POST A COMMENT

51 Comments

Back to Article

  • JeremiahTheGreat - Monday, July 26, 2004 - link

    I bought a Celeron D 320 (2.4Ghz).. running it at 3.2Ghz as we speak! I know.. why would someone buy it to replace a XP2700+.. and that I cannot answer :) Reply
  • Minot - Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - link

    Has anyone seen these processors for sale? I thought we'd see them available for sale by now. Reply
  • Karaktu - Monday, June 28, 2004 - link

    What's funny about all the hype surrounding the Celeron "D" is that it is no different than what some of us have been doing with Mobile Celeron CPUs for months (except the "D" has SSE3).

    Buy a 100MHz FSB Mobile Celeron, crank it up to 200MHz FSB, and you have a CPU that can hold its own.

    I had a for sale thread awhile back that gives you plenty of info:

    http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=...

    And a screen shot of a 1.6GHz CPU at 2.13GHz (133FSB)

    http://tschidanet.com/forsalepics/213.jpg

    So maybe this is an instance of Intel paying attention to what the overclockers are doing. Then again, probably not...

    Joe
    Reply
  • Spacecomber - Saturday, June 26, 2004 - link

    First off, let me say that I'm a long time fan of AnandTech, so my criticisms are hopefully constructive ones.

    It seems to me that this article suffers from taking something of a cookie cutter approach to reviewing these new processors. In other words, it talks about the processor's new architecture and then runs a bunch of benchmarks with an eye to seeing whether the new architecture actually demonstrates “real world” benefits. This is all fine, but I think the review would have been better if the writer had taken a bit more time to think about what possible interests the typical AnandTech reader might have in this chip. While the article successfully shows how the Celeron D is an improvement over the previous P4 based Celeron, and this is in itself is newsworthy, it still leaves many AnandTech readers with a number of unanswered questions, as they wonder whether this new processor is really something that they should take an interest in.

    You've already seen and noted many of these questions, such as whether this processor can be easily overclocked and how it performs in comparison to other kinds of processors, such as full blown P4's in roughly the same price range as the top end Celeron D.

    Before actually suggesting some questions for AnandTech staff to think about for a potential follow-up article, let me mention a previous Celeron up-date, which has some similarities to this most recent one, the Tualatin Celeron. If you think a bit about what made this processor so interesting, i.e., new architecture allowed for better performance than its predecessor, backward compatibility (including PII motherboards with an adaptor), and easy overclockability on motherboards supporting frontside bus speeds faster than the default speed for this processor, I think you can better imagine some the questions that readers will be thinking about with regard to this latest Celeron.

    So, here are my questions, whether it will overclock has already been asked, but are these new Celerons backward compatible with older chipsets supporting a 533 MHz bus, such as the 850E, E7205, or the 845PE? Does this new Celeron have hyperthreading? How do these new Celerons fit in to some sort of a bang for the buck curve, both at their default speeds and overclocked (assuming that they can be overclocked), compared to other processors?

    I hope this is helpful, and I look forward to your future articles.

    Space
    Reply
  • davidbec - Friday, June 25, 2004 - link

    Since the Celeron D cost abour $117 it would only be fair to include the Athlon XP 2800+ in the review. For reasons or price comparison. The reviewer himself expressed his distaste when resellers charge customers to "upgrade" computers from Athlon XP processors to Northwood Celeron.

    Let justice be done. Let your viewers know the truth. Include an Athlon XP 2800+ in the review.

    In addition, the AXP 2600+ is supposed to match the P4 2.6. To be fair to the less informed viewers include the AXP 2800+ so that Intel's 2.8 chip can be matched with a processor AMD supposed equalvalent. Which is the Athlon XP 2800+

    Otherwise a great review!! Good job.

    D
    Reply
  • Zebo - Friday, June 25, 2004 - link

    We definitely note the request for heat, overclocking, and Pentium 4 Prescott comparisons ...
    ----------------------
    While your at throw a $100 air cooled mobile barton @2600Mhz and watch the beating Intel takes.
    Reply
  • johnsonx - Friday, June 25, 2004 - link

    I'd like to second (or third, or whatever) the call for at least adding a Prescott 2.4A to the benchmark mix. The 2.4A's play in the same pricing ballpark as the higher-clocked Celeron D's, and a certain large chain store often sells a bundle of a P4 2.4A and an ECS i848 board for $120 or $130, depending on the week. That bundle makes the 2.4A cheaper than the cheapest Celeron D (though nothing compared to the XP 2500+ and NForce2 bundles for $70 a few weeks ago!)

    I won't name said store, but just think of the potato-based fat sticks you get with a burger in the drive-thru... (sorry, they're on the west coast and Texas only, though I imagine that other stores in other places offer similar bundles).
    Reply
  • DerekWilson - Friday, June 25, 2004 - link

    We definitely note the request for heat, overclocking, and Pentium 4 Prescott comparisons ...

    We hear your requests, and will look into our review schedule and see if we have room for a follow up.

    Thanks,
    Derek Wilson
    Reply
  • Minot - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    Can we get a comparison of a P4 2.4A (Prescott, 1MB L2 cache, 533 MHz FSB) compared to these new Celeron D processors? Reply
  • Pumpkinierre - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    Yeah, there's something more to this than meets the eye. I dont really follow your cache arguments, Derek (and I'm known not to like caches when they are irrelevant). To me what applied to the P4E applies to the celeron D. Its a pity you didnt throw in a 533MHz 2.8E in your benchmarks. I predicted the Prescott celeron would be a good buy but more on the basis of less heat and better o'clocking. The only conclusion I can come of all this, is the Prescott core is better than we think but the cache structure is the problem. Else they've changed something in the pipeline architecture of these celeron Ds which may have ramifications for later stepping P4Es.

    Reply
  • TrogdorJW - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    #39 - Oh. Dang. Oops. Still, I think I probably would have chuckled more than anything. Who here hasn't made a major mistake at some point in their life? The only problem is that with Internet "publishing", your mistake can be put on the web in minutes rather than days.

    Wonder how many "Flame AnandTech" threads have started up on other hardware forums about the original article?
    Reply
  • TrogdorJW - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    Just out of curiosity, what's the actual transistor count and die size of the Celeron D?

    With the trimmed down L2 cache, that cuts out about 40 million transistors. If they removed dormant 64-bit stuff from the Prescott core as well (or some other unnecessary additions), we're down to almost the same transistor count as Northwood, except with a 90 nm process.

    Even with 75 million transistors, if it still uses 8 layers like Prescott (and not 6 like Northwood), that would put the die size at less than 70 mm2 by my calculations. Yowza!

    Picture this: 70 mm2 die size CPUs on 300 mm wafers. That gives an absolute maximum of 1009 CPUs per wafer, minus those that are on the outer edge (i.e. partial cores). Even with conservative yields of 60%, we're talking about roughly 600 CPUs per wafer. No wonder they're so cheap.
    Reply
  • DerekWilson - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    Unfortunately, TrogdorJW, most of the premise of the original publishing was based around the assumption that the Celeron D was able to out perform its predecessor inspite of having an equal sized cache.

    It was a very large error, and certainly worthy of the outrage people have voiced.

    Thanks for sticking up for us though. And please be assured that we will be much more careful. Again, we appologize for the error.
    Reply
  • TrogdorJW - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    I think some overclocking results are definitely in order, though. Take the Celeron D 325 2.53 GHz part and overclock that to a 166 MHz bus and you get a 3.2 GHz (3.167 GHz) part. It would be interesting to see how that compares to the P4 3.2C and 3.2E - Sure, it will still be (a bit?) slower, but at less than half the cost!

    I'm guessing that a 200 MHz bus is unreachable, as that would give you 3.8 GHz. Then again, from the 915/925 roundup, it seems that 3.8 or 3.9 GHz was reached with many of the Prescott CPUs. Damn... $80 for a CPU that might actually get close to 3.8 GHz!? Either I'm dreaming - entirely possible - or we have a return of the good old 300A overclocking days! Pray for the latter!

    So, seriously, let's have the overclocking results, and compare that to regular P4, Athlon XP, and Athlon 64 results.
    Reply
  • TrogdorJW - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    Mino, considering that you can't even write a single sentence without spelling and/or grammar errors, I would think that calling the article "full of errors" is rather like the pot calling the kettle black. "I didn't intend to make me looka 'smart', nor is my opinion I am." Way to make yourself look even dumber! Granted, I'm looking at the corrected version of the article, but even if I had read it with the incorrect L2 cache size, it's not that big of a deal. (Unless the original article had statements along the lines of, "even with the same size cache the new Celeron D outperforms... blah blah blah..."?) Reply
  • mino - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    #32 actually U are WRONG, fastest BUDGET proc from AMD is AthlonXP 2800+ which compared to Celeron2.8(here in SK called "Zelenina"-> means "vegetable") is like horse to ponny;)

    However Cel. D is welcome improvement from Cel. based on Willys and Northwds. It is however move from near unusability(but like heater they were gut:) to low usability. Improved computing and heating performance is a good sign, especially ina winret nights when tey turn off heating ussually in my work :).
    Reply
  • Xaazier - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    intel must be making these things cheap, 90nm process and only 256kb l2

    also the number of celerons sold in cheap emachines and dells is high right?
    Reply
  • mino - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    #31 Eh, sorry, by "Anand" i meant shortened word "AnandTech".

    My mistake, won't repeat:-).
    Reply
  • mino - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    #21 I didn't intend to make me looka 'smart', nor is my opinion I am :).
    But actually every second to third sentence in this article hurt me. To clarify, I just didn't and doesn't understand how someone who is making such review could make such a mistake, unless he is incompetent. And this fact is NOT good, it is BAD.

    Cheers.
    Reply
  • glennpratt - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    The fastest AMD proc is 2600+/2500+ Kinda lame VS 2.8 ghz Reply
  • Dennis Travis - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    mino, You better read it again, Anand did NOT write the review. Reply
  • Saist - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    Holy.... I just got finished reading the article, and I wonder how the Celeron D @2.6ghz would fare against a 2.6ghz P4, as I already know how an Athlon 2400+ fares against a 2.6ghz.

    Seriously... if these prices are right, I might not have such a big issue building Celeron boxes for people...
    Reply
  • elec999 - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    Almost forgot sorry, hows is the celeron D at intell 2.8gig compare to Intel Pentium 4 -520 and 2.8-GHz. Is the extra cost of the intel p4 at 2.8gig worth it. Reply
  • elec999 - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    I would love to see Celeron D perform against a overclocked amd xp2500+m or better. Also I would like to see how well the celeron D overclocks. Lastly I would like to see some seti per work unit benchmark results. Intel is really showing competition against AMD, it really sucks that AMD is unable to win in the heart of many computer users who are not hardware friendly. Reply
  • Marlin1975 - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    Its still not thet GREAT of a improvemnet when you look at price compared to AthlonXPs for the SAME price, let alone the semprons.


    Could you please update it or do another look and see what the Temps are? Would be nice to see if heat is more from the L2 cache or just the design?
    Reply
  • kmmatney - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    You can by the Athlon Mobile XP 2600+ for $95 at NewEgg, so it would be good to see a comparison between this and the celeron D, especially in regards to overclocking. Reply
  • nserra - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    %23 Sorry about the post, I was typing at the time so...

    It seams that the "future" celeron have 512kb cache when will be based on the 2MB P4. How soon is the P4 2MB cache is to come on the Intel roadmap?
    Reply
  • nserra - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    What a bad review!
    Northwood Celeron has 128kb cache, not 256kb. How can it say the improvements came from L1 cache, FSB and core enhancements? Where are those improvements under prescott p4 vs northwood p4?

    Willamette P4 is a better compare since it's also 256kb cache. (#10)

    What about heat, and thermal dissipation, power requirements, ...

    To notebook systems seam good, price is good.
    For me with these performance improvements is a better buy then P4 systems for offices/corporations, since most of people have their computer to have a picture of their children on the desktop, and a stupid screen saver, and a type writer program, so that will do.

    Really bad review must be offline as soon as possible, or as soon the mistakes are removed.....
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • dankim333 - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    Possible Ad Campaign:

    NEW! Intel Celeron D: Now with 23% less suck!
    Reply
  • 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
  • Minot - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    When are these going to be available? I'm sure I'd still pick an Athlon XP over the Celeron D line, but for competetions sake, it will be good to see a worthy value competetor from Intel in the marketplace. Reply
  • PrinceGaz - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    Yes, Northwood Celerons have only 128K L2 cache while these Prescott Celeron 'D's have 256K.

    You could compare a Celeron D at 20x100 with an original Willamette core P4 2GHz (as they also had 256K L2 and 400FSB) if you wanted to do the comparison between core architecture excluding L2 cache and FSB. The gap would probably be a lot narrower.
    Reply
  • Zebo - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    Typo above: I meant AMD still owns price and performance with a two year old part.:) Reply
  • Illissius - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    Second Yomicron. I was under the impression that Northwood Celeron's have only 128KB cache. (Makes sense, considering each has a fourth of its P4 counterpart.)
    Also, iirc there was something of a price parity between Celerons and equivalently rated AXP's, so while these are certainly improvements (and not small ones either), they still fall clearly behind in price/performance (the 2.8GHz usually lost to the 2600+ as well as a few lower models).
    Reply
  • Zebo - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    AMD will still owns price to performance with thier 2 year old parts and even more so with Semiporn. But this is still wonderful news for 2004 beleaguered Intel. Let's see pricing..should be worth $60-$90 starting. Reply
  • Yomicron - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    I think there is a mistake about L2 cache sizes. It says that both the Prescott and Northwood based Celerons have the same amount of L2 cache. However, the Prescott version has 256KB while the desktop Celerons based on the Northwood core only have 128KB. Reply
  • blackarc - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    hmm... if only i could use them in a dual system :D Reply
  • Budman - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    How much does it overclock to?? Reply
  • eBauer - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    I'd be very interested to see overclocked performance between the 335 and Mobile 2600+ Reply
  • MAME - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    HAHAHHA! It's backkkkkkkkkkkk! Reply
  • MAME - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    FYI: Later pages don't load.


    I wonder what the price of these Celerons will be. I have a feeling AMD will still corner the budget market, even without the Sempron's anyway.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now