Is the 2Ghz Celeron a Northwood based part?

[ai42]

Not 100% certain this is a northwood based chip but it sounds like it, it is a .13 micron part for sure. News report on the 2Ghz Celeron.

Anyway as we all know the Northwood has a 512kb L2 cashe, and the new version has 128kb L2 cashe, so for matrix based calculation numbers are going to take a huge hit compared to the P4. At least as far as I know all previous Celeron lines have basically been the same as the current high end CPU but with 1/2 the L2 cashe ripped off. And this version 3/4s of it has been cut off. Of course Intel could have just moved from the Willamette to .13 micron fabrication but I would imagine there would be signifagant amount of changes that would have to be done and modifying the Northwood I think would be easier.

The good part about it is that less cashe memory means less heat, and theoretically higher overclocks. But could perhaps be the next 300A?

The bad performance will take a fairly signifigant hit.

BTW newegg has these in stock now.

 

[ElFenix]

if its .13 it probably is northy based.

 

[Wingznut]

Yes, it's a .13µ part and therefore based on the Northwood product.

Link

 

[oldfart]

But could perhaps be the next 300A?

I think that spot has already been taken by the P4 1.6A.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: oldfart

But could perhaps be the next 300A?

I think that spot has already been taken by the P4 1.6A.

agreed

 

[MadRat]

I doubt they'd just cut the L2 down to 128k L2 cache unless they had a reason. Must either be due to a differing L2 cache design for the new Celerons or because they've had a glut of bad Northwood parts to get rid of in inventory.

 

[InsaneMorphius]

What in terms of estimates (performance wise) would the 2GHz celly be the equiv to? Say a... 1.6 P4?

 

[ai42]

What in terms of estimates (performance wise) would the 2GHz celly be the equiv to? Say a... 1.6 P4?

Hard to tell, for large calculations like matrixies and what not it will take signifigantly longer due to a L2 cashe decrease. Also I would assume they took out the HyperThreading stuff to save on die (and costs). I think it will be like compareing Intel to AMD processors one might be stronger in one area and weaker in another.

Of course if you can pump the FSB high enough it won't matter the Celeron will win

 

[MadRat]

They drop 10W over comparable P4 parts then they ought to be fielding them at speeds closer to the genuine P4.

 

[Budman]

Originally posted by: Wingznut PEZ
Yes, it's a .13µ part and therefore based on the Northwood product.

Link

By that link is says 1.525 V just like the new 2.8's,why is the voltage that high for just a 2ghz part?

probably will not OC very well if it needs 1.525 just to be stable at only 2ghz.

 

[Rand]

Originally posted by: oldfart

But could perhaps be the next 300A?

I think that spot has already been taken by the P4 1.6A.

IMHO- there isnt a chance in hell this thing will be the next 300A. The celeron 300A at launch was available for around $120 and was a virtual guarantee to overclock to at least 450MHz wherein it was incrementally faster then the Intel's fastest Pentium II 450MHz which sold for around $800.

Even the P4 1.6A is in no way comparable to the incredible deal the 300A offered IMHO, and the 1.6A when overclocked is a damn fine price/performance marker.

Hell, given that the Celeron overclocked to 2.3GHz seems to easily get beaten out by a stock clocked XP1600 or NW 1600 I sincerely doubt that even heavily overclocked it will offer any truely impressive performance levels.

From my point of view, even at 2GHz the current Celeron remains unimpressive. It's performance is almost always easily beaten by 1600+/1.6 P4. Considering the XP 1600+ can be had for comparable prices, and can overclock pretty nicely I'd say it's a FAR better deal performance wise.
It's not exactly an incredibly cool running processor either, the typical 1.6A P4 runs cooler and the XP1600+ is pretty close to the Celeron 2GHz, the Throughbred 1700+ is extremely close.


Frankly I see very little to be impressed with. Unless this think starts routinely overclocking to 3GHz it's performance isnt going to be incredible even given it's budget pricing.
Power consumption is respectable, but there are far cooler processors at reasonable close performance levels and slightly cooler processors at better performance levels.

Unless you almost solely run a small selection of applications that don't need a large memory space to operate within I don't find the Celeron 2GHz to be very attractive at all.