Good Old Newbie: Intel's Celeron 1.7 GHz for Socket 478

[MadRat]

I think its a rip. For less money you can run a 1.3GHz P!!!T-based Celeron that burns 1/2 the electricity to do the same amount of work, plus it handles the load smoother with its 256k cache. The P4-based Celeron can overclock to 3GHz but the lack of L2 cache is going to make it stutter worse than James Earl Jones!

 

[WilsonTung]

The P4-based Celeron can overclock to 3GHz but the lack of L2 cache is going to make it stutter worse than James Earl Jones!

Haha you wish! Being built on a 0.18u process I think an OC to even 2-2.2 GHz is a bit too optimistic.

 

[ChefJoe]

My big question is what chipsets does it run on? I've gotten sick of the various chipsets from intel... this is the RDRAM chipset, this one allows SDR and then you'd have to have the latest version of that for DDR. All mid-CPU model name. Lets not even begin to talk about FSBs, CuMine/Tully/Katami/etc. I wish that intel in particular would do a better job at nameing their product lines.

 

[MadRat]

Anand just implied they'll run 2.26GHz. I said 3GHz to exagerate the stuttering they'll have. The P4 is already bandwidth deprived, so I'm sure the Celeron-4 will be worse. If the P4 is 98% efficient with its L1/L2 caches and still is dependent on main memory I can only imagine the C4 will be choking under any load whatsoever, PC1200 or otherwise. AMD can use SDRAM-based boards for comparisons to really drive home the dagger.

Anand-

Please include Celeron-4 benchmarks at stock speeds using SDRAM, DDR200, DDR266, and PC800. If you do an overclocking article I can see the use of DDR333, DDR400, and PC1066 or PC1200. But it would be nice to see reviews of "Intel supported" speeds for stock setups and "overclocked" speeds using non-standard setups. Too many reviews use overclocked rigs to show "stock" performance.

 

[Sid03]

Originally posted by: MadRat
I think its a rip. For less money you can run a 1.3GHz P!!!T-based Celeron that burns 1/2 the electricity to do the same amount of work, plus it handles the load smoother with its 256k cache. The P4-based Celeron can overclock to 3GHz but the lack of L2 cache is going to make it stutter worse than James Earl Jones!

lol, an amd fan selling "1/2 the electricity".

chefjoe, since when is a variety of options such a bad thing?

btw, it'll run on any s478 platform (sdram, ddr, or rdram.)

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: ChefJoe
My big question is what chipsets does it run on? I've gotten sick of the various chipsets from intel... this is the RDRAM chipset, this one allows SDR and then you'd have to have the latest version of that for DDR. All mid-CPU model name. Lets not even begin to talk about FSBs, CuMine/Tully/Katami/etc. I wish that intel in particular would do a better job at nameing their product lines.

It's pretty simple really, i850 and i850e are RAMBUS chipsets, i845 is SDR SDRAM, i845D is DDR SDRAM.... The code names for the chips is really irrelevant, just check cache and bus speed to know if they're what you want.

-Ice

 

[MadRat]

<<lol, an amd fan selling "1/2 the electricity".>>

I am "AMD fan", huh? You obviously have me confused with someone else. I support good products, not companies per se.

"1/2 the electricity" is important. Low cost rigs shouldn't cost more to run than the current P4's. There is a perfectly good reason that Intel sells so many 1U's based on the Taulitan. I wish they'd use the logic for the consumer market and keep operating costs down for budget systems.

 

[Sid03]

"1/2 the electricity" is important. Low cost rigs shouldn't cost more to run than the current P4's. There is a perfectly good reason that Intel sells so many 1U's based on the Taulitan. I wish they'd use the logic for the consumer market and keep operating costs down for budget systems.

then i guess you really dislike the durons and athlons.

come on man... electricity usage is a stretch. especially on a board frequented by enthusiasts with multiple hd's, optical drives, case fans, large monitors, etc. the cpu is of little concern.

 

[AGodspeed]

Originally posted by: Sid03

Originally posted by: MadRat
I think its a rip. For less money you can run a 1.3GHz P!!!T-based Celeron that burns 1/2 the electricity to do the same amount of work, plus it handles the load smoother with its 256k cache. The P4-based Celeron can overclock to 3GHz but the lack of L2 cache is going to make it stutter worse than James Earl Jones!

lol, an amd fan selling "1/2 the electricity".

 

[MadRat]

I do notice how much electricity costs. I've personally stuck with low powered systems rather than scaled the MHz/GHz race to absurdity.

 

[human2k]

Hey if the new Celerons are just willimetts with smaller cache, doesn't that mean that they have better thermal protection than the durons? Woah that only will help intel sell more chips.

 

[Sid03]

I do notice how much electricity costs.

seriously? and you run rc5? 24/7, i presume?

 

[MadRat]

I did a million work units in RC5 and stopped. The cost per month was a staggering $25 extra on the electric bill for the three machines. I am down to a single machine running 24/7 and it costs under $5/month if I do not run RC5. With RC5 cracking it seems to make a considerable difference. After the way the last two years of utility deregulation have really stuck it to us consumers I'm a big proponent of energy savings for PCs in the home.

 

[BFG10K]

Wow, cheaper and faster. Well done Intel.

 

[MadRat]

Something is screwy in that review. Tom has the Celeron 1.2GHz beating the Celeron 1.3GHz in SiSoft Sandra 2002 Pro - Memory Bench - Windows 2000. It was neat to see how he ran the C4 at 1.3GHz-1.8GHz in 100MHz increments. However, he seems to have hand picked a suite of benchmarks that are optimized for the Pentium4 in general. It will be nice to see some different reviews of this chip where the chip actually gets a workout and not just its SSE2 units.

Here's another C4-1.7GHz review: here

It uses Duron 1.1GHz and P4-1.6A to test against the C4-1.7GHz.

 

[Bakwetu]

Looking at Anands review, I do't find the p4 celly to all that exiting, rather the opposite. A xp 1600+ or a 1800+ is a much better buy. Perhaps after adding some more cache and moving to 0.13 it'll get interesting

 

[TheCollective]

Originally posted by: Bakwetu
Looking at Anands review, I do't find the p4 celly to all that exiting, rather the opposite. A xp 1600+ or a 1800+ is a much better buy. Perhaps after adding some more cache and moving to 0.13 it'll get interesting

I agree.

 

[Athlon4all]

Something is screwy in that review. Tom has the Celeron 1.2GHz beating the Celeron 1.3GHz in SiSoft Sandra 2002 Pro - Memory Bench - Windows 2000. It was neat to see how he ran the C4 at 1.3GHz-1.8GHz in 100MHz increments. However, he seems to have hand picked a suite of benchmarks that are optimized for the Pentium4 in general. It will be nice to see some different reviews of this chip where the chip actually gets a workout and not just its SSE2 units.

This is y I have grown to take THG's numbers with a grain of salt. Tom uses for gaming 3DMark 2001 which means nothing, he uses Q3A which means nothing really (although I do wish Anand would use RTCW more often b/c not all games are as intensive as Jedi Knight2 and Comanche 4. And then with Tom's he really don't give a total picture, because he omits other CPU's in the price range (ie the XP 1600+) so, again, this is y I feel THG's numbers should be taken with a grain of salt.

EDIT: As for the Celery, I had very high hopes for this CPU even only on a .18 micron process, and its not that this CPU is poor, its just AMD's pricing. So for me, I still think I'm gonna be recommending XP 1600's or cheaper Durons.