2.5 and 2.6 Ghz Celerons next month, huh? Lets keep our fingers crossed on performance...

[KDOG]

I really hope they turn out to be good overclockers.... That would be cool. What should we dream for, 3.4, 3.5Ghz?

 

[LouPoir]

Yeah - Celeron 2.0 hit 2.7 to 2.8 easy.

Ya think the 2.6 could go to 3.4???

Lou

 

[Yourself]

Originally posted by: KDOG
I really hope they turn out to be good overclockers.... That would be cool. What should we dream for, 3.4, 3.5Ghz?

More than 128 kb of cache


Self

 

[Malladine]

Celeron's are still being made?!

Why?

 

[Budman]

Originally posted by: Malladine
Celeron's are still being made?!

Why?

Because people buy them.

Joe Shmoe only looks at the MHZ numbers not the benches. :disgust:

 

[Sid59]

lol .. when i see a celeron clocked that high, it just makes me laugh

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

They should step the Celeron up to 256k of cache since they'll be moving to 1 MB of cache with Prescott shortly, assuming this isn't too much of a manufacturing problem.

 

[RyanVM]

What I find funny is that people whine because AMD uses PR ratings (which are usually pretty consistant, sometimes a bit inflated) yet nobody complains that Intel releases crap chips like the Celeron which are clearly being bought solely because they run at a high clockspeed.

It almost makes me wish Intel would use a PR system just to deflate the perceived performance of those chips

 

[Texun]

Originally posted by: RyanVM
What I find funny is that people whine because AMD uses PR ratings (which are usually pretty consistant, sometimes a bit inflated) yet nobody complains that Intel releases crap chips like the Celeron which are clearly being bought solely because they run at a high clockspeed.

It almost makes me wish Intel would use a PR system just to deflate the perceived performance of those chips

Actually, there was an article somewhere on that very fact. I think it might have been in the Inquirer. You and whoever wrote that article hit the nail on the head. They are high speed dogs. After owning two of them I vowed to never have another. Maybe the newer ones are a lot better but I've been hooked twice on the "newer and faster" hype and am not falling for that again. I will admit that it is tempting to see an expensive chip at 2+gig, but then I usually come back to earth when I check AMD prices.

Question: Where did you find AMD PR ratings "a bit inflated?" Sandra is about all I use for that sort of thing and my stock XP1700 had a PR of ~2.0. I know a lot of people don't buy what Sanrda says but is there a more accurate tool for benching PR ratings?

 

[Diable]

A overclocked P4 Celeron in a Shuttle SB52G2 would make a cheap and fast video encoding box.

 

[sharkeeper]

Celeron and performance in the same sentence is oxymoronic, eh?

2.6 GHz Celery = 1.8 GHz NW P4. MAYBE. Give current chip architecture. It's reminscent of buying a Willamette with PC133 SDRAM. A lot of people (Dell suckers!) buy those too...

-DAK-

 

[FearoftheNight]

rather get athlon xp 1700+ than 3.0 gig celery

 

[bluemax]

For people WHO DON'T PLAY GAMES, these CPU's run like a charm! Fast, cool, quiet. If you check out the business side, video encoding, MP3 and all that stuff it does very well. The only place it falls is in heavy gaming.
So gamers buy AMD, non-gamers would do very well with a Celly. What's the big deal?

I guess **all** Ananders are heavy gamers, no exceptions, eh?

 

[McCarthy]

Fast, cool, quiet. If you check out the business side, video encoding, MP3 and all that stuff it does very well. The only place it falls is in heavy gaming.

Looking at the Celeron 1.7review...

Internet content creation, General Usage Performance, 3D Rendering Performance - Slower than an XP1600+ (and it's faster in below as well, but throwing in a PIII for comparison)

MP3 encoding, 3D Rendering Performance, 3D Rendering Performance using SSE2, Next-Generation 3D Gaming Performance - slower than a PIII-1.2

Now that was the 1.7GHz, but the core hasn't changed much, has it?
Quiet is the fan you put on it. My 2700+ has a barely audible Panaflo.
Cool, ok there's a spot it wins against my XPs. Though cooler than a slower P4 (in mhz) that offers the same real world performance?
Fast - well. I loved my Celeron 300A, very much like my Celeron FC-600. But I really don't see any role for the current Celeron with the informed computer buyer. It markets well. It performs...not so well. Buying a lower speed, but equal performer of P4 gives you the same benefits (and same motherboard).

 

[Whitedog]

Originally posted by: RyanVM
What I find funny is that people whine because AMD uses PR ratings (which are usually pretty consistant, sometimes a bit inflated) yet nobody complains that Intel releases crap chips like the Celeron which are clearly being bought solely because they run at a high clockspeed.

It almost makes me wish Intel would use a PR system just to deflate the perceived performance of those chips

Why??? Then a 2.6GHz Celeron would have to be called a Celeron 1800+
That wouldn't sell too many chips...

 

[MrMaster]

Well my company only allow us celerons in our desktops cause they're cheap so just keep cranking up that speed cause when I used a 1.7 celeron with windows xp and 256 mb of ram I was sorely disappointed.

 

[RyanVM]

Originally posted by: texun
Question: Where did you find AMD PR ratings "a bit inflated?" Sandra is about all I use for that sort of thing and my stock XP1700 had a PR of ~2.0. I know a lot of people don't buy what Sanrda says but is there a more accurate tool for benching PR ratings?

Primarily in instances such as content encoding/gaming where the P4 3.0 smacks an XP3000+ to the curb and back - but those types of applications are more driven by raw MHz and memory bandwidth rather than overall efficiency, so it's to be expected.

Also let's not forget the Barton 3000+ vs. TBred 2800+ controversy (where the 2800+ is actually faster in some applications).

Originally posted by: Whitedog
Why??? Then a 2.6GHz Celeron would have to be called a Celeron 1800+
That wouldn't sell too many chips...

Too much wishful thinking on my part I think

 

[Rand]

I wouldnt be terribly surprised if they clocked to 3.2GHz or so reasonably often, though frankly I'd much rather a P4 1.6A/AXP 1800+ or so even then. Neither would need much overclocking at all to outperform the heavioly overclocked Celeron.

Outside of a small handful of applications I find the current Celeron's disgusting.
I'd be much happier if they'd boast them to a 533MHz FSB, and 256K of L2 cache.
At least then they could finally outperform the old Willamette core.

 

[chin311]

Originally posted by: Whitedog

Why??? Then a 2.6GHz Celeron would have to be called a Celeron 1800+
That wouldn't sell too many chips...

lol, yea right, more like a Duron 1.3

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Celerons are for low end people, most of the people at the forums here could survive on a Celeron. But they have their place just like everything else. When people who don't do any games except a few games in flash or shockwave play games, having a 3.2CGhz with DCDDR and a 9800 Pro versus a say... 2.0Ghz Celeron and Intel Integrated Graphics, makes no difference. Also, people that just do some word editing, daily use, reasearch, etc. don't need a Hyper Threading CPU or even an Athlon XP 2000+. They just need something that will deliver similar performance and they get it for a much much lower price.

Also, all the computers at my school except for maybe one of the 8 or 9 computer labs all use Celerons, why? Students don't use them to play Doom III, but just for research. No fast processor needed there I assume...

 

[human2k]

Without the extra cache the Celeron is a slouch compared to the Athlon XP's. Even clocked at 2.7-3ghz it still can't compete with an Athlon XP1700. The new northwood core celey's are still lacking.



Save your $$$ and get a XP1700 and oc' the crap out of it.



Linky of Northwood 2.0 celery @ 3ghz being outpaced by an Athlon XP1600

 

[Cerb]

For people WHO DON'T PLAY GAMES, these CPU's run like a charm! Fast, cool, quiet.

Yeah, except expensive. $70 at Newegg for a 2GHz one. For that I could get a 1700+ and equally quiet HSF for it. Not to mention the 1700+ will meet in office stuff, and beat it in the gaming, making it a more well-rounded solution.

 

[nick1985]

Linky of Northwood 2.0 celery @ 3ghz being outpaced by an Athlon XP1600[/quote]


thats pathetic

 

[kazeakuma]

Originally posted by: nick1985
Linky of Northwood 2.0 celery @ 3ghz being outpaced by an Athlon XP1600

thats pathetic[/quote]


Read on, the celery @ 3ghz outpaces everything else in that bench in media encoding. Look at the whole benchmark before jumping to conclusions eh. Still not a very strong showing but it's not THAT bad, but I still wouldn't but it. It has it's place, even if only to fill in Intel's low end line.

 

[Booster]

2.5 and 2.6 Ghz Celerons next month

And still with only 128KB of cache? Ouch... that's gotta suck. However, I think it's strange they ramp up in speed so quick. The marketing policy I think is that they should be slower than any full featured P4 on the market, starting with 1.3GHz I think. But they're already faster than lower end P4 models and cost less. Why not use 256KB of cache then? So when are they getting 256KB? At 3.5 GHz? Does anyone have any ideas or speculations about that?