-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Celeron 2Ghz review.. sad.. very sad.
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
MadRat
Lifer
Bingo. The only way that the L2 cache could be so utterly worthless is if Intel also cut its associativity in half, too. NW-Celeron is a crippled P4, not a whole new core. The Tualitan-Celeron was a decent buy, being only slightly worse than the CuMine-P!!! in performance. The CuMine-Celeron was pretty pale in comparison to a full CuMine-P!!!, but it was mainly poor when you scaled the performance by overclocking the chip to P!!! speed grades. These NW-Celerons are showing a real weakness at their stock speeds. Intel would have better served its customer base by crippling them with a turned off L1 cache and leaving the L2 alone!
AMD would be best to rub it in. Heck, at this pace even VIA can rub it in with their Cyrix family!
alkemyst
No Lifer
I am pretty sure they are crippling these chips to discourage overclocking....
The average person looks at speed only so to them (the larger market) these will be attractive and most of these people also fear non-Intel offerings and choose the Celeron because it's a lower price point for equal MHz/GHz.
The performance technical person will see Intel is using a core from a flagship processor and try and clock it higher...so then Intel loses as that person is the type of customer that would spend more for a better chip, but now figured out away around that so Intel loses sales on their higher CPU offerings.
So now Intel really wins across the board....with less cache the chip cost to manufacture goes way down....no ability to get a high performance chip via overclocking, so the high-tech guy will have to choose a Northwood or probably more likely an AMD offering.
The average person looks at speed only so to them (the larger market) these will be attractive and most of these people also fear non-Intel offerings and choose the Celeron because it's a lower price point for equal MHz/GHz.
The performance technical person will see Intel is using a core from a flagship processor and try and clock it higher...so then Intel loses as that person is the type of customer that would spend more for a better chip, but now figured out away around that so Intel loses sales on their higher CPU offerings.
So now Intel really wins across the board....with less cache the chip cost to manufacture goes way down....no ability to get a high performance chip via overclocking, so the high-tech guy will have to choose a Northwood or probably more likely an AMD offering.
Uhhhhh? yes, what did you expect? Forget about the old days where people would buy cheaper celeries and overclock them to compete with its bigger sibling, and in some cases out perform it. Those days are gone, I thought we all knew this at AT?
To be honest, I didn?t think people still bought this processor other then the fact it was bundled with an low-end OEM unit. I hope people at AT aren?t buying this processor? I mean if you want to get technical it actually did outperform the 1600+ in Lame & PC Mark. But I don?t understand what the fuss is about? There is no way Intel will let this processor perform within 30-40% of its flagship P4 processor.
The only reason why Intel is keeping this crippled P4 around is for the low-end market. It?s better to have a hand in it, then it is to not have a hand in it.
Spicedaddy
Platinum Member
Yes, that is the ONLY thing the engineers had in mind the whole time they were designing the P4.
You're not wrong...
The P4 as we know it today was probably never meant to see the light of day. It was a design born of megalomania where the bully Intel had defeated all rivals and had the x86 market to itself. If there is no competition to your product nobody can truly know if you are ripping them off or not.
Fortunately for consumers, AMD didn't die and intel hasn't been able to portray the P4 as all powerful as a result.
Funnily enough, this is the second of two huge blunders I think Intel made.
the First blunder was with the Pentium naming and the legal fights trying to kill AMD off. IMO Intel would have been much wiser to allow AMD to copy the pentium. By doing what they did Intel forced AMD to innovate. Instead of (in consumers eyes) a second rate, knock off supplier of Intel clones you now had a genuine competitor to Intel. Its unlikely AMD would have developed the K5, K6 & Athlon if they could have simply copied intel's designs. Rather than killing AMD, Intel actually launched them.
The second big Intel blunder was racing AMD to 1 gig with the P3. I don't have a clue why they did that. Totally stupid and forced them into reliance on a half baked P4 design.
It all turned out quite nicely from the perspective of an AMD fan however 😀
Greg
I don't even want to see what the CPU would perform like under the chess benchmark. All those branch predictions would eat the CPU alive with such a low amount of cache. I know it's not real-world, but there are definitely branch intensive programs that would run even more pathetically with the Celeron. This coupled with the high latency of RDRAM, or the lower memory bandwidth of DDR SDRAM make for a seriously worthless CPU.
Dulanic
Diamond Member
I see your point... but do you also see mine... it would take a 4-6Ghz Celeron to equal a 1600+ CPU in games... thats just SAD. I can see cripling it... but they just annihilated the performance..... my point is this is a pure marketing CPU, if consumers actually knew a 1600+ AMD performed almost double the 2Ghz Celeron in some games... it would never sell.
deerslayer
Lifer
I bet those Celerons will sell pretty well considering the Mhz-brainwash that Intel (and AMD in some extent) has done to the general public. Most of them will probably be paired with SDRAM to keep cost even more down. I wouldn't wonder when many people would downgrade their 1Ghz-range P3 with those. This extra-slow performance was predictable when P4/NW came out: seeing how much P4 gained from extra L2, it was pretty obvious that performance loss will great when L2 size decreases.
I've never heard a good word about the celerons since AMD went to the socket A format but I've had many celerons since the 300 and still have a couple tualitans and they do the job. I also run a couple XP boxes and they also do a good job all round but I needed a better power supply and cooling for them and the exposed core has always been an amd weakness. That hasn't affected the Intel cpu's and I run my tualitan at 1.466 with a little powerman 250w & retail hs/fan. Dont try that with an overclocked XP!
When you say that the amd XP 1600 beats it, you have to look at the different benchmarks where it doesn't and its a 1900+, not 1600 although I realize it runs at 1600mz. sometimes mz is mz in a bench or program
The celeron isn't placed to compete with the XP and it doesn't, but it does do what Intel built it to do just fine and if mz isn't important, why overclock? Why not compare the duron to the P 4 then?
I'm not into picking sides in the cpu or video wars and try to keep an open mind and get very sceptical about sides being chosen over information.
I still run an nvidia gforce cause it does the 89mz agp bus better than the ati, but I like the performance of my 8500 too.
I read the article and just want to say, read it and keep an open mind.
I think that competition drives innovation and controls pricing so I support amd/intel and nvidia/ati both.
Now I'm going to get flamed by the amd uber alles band!
When you say that the amd XP 1600 beats it, you have to look at the different benchmarks where it doesn't and its a 1900+, not 1600 although I realize it runs at 1600mz. sometimes mz is mz in a bench or program
The celeron isn't placed to compete with the XP and it doesn't, but it does do what Intel built it to do just fine and if mz isn't important, why overclock? Why not compare the duron to the P 4 then?
I'm not into picking sides in the cpu or video wars and try to keep an open mind and get very sceptical about sides being chosen over information.
I still run an nvidia gforce cause it does the 89mz agp bus better than the ati, but I like the performance of my 8500 too.
I read the article and just want to say, read it and keep an open mind.
I think that competition drives innovation and controls pricing so I support amd/intel and nvidia/ati both.
Now I'm going to get flamed by the amd uber alles band!
Woodchuck2000
Golden Member
All very true...
This said, Mr Jones can now get a 2GHz PC for the price of a packet of peanuts. He's not going to know or care that it'd be bitchslapped by a 1.4GHz palomino because for word processing and light minesweeper that's irrelevent. It's a very smart move on Intel's part in dealing with the average consumer.
This said, Mr Jones can now get a 2GHz PC for the price of a packet of peanuts. He's not going to know or care that it'd be bitchslapped by a 1.4GHz palomino because for word processing and light minesweeper that's irrelevent. It's a very smart move on Intel's part in dealing with the average consumer.
Who knows what kind of twisted logic exists in the mind of a marketing executive? All they know is that ghz sells, I doubt they'd give a damn if a Via Epia would blow its doors off. Given the apps most consumers will be running, other than games, it'll be a nice upgrade from a P2-450, even if an AMD system at the same price would outperform it.
The whole scenario is as if car manufacturers had equated engine rpm with horsepower in the minds of consumers- it spins faster, so it's more powerful......
The whole scenario is as if car manufacturers had equated engine rpm with horsepower in the minds of consumers- it spins faster, so it's more powerful......
MadRat
Lifer
Intel should just turn the SSE units off in the P4-Celeron and let everything else remain the same. Without the SSE unit the raw MHz cannot be realized in multimedia processing. But in the case of other areas (i.e. integer, MMX, branched logic, etc.) the Celeron would be just fine. In that way Intel could say its P4 is the multimedia processor and the Celeron as a budget processor.
Hey, thats a brilliant idea, why don't we let the government regulate marketing! Why should evil Intel be allowed to have a marketing campaign that tries to make its products more appealing to comsumers than its competitors?
I'm sure the race to get the P3 to 1GHz had a huge effect on the design of the P4, aside from the fact that a lot of the P4 was designed way before that race even started, and most likely a completely different team of engineers was building it. I'm pretty sure intel got exactly what they wanted from the P4, a chip that can ramp to incredible speeds with fairly linear scaling, a design that excells at the multimedia apps that are the "killer app" for many consumers today, and a chip with plenty of room to grow in terms of features, such as larger caches, and Hyperthreading. I really hate it when people say "intel designed the P4 so they could say they have more MHz!!!" because its so completely untrue, its not even funny.
regards,
Kramer
That wouldn't work. Intel saves a lot of money by not having as much cache on the celeron. A LOT. It's the most expensive part. If they were to leave the celly at full cache and just disable a TINY TINY part of the silicon they it would cost as much to make a celly as a p4.
I'm not really familiar with the manufacturing process of the new celeron vs the p4, but the cores in the older celeron/p3 line were identical, with part of the L2 cache disabled in the celerons. This allowed intel to save some cores with cache defects and market them as celerons. As their yields improved, there really wasn't much to be gained by this strategy, but they did it anyway for marketing purposes. Other than the small % of saved cores, the price of manufacture was identical.
I seriously doubt that it's any different with the p4 line, and is a big part of the reason that slower clocked cpu's overclock as well as they do. The production guys get a quota, and do their best to fill it, trying to get the high end stuff done first. Once that's out of the way, they really don't care what the max speed or max cache of a given core might be- it becomes a celeron. Boss meets quota, maybe ahead of schedule, smiles all around, everybody's happy.
I seriously doubt that it's any different with the p4 line, and is a big part of the reason that slower clocked cpu's overclock as well as they do. The production guys get a quota, and do their best to fill it, trying to get the high end stuff done first. Once that's out of the way, they really don't care what the max speed or max cache of a given core might be- it becomes a celeron. Boss meets quota, maybe ahead of schedule, smiles all around, everybody's happy.
Well you guys need to stop thinking like yourselves...Not everyone gives a sh^t about gaming...Look at my rig. It would destroy a lot of your guys system and I paid very little for it, and I never game!!!!
If I was just into multimedia or joe blow who buys emachines it works..For me knowing I would oc it it wouldn't be bad as the 3ghz celery did beat the 1600+ and even near the 1800-1900 in things I do now...multimedia....
My gripe is the price....on pricewatch the lowest was 123 shipped...ouch I can get that 2.26b in the review for 180 it kills all the amds in the test, ocs like a beast easily to height maybe only getting the 220 dollar 2400+ may get you. For as much neutered as it is, I think 123 is still highway robbery. The POS should only be like 50-60 bucks in my opinion!!!!
If I was just into multimedia or joe blow who buys emachines it works..For me knowing I would oc it it wouldn't be bad as the 3ghz celery did beat the 1600+ and even near the 1800-1900 in things I do now...multimedia....
My gripe is the price....on pricewatch the lowest was 123 shipped...ouch I can get that 2.26b in the review for 180 it kills all the amds in the test, ocs like a beast easily to height maybe only getting the 220 dollar 2400+ may get you. For as much neutered as it is, I think 123 is still highway robbery. The POS should only be like 50-60 bucks in my opinion!!!!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
