Battling Brothers: Celeron vs. Pentium 4 – THG.RU

<!–#set var="article_header" value="Battling Brothers:
Celeron vs. Pentium 4″ –>

Battling Brothers – Celeron vs. Pentium 4

All hail the Pentium 4! With its high clock speeds, a wide selection of compatible platforms and a dearth of rival AMD models, Intel has successfully defended its title as the champion in the processor business. Now the low-cost Celeron model has joined the party in the lower-clock-speed segment (up to 1.8 GHz), in order to beat out AMD’s models with low prices and high clock speeds. However, in doing that, isn’t Intel competing with its own products?

This question deserves some consideration, as Celeron models have always been based on the latest Pentium technology. Prior to the latest model based on the Willamette core, there was a Celeron based on the Tualatin core and one based on the Coppermine core – both processor types were given more cache and a higher FSB speed, and then marketed as Pentium III processors.

The Celeron Mendocino was a different story, since it was the first mainstream processor to have an integrated L2 cache. Intel’s first attempt to integrate the L2 cache directly into the processor failed, because the sheer mass of processor rejects drove the manufacturing costs for the Pentium Pro through the roof. While its successor, the Pentium II, also had an integrated L2 cache, the same difficulties prevented it from being integrated directly into the processor core. Instead, Intel integrated the processor onto a small circuit board, added memory components for the L2 cache, wrapped it all up in a plastic box, and dubbed it the “Slot 1.” The processor had morphed into a clunky plug-in board that was more expensive than its socket-based rivals.

Once 0.25 µm manufacturing methods were introduced, though, Intel was able to integrate the L2 cache into the core, stepping up performance considerably. The first processor to benefit from this then-innovative technique was the Celeron Mendocino (128 KB L2 cache). It was not until many months later that the second one, the Pentium III with a Coppermine core (256 KB), came out.

Not only did past Celerons have to get by with a smaller L2 cache, but their FSB clock speed was also slower (first 66, then 100 MHz). That’s all changed now, with the latest model based on Pentium 4 architecture. So does that, plus its low price tag, make it a viable alternative to the Pentium 4?

Celeron vs. Pentium 4 – Similarities Galore

The technical details are pretty much the same for both processors. The Celeron supports all the features that Intel boasts in its marketing for the Pentium 4.

The reasons for switching the Celeron over to the P4 architecture are obvious. The low-cost processor now enjoys all the advantages that had previously been reserved for the P4. This includes the same large selection of chipsets and motherboards, and all the technological features – including the fast clock speeds that have proven to boost sales considerably. And the fact that more chips are being produced will also reduce the prices of all the surrounding components.

We’d also like to remind our readers that the performance of modern processors isn’t determined by clock speed alone. AMD processors, for example, clearly out-perform their Pentium 4 rivals that run at the same clock speeds. A Pentium 4 running at 2 GHz is just as fast as an Athlon XP running at 1.6 GHz (2000+). There are differences in each case, depending on the individual application. You’ll get similar results when you compare the Celeron and the Pentium 4.

The Willamette Core – Heating It Up

The Willamette core in 0.18 µm.

Since it was launched, the Pentium 4 (and now the Celeron, too) has been plagued by very high power loss ratings. This is also a problem facing AMD, since its Athlon XP generates just as much heat. A 2 GHz Pentium 4 dissipates up to 75 W of heat – enough energy to light an office. This miniature bonfire remained until the Northwood core was introduced for models faster than 2 GHz, dropping power loss down to 50-65 watts, depending on the model. Of course, Intel didn’t exactly crown itself with glory in the process. These days, the only way to garner praise is to channel all the energy into maximizing performance – but that will probably still be a long time in coming.

Since the Celeron is based on the Willamette core, it needs a powerful cooling system. While the latest batch of Intel processors have a protective circuit that reduces the chip’s clock speed (or even stops the chip) if it gets overheated, this tends to dull the processor’s performance edge. Once the clock speed has been reduced, both the Celeron and the Pentium 4 tend to drag their feet somewhat (see video test in Divx format). And that nullifies the performance advantage the current Celeron has over the Celeron Tualatin, which wasn’t that big to begin with.

Is Overclocking Still the Domain of the Celeron?

Intel has consistently avoided raising the clock speed on the Celeron models too much, as that would undermine its own Pentium products. Since both processor types are based on the same technology, there was always plenty of leeway for overclocking them. For example, by raising the system clock from 66 to 100 MHz, it was possible to run the Celeron Mendocino at an astounding 450 MHz instead of the official 300 MHz – a speed that was reserved for the fastest Pentium II at that time.

The 566 MHz version of the next Celeron model, based on the Coppermine core, was also extremely popular, asit could be overclocked to 100 from 66 MHz, jacking up the processor clock by 50% (850 MHz). Since then, the overclocking features on motherboards have mushroomed in response to the fact that manipulating processor clock speeds has virtually become a national pastime.

The performance of the Celeron Tualatin could be ratcheted up as well. While it was no longer possible to overclock the 1200 MHz model as much, it was generally not a problem to hit 1500 MHz.

It is hardly possible to overclock the current Celeron by more than 25%. The processor core gets hot enough at its normal clock speed, and so it needs a powerful cooling system. In addition, you should be careful when increasing the FSB clock, since it works “quad-pumped.” Many people probably associate “double pumped,” also called “double data rate,” with main memory or graphics memory – this method transmits data twice per clock cycle. “Quad” means that four times as much data is transferred per clock cycle. In order to handle this technology, the hardware needs to be equally sophisticated – thus, many an attempt to overclock motherboards without high-end hardware are doomed to failure.

To put it simply, the Willamette core can’t be overclocked past 2.1 GHz with conventional cooling. The only way to push the envelope even more would be to resort to expensive equipment such as liquid cooling systems, but the performance boost would not justify the extra costs of keeping the processor cool. In this case, your money would be better spent on a fast Pentium 4.

But don’t expect it to get better any time soon, since Intel is planning to use all its available capacity in 0.18-µm manufacturing to produce Celerons. So, look for new models based on the Willamette core to run as fast as 2.0 GHz or more.

Price/ Performance: Celeron or Cheap Pentium 4?

Don’t let yourself be fooled by pure clock speed. In most of the benchmarks, the Celeron lags considerably behind the Pentium 4. The reason is the smaller L2 cache on the Celeron, which has to get by with only 128 KB. The Pentium 4 based on the Willamette core, on the other hand, has 256 KB. But it’s being phased out in favor of the more modern Northwood core – by refining manufacturing down to 0.13 micrometer structures, Intel has managed to squeeze 512 KB L2 cache onto the chip, which is four times the Celeron’s cache. We used the latest Pentium 4 core for the tests in this article.

Test Setup

Benchmark Results

OpenGL – Quake III Arena

Quake III runs much faster on a Pentium 4 than on a Celeron at the same clock speed, since the data being processed can be stored in larger chunks on the Pentium 4’s more massive cache. This makes the Pentium 4 a must-buy for gamers.

3DMark 2001 SE

The 3DMark 2001 is a 3D graphics benchmark that includes both the processor and the graphics card in its measurements. We discovered that the Pentium 4 is a lot more speedy when run together with the test graphics card, a GeForce 3 with 64 MB DDR RAM. Upgrading to a GeForce 4 model (not an MX version, however) would really give a boost to the Celeron system. Gaming enthusiasts should check out which costs less – a Pentium 4 instead of the Celeron, or a GeForce 4 model instead of the GeForce 3 we used.

Direct3D – Unreal Tournament

Unreal Tournament is a performance monster. The game runs faster with a Pentium 4 than with a Celeron operating at the same clock speed.

PC Mark 2002

The applications in the Sysmark 2002 also benefit from the Pentium 4’s larger cache, which obtained better results in the test system.

Data Compression – WinAce 2.11

Despite the very extensive compression algorithms used by standard packers such as WinZIP, WinRAR or WinAce, these programs are very frugal. The Celeron 1.7 is just as fast in this benchmark as the Pentium 4 at the same clock speed.

MPEG-4 Encoding: Flask 5.01

It makes no difference whether you have a Pentium 4 or a Celeron under the hood when processing video streams – the larger cache on the P4 hardly matters.

MP3 Encoding: LAME 3.92

With a Pentium 4, Lame converts WAV music files into compressed MP3s somewhat faster than with a Celeron.

Professional OpenGL: SPECviewperf 7

While the Celeron hasn’t been designed for use with complex 3D software, this professional benchmark is an excellent touchstone for determining what the practical differences are between the P4 and the Celeron. As the results show, though, what this benchmark mostly needs is an extremely fast graphics card. Design Review and ProEngineer are the only applications to benefit greatly from the Pentium 4.

Conclusion – Large Caches are the Secret to Success

Strictly speaking, the Celeron is no great shakes. In fact, there would hardly be any arguments in its favor at all, if it weren’t for its retail price, which, at around $100, makes it a steal.

The big advantage to the Intel architecture based on Socket 478 is, in a word, continuity. The interface was introduced a little over a year ago, and it probably will not change much any time soon. New chipsets that support DDR 333 and DDR 400 are the only things still in the pipeline.

So if you’re planning to upgrade your current system or buy a new one, and are wondering whether a Celeron would be enough for now, we hope that our benchmark tests have helped you make the right decision. In general, the Pentium 4 tends to outperform the Celeron in demanding applications and games. Whether that’s worth the extra money to you, or if you’d rather invest in a larger hard drive or more RAM – depends on the applications you plan to run on your computer.

At any rate, the Celeron is the better choice if you’re planning on upgrading in the next several months. As soon as Intel breaks the 3 GHz barrier, the P4 models in the 2.5 GHz range will become considerably cheaper. It only remains to be seen whether AMD can offer something to compete with the Pentiums by then.