Celeron 4xx series

[goonting]

with reference from
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/conroe-l-preview.html

Will my intel 915G based chipset accept these processors? It's nice to get rid of my pentium 531....

i hope

 

[InteliotInside]

By the looks of it, no.

These new processors are based on the Core u-arch, so you'll need a new motherboard.

 

[YO_KID37]

You have no Hope, you'll need a New Chipset for Conroe Chips.

 

[goonting]

Why intel has to be this messy.... it would have been great for intel 915G to support it since its single core... it could have been simpler.

 

[jamesgoddard]

It's got nothing to do with the chipset - it will be the VRM on the motherboard that stops you using this CPU

 

[m25]

with reference from
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/conroe-l-preview.html

Will my intel 915G based chipset accept these processors? It's nice to get rid of my pentium 531....

i hope

Very interesting stuff; as it seems, these will remain the only single core Intel chips in production. Good performance, however, clock/clock, the performance of a Core2 seems to drop to an Athlon64 level with only 512K of L2. This way they will still mix up with K8 Athlons and the name 'Celeron' won't help them for sure.

 

[zornundo]

Holy budget single-core Batman! Now if the bottom end celeron can oc to 3ghz, then bam!!! Not a bad budget monster machine at all! I'd like to see a full review of power consumption and temperatures.

This just punches tom's in the face! You listening, tom's? You just got scooped!

Quit posting sh*t about cars and post the good stuff!!!1

edit: now all that's needed is a full-blown shoot-out of all newer stuff on the market from both sides. A new 2007 cpu charts!! You listenting, Tom's??/

 

[runswindows95]

Not bad for $60!

 

[m25]

Not bad for $60!

Taking into account that ACTUALLY, the a X2 3600+ sells for $65 on newegg :roll:
with all the price drops to come, that thing should be priced at least $10 lower.

 

[r0ck]

X-bit has been on a roll lately.

 

[runswindows95]

True, but someone who wants to upgrade to a Core2Duo later one, it's not bad in that case.

 

[qcmadness]

Very interesting stuff; as it seems, these will remain the only single core Intel chips in production. Good performance, however, clock/clock, the performance of a Core2 seems to drop to an Athlon64 level with only 512K of L2. This way they will still mix up with K8 Athlons and the name 'Celeron' won't help them for sure.

I don't think so
I think the Conroe-L still has about 20% IPC advantage over K8.

 

[joefriday]

Taking into account that ACTUALLY, the a X2 3600+ sells for $65 on newegg Rolling Eyes
with all the price drops to come, that thing should be priced at least $10 lower.

I think you mean the Athlon64 x2 3600+ OEM sells for $65 on newegg. Try adding the price of a heatsink to that please. Better yet, why not just link the retail boxed Athlon64 X2 3600+ for $89? :lol:

On the only benchmark that I could easily cross reference (3d Mark06, CPU), the new Celeron D 4xx 2.0GHz part scores the same as the Athlon64 3500 for socket AM2, which is a 2.2GHz part. I predicted in the Pentium E2140 thread that the new Celerons would easily battle against the highend semprons and low to midrange Athlon64s. With a TDP of only 35 watts for the new Celerons, I'd say that the performance/watt of AMD's entire single core EE lineup has been superseded, and that the performance of the entire Sempron lineup made inferior. Just check prices for retail boxed Athlon64s and Semprons at newegg to see how price competitve these new Celerons will be.

 

[1Tanker]

Taking into account that ACTUALLY, the a X2 3600+ sells for $65 on newegg Rolling Eyes
with all the price drops to come, that thing should be priced at least $10 lower.

I think you mean the Athlon64 x2 3600+ OEM sells for $65 on newegg. Try adding the price of a heatsink to that please. Better yet, why not just link the retail boxed Athlon64 X2 3600+ for $89? :lol:

On the only benchmark that I could easily cross reference (3d Mark06, CPU), the new Celeron D 4xx 2.0GHz part scores the same as the Athlon64 3500 for socket AM2, which is a 2.2GHz part. I predicted in the Pentium E2140 thread that the new Celerons would easily battle against the highend semprons and low to midrange Athlon64s. With a TDP of only 35 watts for the new Celerons, I'd say that the performance/watt of AMD's entire single core EE lineup has been superseded, and that the performance of the entire Sempron lineup made inferior. Just check prices for retail boxed Athlon64s and Semprons at newegg to see how price competitve these new Celerons will be.It's beginning to look like AMD will be a "server" chip supplier, with some DT chips here and there. Intel's taking a big bite out of AMD's apple, in desktop, and already owns mobile. Server won't be so easy for Intel....but that doesn't mean anything to me, and half the enthusiasts/overclockers, as well as OEM's selling budget desktops. :|

 

[jamesgoddard]

Does anyone know if this is a single core die - or a C2D with one broken / disabled core?

 

[joefriday]

From the sound of Xbit's article, it appears to be it's own beast.

 

[1Tanker]

with reference from
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/conroe-l-preview.html

Will my intel 915G based chipset accept these processors? It's nice to get rid of my pentium 531....

i hope

No thanx to Intel's let's change chipsets all the time game you can't. You will need a 945,965,975 chipset that supports core 2 in order to use it. That or a Nvidia chipset that supports core 2.In Intel's defense, the 915 is a pretty old chipset...the first LGA775 chipset(a few years old).

 

[qcmadness]

Yea I know but they have changed chipsets often. Look at the Nforce 4 for AMD and how long it has lasted and it still supports current chips and will support the new ones to be released later this year. (The AM2 ones of course )

This is one of the reasons why I hate Intel. :?

 

[jeff_2087]

Yea I know but they have changed chipsets often. Look at the Nforce 4 for AMD and how long it has lasted and it still supports current chips and will support the new ones to be released later this year. (The AM2 ones of course )

I don't get it...

Socket 478 was introduced around August 2001
Socket 775 was introduced around June 2004
New LGA775 for Core 2 were being made summer 2006
LGA 775 will be used with the new chips later this year

Socket 754 was introduced Fall 2003
Socket 939 was introduced June 2004 (AMD used both sockets)
Socket AM2 was introduced May 2006
Socket AM2 can be used with new chips later this year

How is AMD any better than Intel? I'd say they're similar, if the advantage is anyone it'd be Intel.

 

[qcmadness]

Yea I know but they have changed chipsets often. Look at the Nforce 4 for AMD and how long it has lasted and it still supports current chips and will support the new ones to be released later this year. (The AM2 ones of course )

I don't get it...

Socket 478 was introduced around August 2001
Socket 775 was introduced around June 2004
New LGA775 for Core 2 were being made summer 2006
LGA 775 will be used with the new chips later this year

Socket 754 was introduced Fall 2003
Socket 939 was introduced June 2004 (AMD used both sockets)
Socket AM2 was introduced May 2006
Socket AM2 can be used with new chips later this year

How is AMD any better than Intel? I'd say they're similar, if the advantage is anyone it'd be Intel.

There are three versions of Socket 478 boards:
1. 400MHz FSB
2. 533MHz FSB
3. 800MHz FSB

There are three versions of LGA 775 boards:
1. 800MHz FSB / single core (915 / 925 series)
2. 1066MHz FSB / dual core (945 / 955 / 975 series)
3. 1066MHz FSB with VRM 11 / multi core (newer boards, 965 series)

Each time you get an upgrade, most likely the old board cannot be used.

 

[m25]

I think you mean the Athlon64 x2 3600+ OEM sells for $65 on newegg. Try adding the price of a heatsink to that please. Better yet, why not just link the retail boxed Athlon64 X2 3600+ for $89? Laughing

No thanks; I would add this one:
http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=FAN-A4022
Better than the stock one and the total is only $74
Single cores are totally gone. After ALL the price drops will be over (Intel's still missing) and Barcelona is out, there will no (reasonable) price range available for single cores but $45 and below; why spend $60 on a single core when you will probably get a pentium 2xxx series for $70. $20 more while one spends at least $250 on a new, ultra cheap build :roll:

 

[joefriday]

No thanks; I would add this one:
http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=FAN-A4022
Better than the stock one and the total is only $74

:lol: Who do you think you're kidding? Come on m25, unless you live at the distribution warehouse you have to add shipping to that, which turns out to be around $8.24 for the cheapest way! $8.24 for the hsf and $8.24 for shipping, and $65 for the AMD X2 3600 =$81.48.


A new entry level dual core is a better price/performance purchase than a single core cpu such as the $60 top end Celeron, that's not debatable. The deal is, some people want the absolute cheapest computer they can buy. Now Emachines and other vendors have a COMPETENT intel CPU they can place into their low end $300 computers. AMD has had a strong entry level cpu since the k8 sempron. Intel may have arrived late to the party, but at least it hasn't forgotten that there is still a market for single core CPUs (i.e., the stingy bastard market), although Intel themselves project single cores to be only 10% of total sales in the future; in the last half of 2006 Intel already shifted the tide to selling more dual core cpus than single core cpus. The majority of AMD sales are still single core, at least according to the reports early this year, so I would say the market for single core cpus, although drying up fast, is still a very important front of competition where Intel can probably expect to take some market share from AMD.

I know I'd buy one for a silent HTPC. I'm sure I could undervolt the $40 1.6GHz Celeron 420 to around 1.0 volt, dropping TDP another 5 to 10 watts, making it possible to passively cool the damn thing. Business boxes, Internet kiosks...all these things are perfect applications for low watt single core CPUs.

 

[m25]

:lol: OK, OK. I was not saying thy are not a decent alternative, it's only that this is so much Intel style. They could have left 1M of L2 at least for these single cores; die size a bit increased, cost too but they'd have been PERFECT instead of DECENT. Now they're head to head with the A64s while the doubled cache would have given them a healthy 15% extra performance and made them untouchable.

 

[ltcommander_data]

People don't seem to be benchmarking single-core processors anymore, so I haven't seen any recent comparisons, but I'm pretty sure the Celeron 4xx are still comfortably ahead of the A64 and Semprons in it's price range. They are going to be available for between $40 - $60, which means that the current competition is a 1.8GHz Sempron 3000+ with 128k at $41 at the low end. The cheapest A64 is the 2GHz A64 3200+ with 512k at $78. Neither offers any competition to the Celeron 4xx. AMD will obviously be cutting prices, and I don't think the current 128k and 256k Semprons will be viable any longer so they will have to be replaced with current A64s. Probably something at 2.2GHz or higher to properly compete.

In any case, the performance of the Celeron D 365 may be poor, but at 3.6GHz it is actually a fairly new part considering Celeron Ds started the year at only 3.2GHz or something. I'm pretty sure Intel has been releasing new Celeron Ds a lot more aggressivly than AMD has been releasing Semprons, so the 365 may have actually closed some of the gap with the Semprons, which puts the Celeron 4xx's performance in a even better position.

What I found interesting is that the Celeron 4xx is really a pure test of the Merom architecture. It is single core so it doesn't have to worry about multithreading compatibility and skirts the issues of shared cache versus split cache versus internal crossbar for cache coherency, and it has a small L2 cache so there can be no complaints that it's performance is only from having a huge cache. Under these conditions, a Celeron 440 at 2GHz averages more than 20% faster than a 3.6GHz Netburst chip, which is very decent. Granted, the Celeron D Netburst has a smaller FSB and less L2 cache than regular Pentium 4s, but Conroe-L is also clocked significantly lower than Conroe, while the Celeron D 365 is clocked the same as the fastest Pentium 4.

 

[m25]

People don't seem to be benchmarking single-core processors anymore, so I haven't seen any recent comparisons, but I'm pretty sure the Celeron 4xx are still comfortably ahead of the A64 and Semprons in it's price range. They are going to be available for between $40 - $60, which means that the current competition is a 1.8GHz Sempron 3000+ with 128k at $41 at the low end. The cheapest A64 is the 2GHz A64 3200+ with 512k at $78. Neither offers any competition to the Celeron 4xx. AMD will obviously be cutting prices, and I don't think the current 128k and 256k Semprons will be viable any longer so they will have to be replaced with current A64s. Probably something at 2.2GHz or higher to properly compete.

Semprons (higher end especialy) have always been strangely priced above lower end Athlon64s. If you take a look at the prices on ewiz, Athlon64s 3000+ to 3500+ are priced below or around $60 right now:
http://www.ewiz.com/query.php?categry=248&dp=1&dt=&categry=248&categry=248&brand=&pa0=&pa1=&pa2=&pa3=&pa4=&pa5=Socket+AM2&pa6=&pa7=&nl=10&searchStr=Search+from+current+results&ob=a&myanchor=%23displaytop
and they will still drop when Intel releases the new Celerons. That's why they will have all byt an easy life there in the bottom of the CPU spectrum.