Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD Semperon v Intel Celeron

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 5, 2006 8:00:42 PM

In a few previous threads I have tried to stick up for the Intel Celeron D, as I believe it offers good bang for buck performance v it's main competitor the AMD Semperon, only to be shouted down by the AMD fanboys. So I have a simple challenge to the AMD lovers out there, beat the following Super Pi score with a semperon.

Celeron D 356 @ 4.5GHz (note stock cooling - no additional expense required) = Super Pi 1M @ 32 seconds.

Note – I do not care about C2D or Athlon 64’s in this thread – I know they will beat it, but neither of them cost the £45 I managed to pick up this Celeron for. For the price I paid – I don’t think I can be beaten.

Also, one last thing, this is the speed the CPU is 100% stable at, I did managed to get a result at 4.75GHz of 30 seconds, but the system was being a little unstable at that speed, I suppose I have found the limit of the stock cooling there…

October 5, 2006 8:41:25 PM

Once I get my water kit purchased (still debating) and set up. I want to see if I can pick up a really cheap 351 or so Celeron D. Just to mess around with OCing :p  I would like to see 5Ghz on my screen just for fun.
October 5, 2006 8:48:21 PM

I don't have a Sempron, nor do I overclock, but I will say that that's a very impressive overclock. You should try aftermarket cooling; you should be able to break 5GHz and 30 second SuperPi.
Related resources
October 5, 2006 9:07:48 PM

Quote:
Once I get my water kit purchased (still debating) and set up. I want to see if I can pick up a really cheap 351 or so Celeron D. Just to mess around with OCing :p  I would like to see 5Ghz on my screen just for fun.


Maybe you should just get a 9-series Pentium D.
October 5, 2006 9:31:58 PM

Impressive, but could you also show a CPUZ validation?! Don't take me wrong but I know pretty much about Photoshop and GIMP to 100% trust screenshots :D 
Quote:
I believe it offers good bang for buck performance v it's main competitor the AMD Semperon, only to be shouted down by the AMD fanboys

(ON STOCK)It's above all the benchmarks that show the Sempron superiority, just take a look at them. Personally have tried both and sincerely; CeleronDs lag, especially in multitasking they're even worse than older Northwood based Celerons. And, humming recod apart, how long do you expect it to live that way?
October 5, 2006 10:00:31 PM

The term 'nob cheese' springs to mind! :oops: 

I guess you find calculating PI very interesting, I wonder what useful purpose it serves you during your day?

Why dont you really go for it and run Prime95 for a week or two :D 

WGAS?
October 5, 2006 10:14:37 PM

ok well i will say a few things...
1.)i am no intel or amd fan boy
2.) very nice over clock and yes you should get better cooling :) 
3.) i had a sempron 2200+ before i got this CPU and it was great... i played games, used photoshop, even some Sony Vegas and it worked great for me.
My friend on the other hand had a Celeron 1.8Ghz Clocked at 2.2Ghz and it wasnt as good as my Sempron.. now ofcourse i am talking about AMD Socket (A) 462 and Intel Socket 478. but after all they are still Semprons and Celerons
4.) what is SuperPi ?
October 5, 2006 10:33:13 PM

Is a Celeron D Dual core? if not why the FU@# call it a Celeron D? doesnt D stand for Dual Core?
October 5, 2006 10:35:57 PM

Quote:
ok well i will say a few things...
1.)i am no intel or amd fan boy
2.) very nice over clock and yes you should get better cooling :) 
3.) i had a sempron 2200+ before i got this CPU and it was great... i played games, used photoshop, even some Sony Vegas and it worked great for me.
My friend on the other hand had a Celeron 1.8Ghz Clocked at 2.2Ghz and it wasnt as good as my Sempron.. now ofcourse i am talking about AMD Socket (A) 462 and Intel Socket 478. but after all they are still Semprons and Celerons
4.) what is SuperPi ?


1) nor am I - in fact I like AMD - but I like ATI better (odd world huh)
2) it's not that special an OC tbh - I have seen people posting 6GHz with Cele Ds.. Spending on an aftermarket cooler ATM is missing the point - I am waiting for C2Q to arrive - then I will look into what's around :) 
3) the thing about the old celes were they were cache crippled - where the 351 and up have 512k, they are better back per clock
4) Give me something else to try then that only measures core (CPU and memory) performance
October 5, 2006 10:37:20 PM

Quote:
Is a Celeron D Dual core? if not why the FU@# call it a Celeron D? doesnt D stand for Dual Core?


no it's not... the D stands for intel fooling Da simple customer
October 5, 2006 10:37:59 PM

Nice result with the 4.5 Overclock! What's it get on default values though? (and like someone said, it is >2 hour prime-stable?) Would like to know what's best for people who can't overclock...

Just some results from my recent testing:

Athlon 3800 X2 / M2NSLI / Corsair (2*1gb) Twin2x5400C4 - 1mil = 42seconds (default everything, yes it's an athlon, just for comparison)

Sempron 3000 / M2NPV-VM / Corsair (2*512) VS5300 - 1mil = 52seconds (fsb 208 *8=1664 to get the ram up to 1664/5=332.8. Can't get it past fsb215, no VCore control, might try overclockage on my m2nsli on the weekend)

Celeron Tualatin 1100 @ 1466 / 2*128 PC133 - 1mil = 2min33seconds

Celeron 2.4GHz Northwood Mobile (dell inspiron 1150) / 2*256 pc2100 (although spd says pc2700) - 1mil = 2min50seconds (yes, worse than a tualeron, damn netburst crap)
October 5, 2006 10:47:25 PM

Quote:
Is a Celeron D Dual core? if not why the FU@# call it a Celeron D? doesnt D stand for Dual Core?


no it's not... the D stands for intel fooling Da simple customer
well thanks for the info... that just anoys the FU#$ out of me when intel/AMD NVIDIA/ATI do those screwed up names in there products such as 6800xt
October 5, 2006 11:17:10 PM

Quote:
What's it get on default values though? Would like to know what's best for people who can't overclock...


42 seconds - just tested
October 5, 2006 11:24:07 PM

prime95 running - off to bed now - see you tommorow!
October 6, 2006 6:48:18 AM

7 hours prime @4.5GHz - no errors
October 6, 2006 8:11:25 AM

I understand what you are saying, and for you the Celeron D might be a great deal since you can over clock it. But if you search a little you will see that some of the least expensive semprons will break 3ghz, and at that speed they should at least tie the Celeron D which you are speaking of. The sempron I am speaking of is the 2800 Palermo, and just about all the Palermo cores can hit anywhere from 3.0-3.3Ghz(3.3 being rare). But I think the real issue is how good these cpu's for the average person which would be buying it. Those people leave them at stock settings, and either can't or do not know how to overclock them. In those cases the semprons will be a better choice than the Celeron D in most cases(my opionion). But back to the Super PI discussion, I have seen benchmarks of a 2.8ghz sempron completing super pi 1M in 33seconds. So I would imagine a 3ghz sempron would be at least as low as 32. That's about it really, I know the Celeron D's are much much better than the older Celerons, but I still beleive that the Semprons clock for clock are better CPU's and the latest Sempron cores overclock very well.

EDIT: I would also be more concerned with real world performance benchmarks than super pi. But IMO, both are pretty good cpu's and extremely affordable. I would not have purchased one of the old celeries, they are horrible..... but the new ones are definately a much better value CPU.
October 6, 2006 12:42:34 PM

Exactly, it was what I was trying to explain. Semprons are better than celerons/celeronDs, especially on stock. A 1.6G sempron can perform up to 20% better than a 2.6GHz CeleronD. I was especially amazed by the extremely low multitasking performance; put 2 programs to work togeather and you get a pretty lengthy lockup switching from one to the other. Here they perform even worse than older celerons because the hyperpipelined Prescott crap can't keep up,even with 256 or 512K L2.
October 6, 2006 12:57:50 PM

Quote:
I understand what you are saying, and for you the Celeron D might be a great deal since you can over clock it. But if you search a little you will see that some of the least expensive semprons will break 3ghz, and at that speed they should at least tie the Celeron D which you are speaking of. The sempron I am speaking of is the 2800 Palermo, and just about all the Palermo cores can hit anywhere from 3.0-3.3Ghz(3.3 being rare). But I think the real issue is how good these cpu's for the average person which would be buying it. Those people leave them at stock settings, and either can't or do not know how to overclock them. In those cases the semprons will be a better choice than the Celeron D in most cases(my opionion). But back to the Super PI discussion, I have seen benchmarks of a 2.8ghz sempron completing super pi 1M in 33seconds. So I would imagine a 3ghz sempron would be at least as low as 32. That's about it really, I know the Celeron D's are much much better than the older Celerons, but I still beleive that the Semprons clock for clock are better CPU's and the latest Sempron cores overclock very well.

EDIT: I would also be more concerned with real world performance benchmarks than super pi. But IMO, both are pretty good cpu's and extremely affordable. I would not have purchased one of the old celeries, they are horrible..... but the new ones are definately a much better value CPU.
Proof of this, i have to see. 2.4-2.5 (~300HT)tops, without crazy cooling. 375HTx8=3GHz. That's about as likely as getting 6GHz+ with the Celeron.
October 6, 2006 1:16:37 PM

Quote:
I understand what you are saying, and for you the Celeron D might be a great deal since you can over clock it. But if you search a little you will see that some of the least expensive semprons will break 3ghz, and at that speed they should at least tie the Celeron D which you are speaking of. The sempron I am speaking of is the 2800 Palermo, and just about all the Palermo cores can hit anywhere from 3.0-3.3Ghz(3.3 being rare). But I think the real issue is how good these cpu's for the average person which would be buying it. Those people leave them at stock settings, and either can't or do not know how to overclock them. In those cases the semprons will be a better choice than the Celeron D in most cases(my opionion). But back to the Super PI discussion, I have seen benchmarks of a 2.8ghz sempron completing super pi 1M in 33seconds. So I would imagine a 3ghz sempron would be at least as low as 32. That's about it really, I know the Celeron D's are much much better than the older Celerons, but I still beleive that the Semprons clock for clock are better CPU's and the latest Sempron cores overclock very well.

EDIT: I would also be more concerned with real world performance benchmarks than super pi. But IMO, both are pretty good cpu's and extremely affordable. I would not have purchased one of the old celeries, they are horrible..... but the new ones are definately a much better value CPU.


I have to call BS on the 2800 palermo overclocking. Having owned one, and using arguably one of the best boards to overclock a socket 754 cpu with (Biostar T-Force 6100), I was able to get my 2800 up to 2.5 GHz @ 1.55v. I could get all the way up to 2.7GHz, but that took an unrealistic 1.8 volts. I have a friend who has overclocked 4 of these 2800 palermos, all using the T-Force board, and the best one so far was a chip that could hit 2.7GHz at 1.5 volts. Stock cooling was the only thing used. 3 GHz is damn-near impossible on these chips, and 3.3GHz is a myth until you provide a link to someone actually hitting that mark.
October 6, 2006 1:18:31 PM

ya. the celeron D is a crappy processor, got one in my study room, cant stop complaining when i started to open multiple programs; corel draw, ofiice word, mozilla firefox....not much difference after overclock to 3.0GHz, i might as well get an AM2 sempron.
October 6, 2006 1:20:15 PM

Quote:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron-26...
(and it's older socket 754, AM2 semprons OC as well as Athlons and many people run them 2.6-2.8G).
I've read that article before. They get it to 2.5GHz, and the Celeron to 3.4. I asked for proof about overclocking a 2800+ Sempron to 3GHz+. :roll:
October 6, 2006 1:29:10 PM

Quote:
Once I get my water kit purchased (still debating) and set up. I want to see if I can pick up a really cheap 351 or so Celeron D. Just to mess around with OCing :p  I would like to see 5Ghz on my screen just for fun.


If you buy a Celeron make sure it is a Cedar Mill Core (65nm, ie 352, 356 etc). If you buy a 351... well, then i´ll have to... do... something bad. :twisted:
October 6, 2006 1:47:08 PM

Quote:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron-26...
(and it's older socket 754, AM2 semprons OC as well as Athlons and many people run them 2.6-2.8G).
I've read that article before. They get it to 2.5GHz, and the Celeron to 3.4. I asked for proof about overclocking a 2800+ Sempron to 3GHz+. :roll:
You don't need to send it to 3G; say the mythic 4G OC is 50% of a 2.67GHz CeleronD, while 2.5GHz is 56% over the standard 1.6G of A sempron 2600+, so the Sempron is still a better OC-er.
October 6, 2006 1:54:02 PM

My Celeron D 310 (2.13 GHz) was motherboard-limited to 3.6 GHz. That's a 69% overclock, and it would have gone higher on a decent motherboard instead of a cheap ECS with no AGP/PCI locks. Does this make it better than the Sempron? :roll: Do you understand how silly it is to measure a processor's merit based on percent overclock?

There are Mobile Celerons of the 1.5 to 1.6GHz flavor that will overclock 100% to 3.0 and 3.2GHz I guess these must be the uber cpu champions?
October 6, 2006 2:47:51 PM

I just looked at the highest OC's on this website http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=59...
You are probably right though, 3Ghz and above is proably a higher than the average person should expect, but I had my Opteron 165 running @ 3.2 max and 3.1 stable. And in my experience it is a little harder to OC dual core cpu's, plus I did it on air cooling. SO, the sempron should run cooler than my dual core opty did. I am sorry I did not reply earlier, but there is really no need for the childish animations, you know some people are busy and may not have access to a computer all the time. Which also explains why I did not have a ton of time to search for more sources of Palermo overclocking. But I have read on some other forums of people breaking 3.0 with the Palermo core Sempron 64 (which maybe I should have said 64 before). Alas I am out of time, I have to run. If I am wrong please correct me, but in my opinion, regardless of max air OC, the sempron would be a better buy simply because it would be faster than an equally priced celery. If we could just leave super pi out of this and use some real world numbers that would be great.

Edit: Sempron 64 is basically a venice core, they are known to break 3ghz on a regular basis on air cooling all the way from 1.8ghz. So, why would one @ 1.6 ghz break 3ghz other than being motherboard limited. Also, the least expensive Celeron D 356 I could find was around $70, while the Sempron 64 2800 I can find for $40 on newegg, I was unable to find the Celeron D 356 on newegg, and to be fair the 355 was $78 on newegg so the 356 should cost more. But the Sempron closer to the price range of the Celeron is the Sempron (64) 3400 Palermo core costing $69.99 on newegg. Any thoughts? PS: I don't mind people proving me wrong, but just try to be polite when you do it, and act like an adult, I would appreciate it.

Thanks
wes
October 6, 2006 3:03:33 PM

it doesn't make it any better, just makes it a better overclocker. Just like the FX 60 is not a good overclocker, because it is already close to the max of the architecture, while the venice 3000 is a great overclocker. I think that is what he was trying to say by comparing the overclockability of the cpu's, not that it makes one better than another, just one a better overclocker. Unless I am wrong about what he typed, since I am going off of memory.
October 6, 2006 3:58:22 PM

What I was talking about; If the sempron is better on stock and (in many cases) it OCs by better percentage, it will still perform better. Most people STILL get schocked by GHz figures and forget that a 4GHz celeronD performs no better than a 2.8GHz Sempron.

STOP THINKING GIGAHERTZ, please
October 6, 2006 10:29:12 PM

Quote:
I just looked at the highest OC's on this website http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=59...
You are probably right though, 3Ghz and above is proably a higher than the average person should expect, but I had my Opteron 165 running @ 3.2 max and 3.1 stable. And in my experience it is a little harder to OC dual core cpu's, plus I did it on air cooling. SO, the sempron should run cooler than my dual core opty did. I am sorry I did not reply earlier, but there is really no need for the childish animations, you know some people are busy and may not have access to a computer all the time. Which also explains why I did not have a ton of time to search for more sources of Palermo overclocking. But I have read on some other forums of people breaking 3.0 with the Palermo core Sempron 64 (which maybe I should have said 64 before). Alas I am out of time, I have to run. If I am wrong please correct me, but in my opinion, regardless of max air OC, the sempron would be a better buy simply because it would be faster than an equally priced celery. If we could just leave super pi out of this and use some real world numbers that would be great.

Edit: Sempron 64 is basically a venice core, they are known to break 3ghz on a regular basis on air cooling all the way from 1.8ghz. So, why would one @ 1.6 ghz break 3ghz other than being motherboard limited. Also, the least expensive Celeron D 356 I could find was around $70, while the Sempron 64 2800 I can find for $40 on newegg, I was unable to find the Celeron D 356 on newegg, and to be fair the 355 was $78 on newegg so the 356 should cost more. But the Sempron closer to the price range of the Celeron is the Sempron (64) 3400 Palermo core costing $69.99 on newegg. Any thoughts? PS: I don't mind people proving me wrong, but just try to be polite when you do it, and act like an adult, I would appreciate it.

Thanks
wes

1.It's all about the multilplier. With an 8x multi(2800+), 3GHz is highly unlikely, needing a 375HT or more.

2.What childish animations?

3.I never mentioned Super Pi.

4. I wasn't impolite, just because you didn't like me calling for links to 3GHz+? I acted in an adult manner, it's not like i called you names or anything. I don't just call people noob, or BS'er, etc., because they are wrong, or mistaken. I disagreed and asked for links(mature). :wink:
October 7, 2006 3:04:19 AM

The list you linked is for world-record holders. I'm sure that 2800 palermo is on water if not phase change/cascade. That's as likely a typical overclock as the Celeron D 356 they have listed running at an unholy 6.66GHz. :twisted: f

Nice opteron o/c btw. It's very rare to see one go that high on air. I usually see them running around 2.6-2.7 GHz. Congrats!

Quote:
What I was talking about; If the sempron is better on stock and (in many cases) it OCs by better percentage, it will still perform better. Most people STILL get schocked by GHz figures and forget that a 4GHz celeronD performs no better than a 2.8GHz Sempron.

STOP THINKING GIGAHERTZ, please


Sorry for misreading. :wink:

The only true way to find out how good this Celeron D performs it to do a proper review on one of these chips, but I dont think that'll be happening anytime soon, according to an email I got from Jared Walton at Anandtech, basically telling me they weren't interested in buying a Celeron D 356 just to review an old netburst (Hey James, maybe if you lend your CPU to Anandtech, they'll do a review, b/c it sounded like they didn't want to BUY one in order to test it---Intel is not giving out cheap Celeron Ds to test when they want Conroe in the lime light). It should be noted that Tom's and Xbit didn't even bother replying back to my email request.
October 7, 2006 7:10:58 AM

back to the top
October 7, 2006 9:03:29 AM

True. There are many reviews comparing celeronDs and semprons but they are all pretty old (2004-2005) and show only the first celeronDs and mostly socket 754 Semprons. On the other hand, when they review AM2 Semprons od newer CeleronDs, they put in the review only Athlons and Pentium4s so you seldom have the chance to see them head to head. However, there is some useful info.
http://www.motherboards.org/reviews/hardware/1445_1.htm...
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article.php/3...

And here's my favorite, although it only touches the 3100+ S745 Sempron and 2.8G CeleronD, it is pretty thorough and has a nice spectrum of comparision.
http://www.behardware.com/articles/510-1/amd-sempron-vs...
October 7, 2006 9:57:41 AM

to Tanker I think, not all of that was directed at you if I remember correctly. I just used you to reply to a couple of people, I didn't make it clear enough.

The super pi stuff is to the OP, not you.

The "childish animations" as I said, was the guy rolling his eyes, I take it back I just wasn't really in to good of a mood at the time. Sorry.

But back to the point. I provided you that one link which shows they are capable of it, and with a good board, you can get the HT to 375. I know that I have done it on mulitple boards. I have a Ultra D which hit 400 stable. But other than that,
October 7, 2006 10:14:00 AM

Quote:
to Tanker I think, not all of that was directed at you if I remember correctly. I just used you to reply to a couple of people, I didn't make it clear enough.

The super pi stuff is to the OP, not you.

The "childish animations" as I said, was the guy rolling his eyes, I take it back I just wasn't really in to good of a mood at the time. Sorry.

But back to the point. I provided you that one link which shows they are capable of it, and with a good board, you can get the HT to 375. I know that I have done it on mulitple boards. I have a Ultra D which hit 400 stable. But other than that,
Wow...i'm impressed. :wink: That poor board must have been throwing off some brutal heat. Was the setup water-cooled?I agree (at stock speeds)Semprons are the better chip, but for the average stock-cooled setup, Celerons do overclock very well, which probably gives them the nod...at least in many apps..not games. As far as Super-Pi, OP's 32s is fast, as K8 architecture is generally faster in Super-Pi than Netburst architecture. :) 
October 7, 2006 10:31:19 AM

Yeah, it was getting a little warm, but I was using a stock cooler on the chipset and a 90mm on the CPU. I tried a water cooling setup which was very efficient, but it did not really make a difference in the overclock other than heat. So, I removed it just for simplicity. I don't have any verification for it, just thought I would head you off. Yeah, 32 is fast for a netburst based cpu, I would assume due to the long pipeline, but I still don't think that super pi should be used for any type of real world means of comparing CPU performance over all.
October 7, 2006 10:43:05 AM

AGREE! A Sempron 2800+ does the 1M in roughly 56 sec while a 2.67 CeleronD is slightly less than twice that value. What does it mean?! Exactly that, nothing more :lol: 
There are a lot of meaningful comparisions such as encoding,rendering, compressing, FPS, bandwidth etc.
October 7, 2006 12:29:06 PM

My understanding of the Celeron/Sempron CPUs (as explained to me by an Intel employee) is that they are essentially Intel's/AMD's previous generation of CPUs just slightly updated. A Celeron D is basically a P4 and a Sempron 64 is basically a Athlon 64. Since it's pretty well excepted that AMD had the performance edge until C2D, a Sempron should outperform a Celeron.
October 7, 2006 2:46:55 PM

"slightly updated"=crippled L2 :wink:
October 7, 2006 3:22:22 PM

Quote:
My understanding of the Celeron/Sempron CPUs (as explained to me by an Intel employee) is that they are essentially Intel's/AMD's previous generation of CPUs just slightly updated. A Celeron D is basically a P4 and a Sempron 64 is basically a Athlon 64. Since it's pretty well excepted that AMD had the performance edge until C2D, a Sempron should outperform a Celeron.

Don't take for granted everything you hear around, read some reviews so you get a better understanding, compare performance with performance, not Intel's GHz with AMD's:
http://www.behardware.com/articles/510-1/amd-sempron-vs...
http://www.motherboards.org/reviews/hardware/1445_1.htm...
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article.php/3...
October 7, 2006 4:04:51 PM

And here are my favorite Cedermill Celeron D articles:

http://www.pcpop.com/doc/0/137/137950_2.shtml

http://www.hkepc.com/hwdb/celeron512k-2.htm

The second one has some serious typos in the comparison charts (the first chart lists a pentium D 355, that should be Celeron D 355, and in the second chart it should be Celeron D 356 performance, one at 4.15GHz and the other at 5GHz). These are the only two reviews of the Celeron D 356. There is one more review of the Celron D 356, and that was from Mad Shrimps where it compared a Celeron D 356 to a Pentium D 805, but the 356 was more of an after thought, and it only had one benchmark: 3Dmark 2003, and those results were so messed up, they're not even comparable to other 3dmark 2003 tests, so it pretty much sucked for a review. Extreme systems also has a couple good threads on the D 356:

Here is the first one: 5GHz with stock cooler and a voltage bump:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=88...

And the second one: 5GH with aftermarket air cooler and stock voltage (a voltage bump brings it up to 5.4GHz):

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=10...

Like I said earlier, a clear, systematic review of the Celeron D 356 by a credited website such as Tom's, Anandtech, or Xbit, would put a lot of this Celeron D ignorance to rest. Until that time, people will continue to mistakenly group the Cedermill Celerons with the Prescotts, giving them a bad name they clearly don't deserve. Since a review will likely never happen, it's sad to see this excellent chip sink into obscurity. It is arguably the best single core CPU out there. Being hard to find and priced within $10 of the Pentium D 805 isn't helping it win customers either. The Last netburst CPU, the Celeron D 360 running at 3.6GHz, should be released before the end of the year, and the Celeron D 356/352 are supposed to take a 10% price cut, meaning the cheapest Ceder MIll celeron will be around $63 for a retail boxed unit. I might actually consider buying one then.
October 7, 2006 11:43:54 PM

Of course 5GHz is no game, and most probably, at these levels of OC, a celeron may perform better than a sempron but a PROPER shows comparision to a broad range of CPUs and most importan; real life performance. With all the respect I have for benchmarking software, personally, I never consider PC mark values or 3D mark ratings or Super PI values as a healthy basis of comparision. How fast does it render, how good is at multitasking; thet's what I mind and you don't get the answers by those values.
Intel's 65nm process, coupled with it's superior technology makes it superior in overclocking but people buy a PC to work or play on it for some time; can you find me one that kept his/her celeron on 4.5G for a whole month or two. Records are one thing and performane is another one and I don't think 4G+ is something long-term stable.
October 8, 2006 12:26:12 AM

Quote:
="

Celeron D 356 @ 4.5GHz (note stock cooling - no additional expense required) = Super Pi 1M @ 32 seconds.



8O
-cm
October 8, 2006 12:41:25 AM

Quote:
Is a Celeron D Dual core? if not why the FU@# call it a Celeron D? doesnt D stand for Dual Core?


The D is for desktop and the M is for mobile in the celeron line. The D is based on the Pentium 4 and the M is based on the Pentium M. Which makes a 1.6ghz celeron M alot faster than a 1.6 ghz celeron D.
October 8, 2006 2:05:44 AM

Maybe Intel will get like ATI/NVidia and have a

CELERON D DUAL XTX XT PE GTO GT ULTRA

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
that would be hot.
-cm

and it would probably be thier mid-end model. :D 
October 8, 2006 3:34:04 AM

Quote:
And here are my favorite Cedermill Celeron D articles:

http://www.pcpop.com/doc/0/137/137950_2.shtml

http://www.hkepc.com/hwdb/celeron512k-2.htm

The second one has some serious typos in the comparison charts (the first chart lists a pentium D 355, that should be Celeron D 355, and in the second chart it should be Celeron D 356 performance, one at 4.15GHz and the other at 5GHz). These are the only two reviews of the Celeron D 356. There is one more review of the Celron D 356, and that was from Mad Shrimps where it compared a Celeron D 356 to a Pentium D 805, but the 356 was more of an after thought, and it only had one benchmark: 3Dmark 2003, and those results were so messed up, they're not even comparable to other 3dmark 2003 tests, so it pretty much sucked for a review. Extreme systems also has a couple good threads on the D 356:

Here is the first one: 5GHz with stock cooler and a voltage bump:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=88...

And the second one: 5GH with aftermarket air cooler and stock voltage (a voltage bump brings it up to 5.4GHz):

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=10...

Like I said earlier, a clear, systematic review of the Celeron D 356 by a credited website such as Tom's, Anandtech, or Xbit, would put a lot of this Celeron D ignorance to rest. Until that time, people will continue to mistakenly group the Cedermill Celerons with the Prescotts, giving them a bad name they clearly don't deserve. Since a review will likely never happen, it's sad to see this excellent chip sink into obscurity. It is arguably the best single core CPU out there. Being hard to find and priced within $10 of the Pentium D 805 isn't helping it win customers either. The Last netburst CPU, the Celeron D 360 running at 3.6GHz, should be released before the end of the year, and the Celeron D 356/352 are supposed to take a 10% price cut, meaning the cheapest Ceder MIll celeron will be around $63 for a retail boxed unit. I might actually consider buying one then.
Yeah, it is. The performance you're getting with it would be considered quite awesome 1-2 years ago. If nobody buys it, their loss. You did, and it's impressed you...that's all that really matters in the end. I know i would have fun overclocking it, but then again i like overclocking every CPU. :wink: I still mess around overclocking old PII's and Mendocino Celerons. I like to push everything to the limit.
!