DirectX 8 Gaming Performance

Once again, in all but Simcity, the top Celerons take the lead. In Warcraft III, the Athlons have a significant performance advantage over the Northwood Celerons, and the slowest Prescott Celeron has a 5.8% lead over the fastest Athlon.

In looking at the 20x100 Celeron D, we can see that the core and L1 cache enhancements provide a more than 16% performance advantage under Warcraft III. In light of the performance of the Pentium 4 flavor of Prescott, this is simply remarkable.

Command & Conquer Generals: Zero Hour

Simcity 4

Warcraft III: Frozen Throne

DirectX 9 Gaming Performance Unreal Tournament 2003 Benchmark
Comments Locked

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.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now