<!–#set var="article_header" value="Accelerating Celeron:
Available At 1.8 GHz Now” –>
Accelerating Celeron: Now At 1.8 GHz
It’s only a few weeks ago that Intel released the renewed Celeron at 1.7 GHz, performing the transition from socket 370 to socket 478. Doing that, Intel has now switched its whole processor product line to the Pentium 4 architecture. So how does the newcomer compare to established budget processors?
Intel is embarking on a strategy that focuses all efforts onto one product line: that is obviously the Pentium 4. Thanks to Celeron with Willamette core, Pentium 4 with Willamette and Northwood cores and Pentium 4 Xeon for socket 603, Intel offers a wide product range, both in terms of price and performance.
On the first view, the new Celeron 1.8 GHz does not seem to be necessary, as the fastest Duron only runs at 1.3 GHz. However, reality is quite different, as you could see in our review of the Celeron 1.7. In some benchmarks, the Willamette core comes out as a loser when comparing performance with the clock ratio. However, 1.7 and 1.8 GHz, respectively, are still enough to outperform both Duron and the ‘old’ Celeron with the Tualatin core in several benchmarks. Yes – only in some of them. That’s why there is a call for action and why the next versions at 1.9 and 2.0 GHz should still be released this summer. So far, the 1.8 GHz version comes at an attractive $103 per 1,000, leaving the price for the 1.7 GHz version untouched.
Inside Celeron: Nothing New
As already explained in the initial review, the core corresponds pretty much to the Pentium 4 Willamette, which has been available since the introduction of socket 423.
- 100 MHz quad-pumped Front Side Bus (= 400 MHz), providing 3.2 GB/s
- High clock speeds (1.7 GHz, faster versions to follow)
- 1.75 V core voltage
- Socket mPGA478
- 128 KB full speed L2 cache
- Instruction Trace Cache
- Rapid Execution Engine
- SSE2-Instruction Engine
As always, the multiplier has been locked by Intel, making Front Side Bus overclocking the only workable way of overclocking the Celeron. Different from former Celeron generations, the 1.7 and 1.8 GHz versions are no longer very suitable for hardcore overclocking. One reason is certainly the Willamette core, which is produced in 0.18 µm rather than the 0.13 µm of the predecessor Celeron Tualatin.
As you may know, former Celerons were usually based on advanced CPU cores, enabling overclocking of up to 50% (e.g. Celeron 300A at 450 MHz, Celeron 566 MHz at 850 MHz). That’s over for now. The maximum you can reasonably get out of your Celeron 1.7 is 2.26 GHz (running your motherboard at 133 MHz); unfortunately, our sample did not want to run faster than 2 GHz (119 MHz x17).
So, overclocking is really only a nice add-on, but not a buying argument for Celerons any more. At least not right now…
Architecture Diagram Of The Celeron Willamette
We already published this diagram twice. However, as it also applies to the new Celeron, here it is again for your reference.
Please see the initial Pentium 4 review for more details on the Willamette core, or our review of the Celeron 1.7 GHz for some more information.
The Main Competitor: AMD Duron… or Athlon?
AMD’s Athlon XP series: slowly but surely, the lower-clocked versions have become competitors to Intel’s Celeron, as well.
Whilst the battle at the low-end of the computer market was usually fought between AMD Duron and Intel Celeron, today there is another enemy for Intel. Due to the fact that AMD is going to phase out the Duron processor, the slower versions of the Athlon XP (Palomino or Thoroughbred core) will be the new budget processors. The reason for this move is primarily a cost calculation: having only one processor line reduces manufacturing costs.
Duron / Celeron Comparison Table
| Processor | Duron 1.3 GHz | Athlon XP1500+(1.33 GHz) | Celeron 1.3 GHz | Celeron 1.8 GHz |
| CPU core | Morgan | Palomino | Tualatin | Willamette |
| Production process | 0.18 µm | 0.18 µm | 0.13 µm | 0.18 µm |
| CPU Platform | Socket 462 | Socket 462 | Socket 370 | Socket 478 |
| CPU Front-Side-Bus | 200 MHz double-pumped | 266 MHz double-pumped | 100 MHz | 400 MHz quad-pumped |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 128 KB | 32 KB | |
| L1 Cache Access | CPU clock | CPU clock | CPU clock | CPU clock |
| L2 Interface | 64 Bit | 64 Bit | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| L2 Cache | 64 KB | 256 KB | 256 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 clock | CPU clock | CPU clock | CPU clock | CPU clock |
| L2 Cache range | 64 GB | 64 GB | 64 GB | 64 GB |
| Architecture and Memory | ||||
| Memory Type | SDRAM, DDR-SDRAM | SDRAM, DDR-SDRAM | SDRAM, DDR-SDRAM | SDRAM, DDR-SDRAM, RDRAM |
| Memory Clock | 133 MHz | 133, 166 MHz | 100 MHz | SDRAM: 100, 133 MHzRDRAM: 400 MHz |
| Chipsets | VIA KT133A, KT266, KT266A, KT333/ASiS 735, 745ALi Magik 1Nvidia nForceAMD 750 and 760 | VIA KT133A, KT266, KT266A, KT333/ASiS 735, 745ALi Magik 1Nvidia nForceAMD 750 and 760 | Intel 815EPTVIA Apollo 133/TApollo Pro 266/TSiS 633/635T | Intel 850, 850EIntel 845/DIntel 845E, 845GSiS645/DXVIA P4X266/A, P4X333 |
| Extended Instruction Sets | ||||
| MMX | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 3D Now | Yes | Yes | no | no |
| 3D Now+ | yes | Yes | no | no |
| SSE | Yes | Yes | Yes | yes |
| SSE2 | No | No | no | yes |
| Electrical Data | ||||
| Multiprocessing | no | Yes (Athlon MP) | no | no |
| Core voltage | 1.45 to 1.75 V | 1.75 V | 1.30 to 1.65 V | 1.75 V |
| Power (max.) | 43 W | 60 W | 29 W | ~ 61 W |
| Amperage | 47 Ampere | 34 Ampere | 50 Ampere | ~ 50 Ampere |
| Thermal diode | yes | Yes | yes | yes |
| Protective Circuit | no | No | yes | Yes |
| Price | $ 84 | ~ $ 115 | $ 74 | $ 103 |
Test Setup
| System Hardware | |
| Processors | Intel Celeron 1.2 GHz, 1.3 GHz Intel Celeron Willamette, 1.8 GHz (unlocked) AMD Duron 1.3 GHz |
| Motherboards | Asus TUSL2-C, i815EPT chipset (Celeron Tualatin) ABit BD7, i845DDR chipset (Celeron Willamette) ABit KR7A, VIA KT266A chipset (AMD Duron) |
| RAM | 256 MB PC133 SDRAM, CL2, Infineon 256 MB PC266 DDR-SDRAM, CL2, Corsair Micro |
| Hard Drive | IBM DeskStar 60 GXP, IC35L04040 GB, 7,200 rpm, 2 MB Cache |
| Common Hardware | |
| Network Adapter | 3COM 3C905TX-B, 100 MBit |
| Graphics Card | ABit Siluro GF3 nVIDIA GeForce 3, 64 MB DDR-RAM |
| Drivers & Software | |
| Graphics Driver | nVIDIA Detonator 4 Series, V 28.32 WHQL |
| Chipset Driver | Intel INF Update 3.20.1008 Intel Application Accelerator 2.2 VIA 4in1 4.37 |
| DirectX Version | 8.1 |
| Operating System | Windows 2000 Professional, Service Pack 2, SRP1 |
| Benchmarks And Settings | |
| Quake III Arena | Retail Version 1.16 command line = +set cd_nocd 1 +set s_initsound 0 Benchmark Using DEMO001 and NV15DEMO |
| 3DMark 2001 SE | Default Settings, 1024x768x16 |
| SiSoft Sandra 2002 | Professional Edition CPU Arithmetic Benchmark CPU Multimedia Benchmark Memory Benchmark |
| PCMark2002 | CPU and Memory Benchmarks |
| BAPCo SYSmark2002 | Office Productivity Internet Content Productivity |
| Lame | MP3 Encoding, Version 3.89MMX |
| WinACE | 2.11, 178 MB WAV-File Best compression, 4096 KB dictionary |
| Xmpeg 4.5 / Divx 5 Pro | MPEG-4 Encoding DivX 5.01 Pro (YV12) Compression/quality: SlowestData Rate: 780 Kbit Format: 720×576 Pixel@25 fps 150 MB VOB file, no Audio |
OpenGL Performance: Quake 3 Arena
DirectX-8-Games: 3D Mark 2001 SE
MP3 Audio-Encoding: Lame MP3
MPEG-4 Video Encoding: Flask 5.01
SiSoft Sandra 2002 Benchmarks: CPU und Multimedia
Multimedia-Performance: PC Mark 2002
Office-/Internet-Performance: Sysmark 2002
3D Rendering Performance: SPECviewperf
Archiving: WinACE 2.11
Conclusion: Clock Speed Sells
The release of faster Celerons like the new 1.8 GHz version was only a matter of time. On the one hand, the Celeron Willamette cannot compete with the predecessor Tualatin at the same clock speed; that’s why it strongly needs higher frequency to justify its existence. On the other hand, the Willamette core with its 0.18 µm is technically able to run at least 2 GHz (see the Pentium 4).
The transition from Socket 370 to Socket 478 does not only entail better performance, but also reduces system costs considerably by virtue of raising production quantities for motherboards and chipsets. Basic motherboards with e.g. Intel’s 845 chipset or SIS 645DX can be used both for the Pentium 4 and the Celeron, leaving system integrators and customers the full choice within Intel’s portfolio.
In terms of performance, it’s quite a shame for Intel that the Duron 1300 still is able to compete with the 1.8 GHz version. Usually, the Duron is slightly behind, but the professional OpenGL benchmark SPECviewperf 7 in particular attests to the excellent performance of AMD’s little processor. The only benchmarks that are clearly dominated by Intel’s Celeron are the SYSmark 2001, MPEG-4 and MP3 encoding. Obviously, most of these applications require clock speed rather than a sophisticated processor achitecture.
In the end, the statement ‘clock speed sells’ proves to be true. If you had the choice between a system based on AMD’s Duron 1300 and another one with the new Celeron 1.8, what would you buy? Especially for inexperienced users, the clock speed sometimes is the only criterion used to make a differentiation. And in comparison to Athlon XP, many salesmen will tell you that Intel runs at ‘real’ 1.8 GHz, while AMD lags behind. That’s a development that AMD can only correct by releasing new processors whose increase in performance is clear, and with at least the same clock speeds that Intel is running.
