    >Tony Hill wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 17:48:50 GMT, Robert Myers
    >> <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>>The method used to estimate the performance improvement of Celeron D
    >>>over Celeron--running at an unrealistically slow 2GHz--systematically
    >>>underestimates the performance improvement to be expected from running
    >>>at more like 2.6GHz with larger cache. The direct comparison chart
    >>>shows a performance improvement of 11.7% for Business Winstone 2004; I
    >>>get an estimated improvement of over 24% by pulling numbers off the next
    >>>chart, where the processors are run at full speed.
    >>
    >>
    >> Much more important that the clock speed is the bus speed. In the
    >> 2.0GHz comparison both Celeron chips were run with a 400MT/s bus
    >> speed. The idea behind this was clearly to test the differences that
    >> the cache and core make, which is interesting in it's own right, but
    >> not entirely applicable to determining what chip to purchase.
    >> Comparing the old Celeron 2.6GHz to the new Celeron 330 you are
    >> looking at the effects of a new core, doubles L1 cache, doubled L2
    >> cache and a higher bus speed all combined together.
    >>
    >
    >Double, double toil and trouble...mutter, grumble...details of memory
    >operation and latency...
    >
    >I guess I just don't really understand the point of the 2.0GHz test.

    It's admittedly not the most useful test in the real world. I believe
    the main idea was to contrast this to the Northwood vs. Prescott P4
    comparisons, where the latter was usually somewhat slower given
    identical clock speed and bus speed. With these Celerons that trend
    is noticeably reversed, the Prescott-esk Celeron D is almost always
    faster (often by a margin of over 10%) than the Northwood derived
    Celeron of old.

    >When the processor runs at the higher FSB speed, the memory latency
    >doesn't change because it's still the same memory running at the same
    >conditions (2 x 256MB DDR400 @ 2:3:3:6).

    To a rough approximation, yes.

    >With fixed memory latency, processor frequency, memory bandwidth
    >requirements, and cache size requirements all scale together. A one
    >third reduction in processor frequency is like, all other things being
    >equal, a one third reduction in required cache size and memory bandwidth
    >for equal performance. Things don't scale quite that neatly, but such a
    >simple-minded theory goes a long way toward explaining 11.7% gain vs.
    >24% gain for doubling the cache size, with the processor frequency being
    >reduced by one third for the lower of the two estimates.

    Err, I think that might be a bit of an oversimplification of things
    here!

    >There's little point in having extra cache if you don't have the
    >bandwidth to get the data in...but there's very little point in having
    >the extra bandwidth if there's nowhere to put the data. The more
    >meaningful comparison is the 2.66GHz Celeron D against the 2.6GHz
    >Celeron. The discrepancy between 2.66GHz and 2.6GHz can be fixed with a
    >little systems engineer's body english.

    What's perhaps most applicable would be a dollar for dollar
    comparisons, ie probably a Celeron D at 2.53GHz vs. a Celeron at 2.6
    or 2.7GHz for the time being. After all, the real reason for looking
    at the Celeron in the first place is low cost.

    >What this little diversion highlights is that, as Intel pushed the clock
    >on Celeron from 1.7GHz, the cache situation, not very good to begin
    >with, got more and more dire, and the Celeron D is an inevitable course
    >correction.

    Combine that with somewhat restricted bandwidth and the whole memory
    subsystem of the old Northwood-style Celeron pretty much blew. The
    increased bus speed and doubled cache are rather obvious solutions
    and, not surprisingly, they result in a fairly noticeable increase in
    performance.

    What I found funny was that some people were surprised by this fact!

    >> However as you mention, most OEMs systems are limited to an Intel-only
    >> platform for whatever reasons (95%+ marketing), these new Celerons
    >> make some sense. HP and Dell get these chips for DIRT-CHEAP. I would
    >> hazard a guess that they pay somewhere on the order of $30-$40 for
    >> these Celeron processors, so really there is no real price advantage
    >> for going for an AMD chip. You end up with somewhat lower
    >> performance, but it's close enough that no one will notice.
    >
    >I mentioned the actual economic realities because one could come away
    >from a discussion like this wondering how it is that Intel ever sells
    >processors. Some buyers, it is true, are gullible shoppers at a place
    >like CompUSA, but not all of them are by any means. Intel hardware
    >commands a modest brand premium, but not as much for buyers of OEM
    >hardware as for home-builders.

    Definitely not. I've had the chance to get some exposure to the inner
    workings of computer building and whatnot at large OEMs recently, and
    basically the hardware itself seems to be a pretty much non-issue
    cost-wise (the one exception to this rule seems to be motherboards...
    perhaps not by coincidence since there is TONS of competition in the
    retail market pushing prices down). The cost all seems to come from
    support and all the extras like management, marketing and logistics.

    As a interesting side note, I now finally understand Dell's thinking
    behind their "white box" systems. I'm sure that they are able to
    churn out the hardware for next to nothing as long as they have zero
    support costs associated with it. Offload the support to some other
    company (the retailer in this case) and Dell's per-unit cost are tiny.
    I'm still not sure that the idea will actually translate into a
    commercially viable product, but at least I understand where they're
    coming from now.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 18:58:35 -0700, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel)
    wrote:
    >Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:
    >> Comparing the old Celeron 2.6GHz to the new Celeron 330 you are
    >> looking at the effects of a new core, doubles L1 cache, doubled L2
    >> cache and a higher bus speed all combined together.
    >
    >Hey, will those (Celeron 330/2.66D) work in older motherboards? For $99,
    >if it would work in them, it looks like a dynamite upgrade for some of the
    >1.8-2.4ghz 400FSB P4s and Celerons we've had kicking around here. Most are
    >i845 chipset boards, and they've all got PC2100 DDR.

    That's a definite maybe. Some boards will work with them just fine,
    some will need a BIOS update, others won't work at all. As usual,
    check with the board or system manufacturer.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:
    > On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 18:58:35 -0700, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel)
    > wrote:
    > >Hey, will those (Celeron 330/2.66D) work in older motherboards? For $99,
    > >if it would work in them, it looks like a dynamite upgrade for some of
    > >the 1.8-2.4ghz 400FSB P4s and Celerons we've had kicking around here.
    > >Most are i845 chipset boards, and they've all got PC2100 DDR.
    >
    > That's a definite maybe. Some boards will work with them just fine,
    > some will need a BIOS update, others won't work at all. As usual,
    > check with the board or system manufacturer.

    With the exception of some Dells (notoriously hard to upgrade), I don't
    think we have two systems with the same motherboard in them. Time to start
    hitting manufacturer web sites, I guess.

    Thanks, though! Better than a definite no.

    --
    Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

    "Wanted: One .Sig-quote. Must work cheap."
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Tony Hill wrote:

    > On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 03:57:11 GMT, Robert Myers
    > <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:

    >
    >>With fixed memory latency, processor frequency, memory bandwidth
    >>requirements, and cache size requirements all scale together. A one
    >>third reduction in processor frequency is like, all other things being
    >>equal, a one third reduction in required cache size and memory bandwidth
    >>for equal performance. Things don't scale quite that neatly, but such a
    >>simple-minded theory goes a long way toward explaining 11.7% gain vs.
    >>24% gain for doubling the cache size, with the processor frequency being
    >>reduced by one third for the lower of the two estimates.
    >
    >
    > Err, I think that might be a bit of an oversimplification of things
    > here!
    >

    You make it sound as if it were something I came up with after staying
    up too late. :-).

    It's little more than Little's law, which is the intuitively obvious
    result from queuing theory that queue depth is the product of the
    average wait times arrival rate into the queue, or, in cs-ese,
    concurrency = latency x bandwidth, connected to the (admittedly
    non-trivial) assumption that average residence time in cache is
    proportional to memory latency.

    >
    >>There's little point in having extra cache if you don't have the
    >>bandwidth to get the data in...but there's very little point in having
    >>the extra bandwidth if there's nowhere to put the data. The more
    >>meaningful comparison is the 2.66GHz Celeron D against the 2.6GHz
    >>Celeron. The discrepancy between 2.66GHz and 2.6GHz can be fixed with a
    >>little systems engineer's body english.
    >
    >
    > What's perhaps most applicable would be a dollar for dollar
    > comparisons, ie probably a Celeron D at 2.53GHz vs. a Celeron at 2.6
    > or 2.7GHz for the time being. After all, the real reason for looking
    > at the Celeron in the first place is low cost.
    >

    These discussions always get off the highway once price comes into the
    discussion. Price isn't irrelevant, but it's pretty arbitrary. The
    non-trivial part is to understand what you're buying. What you've paid
    can be read off your sales receipt. ;-).

    >
    >>What this little diversion highlights is that, as Intel pushed the clock
    >>on Celeron from 1.7GHz, the cache situation, not very good to begin
    >>with, got more and more dire, and the Celeron D is an inevitable course
    >>correction.
    >
    >
    > Combine that with somewhat restricted bandwidth and the whole memory
    > subsystem of the old Northwood-style Celeron pretty much blew. The
    > increased bus speed and doubled cache are rather obvious solutions
    > and, not surprisingly, they result in a fairly noticeable increase in
    > performance.
    >
    > What I found funny was that some people were surprised by this fact!
    >

    After the misdirection of seeing the disappointing performance of P4E.
    P4 Northwood wasn't desperately starved for cache to begin with, and
    increasing cache by itself doesn't necessarily make up for the
    deleterious effects of a deeper pipeline, but you knew that.

    RM
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Hardware Celeron IBM