http://techreport.com/review/5159/intel-pentium-4-c-processors
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/722/Intel_Celeron_D_341_vs_Intel_Pentium_4_515___515J.html
The jump from 533 MHz FSB to 800 MHz FSB yielded relatively small gains. The jump from 800 MHz FSB to 1066 MHz FSB yielded even smaller gains. Here you can see that in almost all benchmarks that do not specifically stress the memory subsystem, the FSB speed has a very minimal impact on performance.
In the case of the benchmarks that were provided, however, a 400 MHz FSB Celeron was used in benchmarks that are especially cache-sensitive. Celerons gained a lot more from the transition to Prescott than Pentium 4s did. Once a CPU has enough cache to avoid fetching from RAM constantly and a fast enough connection to RAM to avoid constant saturation of bandwidth, increasing cache/bandwidth isn't very beneficial.
Also, a 15% difference between Celerons and their Pentium 4 counterparts is, in most cases, not very far-fetched. Celerons weren't nearly as "bad" in comparison to "high-end" CPUs in 2003 as they are now.
Take a Celeron G470 and compare it to a Core i7-4970X. The i7-4960X's computational power is (theoretically) up to 10.8 times that of the Celeron G470. During the NetBurst era, a disparity of that magnitude would've been unimaginable.
At that point in time, a Celeron D at 2.13 GHz could be expected to yield roughly 40% of the performance of a 3.8 GHz Pentium 4. The Celeron D launched at a list price of about $49, while the 3.8 GHz Prescott launched at $851. 17 times the price for about 2.5 times the performance back then - now we're looking at an i7-4960X being 28 times the price of a $37 Celeron. The market is far more segmented now than it has ever been.
Facebook
Twitter