Intel Celeron D: New, Improved & Exceeds Expectations
by Derek Wilson on June 24, 2004 3:01 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
The Test
There are a few numbers that we are going to want to pay attention to in the following tests. First, obviously, will be the performance of the Celeron D compared to the Northwood based 2.6GHz and 2.0GHz parts and competing Athlon XP parts. Ideally, we would have dug up a multiplier unlocked Northwood Celeron and ran 2.8GHz, but the performance advantage of both the 330 and 325 over the 2.6 should be enough to show how a 2.8GHz Northwood based Celeron would perform versus the 335.The second set of numbers that we want to look at are our FSB underclocked Celeron D numbers. We ran our Prescott Celeron at 20x100 for a direct comparison to the Northwood based core. With the same multiplier, FSB, and platform, we are able to take a focused look at the Celeron D performance difference due to architecture and L1/L2 size changes in the Prescott core. These numbers will be collected on the first page of benchmarks.
This time around, our D865PERL board could not be resurrected for testing the Celeron D. We had no choice but to retest our Celeron 2.0 and 2.6 on an ABit 865 board (which performs a little better than an Intel D875PBZ). The extra 5% or so performance improvement wasn't enough to help push the Northwood based Celerons out from under the bottom of the pile. Other than that difference, our testing set-up is the same as the one used in December.
| Performance Test Configuration | |
| Processor(s): | Intel Celeron D 335 (2.8GHz) Intel Celeron D 330 (2.66GHz) Intel Celeron D 325 (2.53GHz) Intel Celeron 2.6GHz Intel Celeron 2.0GHz AMD Athlon XP 2600+ AMD Athlon XP 2500+ AMD Athlon XP 2400+ AMD Athlon XP 2200+ AMD Athlon XP 1700+ AMD Duron 1.6GHz |
| RAM: | 2 x 256MB DDR400 @ 2:3:3:6 |
| Hard Drive(s): | 2 x Western Digital Special Edition |
| Chipset Drivers: | Intel Chipset Driver 5.00.1009 |
| Video Card(s): | ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 256 |
| Video Drivers: | ATI Catalyst 3.9 |
| Operating System(s): | Windows XP Professional SP1 |
| Motherboards: | ASUS A7N8X Deluxe ABit IS7 (Intel 865) |
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
54 Comments
View All Comments
DerekWilson - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link
Sorry for all the L2 cache size problems -- and thanks for the support AtaStrumf :-)Still, no excuse. I accept responsibility and appologize for the mistake.
dankim333 - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link
Possible Ad Campaign:NEW! Intel Celeron D: Now with 23% less suck!
AtaStrumf - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link
I guess they're rewriting the article now :) Quite a big mistake with the L2 Cache, but hay, shit happens, no need to shout and yell about it to make yourself feel so much smarter mino.robg1701 - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link
Ah good, I see im not the only one to notice the 'slight' page long error about the old celerons having 256k cache ;)mino - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link
#18 the hell some mispronouncements."with sum BIG mistakes..." should be:
"with such BIG mistakes in every second sentence form Anand !"
mino - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link
PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAASE repair(or better-> REWRITE) that review, since(apartt from benchmark results) I didn't saw an article with sum BIG mistakes in every second sentence!Boys , I'm sorry for U but that Idiot who wrote that old Celeron does have 256k L2 is to be fired uppon !
Not to mention that 2.8Cel D should be compared to AXP2800+ or Semrpon2800+.
About 2500+ slower than 2200+: YES, it is a mistake undoubtedly there some where.
ZobarStyl - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link
Man what a week for Intel; they release all this new high-end stuff that isn't worth jack yet (and is o/c locked), then come out with some actually decent Cellys for the low end. Shoring up the low end but letting the high-end kinda simmer/slack off? Doesn't seem like Intel's style. Also, I wonder if it's almost too late to save the day, as the northwood-based Celerons were horrible and that will hurt that product's image for a while to come (don't forget there are still people who won't buy an AMD processor because of the old THG video =) )Dasterdly - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link
I agree with araczynski, first thing I looked for was a comparison from the prescot/northwood.araczynski - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link
throw in perspective by including a couple prescot/northwood scores on the graphs.tfranzese - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link
If only Intel were pricing these lower than competing AMD parts I might actaully build a system off these, but they'll have to work on that. Not to mention, as others have, the Sempron should be here soon and show improvements to an aging line.