Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The Dual Core Celeron

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 15, 2007 6:19:41 AM

That's right. Intel will be pushing dual core all the way down to Celeron now. Sounds like no more single cores at all. Kinda sad about that. Anyway, here's how the Celeron sizes up: 800Mhz bus, 1.6GHz, and 512KB SHARED L2 (i.e. 256KB per core). Now, we'll REALLY see how well Conroe can perform in the absences of L2 Cache. From 4MB L2 to 512KB. That's 1/8th the L2 cache of a fully-fledge Conroe. Wonder if it will outperform a Pentium D 805?

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20071011171900...

More about : dual core celeron

a b à CPUs
October 15, 2007 8:01:47 AM

Nice that they kept the 800MHz bus, it wouldn't have surprised me if they had dropped that.
October 15, 2007 8:23:00 AM

its just rename of the same stuff
Related resources
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2007 8:29:17 AM

With less cache.
October 15, 2007 2:46:46 PM

as Randomizer said, these are not rebadged pentium dual cores, they're even worse. According to the article, there's no indication that Intel will drop Pentium Dual Core, so these are expected to slot in price-wise at even less than the price of the Pentium Dual Cores. Prices may be as low as $50.
October 16, 2007 8:31:22 AM

Never mind their cache, let's see how they clock!
October 17, 2007 4:35:05 AM

Crippled Conroes.

October 18, 2007 2:50:33 PM

Stick with the single core. The older Celeron D 365, for instance, is a mean little beast when it is overclocked(5+Ghz easily). It's functionally identical(or too close to call) to an original Northwood P4. Just, you never got any Northwood to 5Ghz.

Splitting the 512MB cache between two slower processors is just asking to turn the thing into a nice multimedia device. Certainly not anything that you would use for gaming.

And, yes, the older 360/365 run very well for gaming as long as you are only doing one game at a time.(no online chat or email or whatnot at the same time)
October 18, 2007 2:55:11 PM

Gah... they wanted to get away from the pentium name, but yet they keep the celron name. Kinda makes me wanna puke.

But then both company's coming out with new names for new products to sell or advertise their CPUs weally makes me wanna puke.

I mean there's plenty of letters left in the alphabet. :lol: 
October 18, 2007 9:06:00 PM

I've been doing some speculating on the performance of this new Celeron chip:

In single threaded applications, it should perform exactly the same as the Celeron 420, putting its performance roughly equivalent to that of the AMD Athlon64 3000+ (1.8 GHz), or a 3GHz Pentium 4.

In multithreaded programs it's not so simple, but we can look at the performance of the Pentium E2140 as a guide. The Pentium e2140 at 1.6GHz on average performs largely the same as a 1.9 GHz Amd X2 3600, so it stands to reason that this new Celeron will be slower than any of AMD's dual core offerings thus far. Although, on a clock for clock comparison, the new Celeron will probably be at least the same performance per clock as AMD's X2 (which would mean approx. 20% drop in performance from Pentium E2140, in reality I'm guessing it'll be closer to about a 10-15% loss).

So, where does the performance stand in multithreaded applications? Well, since it will most definitely be slower than AMD's slowest dual core, we have only Intel's Pentium D line to compare it to. Back in the day it was shown that an AMD X2 3800 landed somewhere in the perfermance range of a Pentium D 930 to 940. The X2 3600, being slower, lands between a Pentium D 920 and 930. With the 805 bieng the slowest dual core yet made, the question is, will the new celeron faster than the Pentium D 805? I think yes, but not by much. Going by the above comparisons, I'm guessing the new Celeron will perform almost exactly the same as a Pentium D 820, which only performs about 7% better than the Pentium D 805 on average. It won't be a barn burner, but it should make even the lowest end machines powerful enough to do almost anything.
!