Unreal Tournament 2003 Benchmark

Just to keep the DX8 performance page a little cleaner, we decided to give UT2K3 its own page. There is still a good bit of DX7 in UT2K3 code as well, so it's not completely unprecedented.

Anyway, Under the flyby (which is traditionally GPU limited with faster processors), we see the Celeron 335 once again putting in numbers at the top of the heap. The Athlon XP and Celeron D processors are fairly well matched here.

But looking at the Botmatch benchmark numbers tells a different story. We see the Athlon processors sitting well above the Celeron Ds. Of course, the Prescott core processors still hold their own and maintain a position well above the Northwood Celerons. The 20x100 Celeron D has a 14% performance advantage over the 2.0GHz Celeron in Botmatch.

Since Botmatch is more like actual game play, we would expect that the Athlon processors would perform better when actually playing UT2K3.

Unreal Tournament 2003 Flyby

Unreal Tournament 2003 Botmatch

DirectX 8 Gaming Performance OpenGL Gaming Performance
POST A COMMENT

54 Comments

View All Comments

  • 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

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now