Introduction

When we first heard that Intel would be continuing the Celeron tradition with a Prescott based "D" line, we were a little skeptical. When we further heard that the Celeron D would only be getting a quarter of the cache its underperforming Pentium 4 parent has, our eyes widened with doubt. Sure, a bump up to a 533MHz FSB would help, but it couldn't possibly make up for the kind of performance issues that we saw with the Pentium 4 E; could it?

Looking back over the past of couple months, we can almost imagine Intel knowing what everyone was thinking and going along quietly with a little smirk on its face. That's right, our first inclinations that Celeron D performance would be worse than Intel's already atrocious budget performance were utterly and completely wrong.

In fact, the new Celeron D is a big step up in performance over the Northwood-based Celeron.

We've gone from thinking that this would be a quick article on the hastening demise of the lowest value "value" chip on the market to an article about how Intel is taking a step in the right direction, while we are once again reminded that knowing the ins and outs of an architecture is no substitute for performance numbers. Of course, that was the point of requiring scaling graphs and analysis along with our simulators back in Microprocessor Architecture class.

Before getting to the numbers, we'll take a brief look back at what's inside the new Prescott based Celeron, and we'll try to understand exactly what makes Celeron D so special.

UPDATE: When this article was first published, the L2 cache size of Northwood based Celeron processors was incorrect. The information has been corrected, and the article updated accordingly. Thanks to everyone who pointed out our error. We appologize for any inconvenience we may have caused.
Under The Hood of Celeron D
POST A COMMENT

51 Comments

View All Comments

  • 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. Reply
  • 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 ;) Reply
  • 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 !"
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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 =) ) Reply
  • Dasterdly - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    I agree with araczynski, first thing I looked for was a comparison from the prescot/northwood. Reply
  • araczynski - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    throw in perspective by including a couple prescot/northwood scores on the graphs. Reply
  • 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. Reply
  • Marlin1975 - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    Don't forget they were comapring a AMD chip that sells for 20% or more less. And also the the Sempron is AMDs new low line.
    Lets see how Celeron handles the sempron :)
    Reply
  • SDA - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    The hell? An XP 2200+ beating a 2500+ in compilation? I think you might need to rerun that one.. the 2500+ is clocked higher (only 33MHz higher, sure, but higher), it has more cache, and its FSB is faster. AFAIK, there is NO way in which it is worse than a 2200+, so it should not post worse numbers. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now