The New Generation Is Here: Celeron 2.0 GHz, with 0.13 µm – THG.RU

<!–#set var="article_header" value="The New Generation Is Here:
Celeron 2.0 GHz, with 0.13 µm” –>

The Artist’s New Clothes: Celeron 2 GHz Put to the Test

It was only six months ago that Intel extended its processor family with the addition of the Celeron for socket 478. This move means that the Pentium 4 and Celeron processors are once more based on the same architecture. There is already a general overhaul underway since all future models, starting with the current 2 GHz model, will be based on the Northwood processor core. Its benefits lie in lower power consumption and higher attainable clock speeds.

As a result, the Celeron is once more taking up a position that every previous generation has made really popular: thanks to the use of the latest processor technology, the current model is extremely easy to overclock – so far, this property has been missing for Celeron models running at 1.7 and 1.8 GHz. In addition, the Celerons are a lot cheaper than Pentium 4 models running at the same speed.

But the 2 GHz Celeron also fulfills its purpose within normal operating parameters: this low-cost model now makes it possible to produce extremely cheap systems, boasting an impressive clock speed of 2 GHz, even if the performance of such systems still falls far short of that of a Pentium 4 or an Athlon XP.

In technical terms the new Celeron does not represent an extraordinary leap forward. The real change that has taken place compared with the previous model comes down to the replacement of the processor core: here, instead of the Willamette, the Northwood is now used, which also lies at the heart of all Pentium 4 CPUs of 2 GHz and over.

In order to evaluate the new processor we compared it with both its predecessors and with several Athlon models. AMD has already given up the Duron processor for reasons of cost, so the slower Athlon models are the new competitors for the Celeron.

The Architecture of the Celeron

Pentium 4 architecture is a fixed constant in the processor sector. In this respect, therefore, only the most important features are listed:

• 100 MHz quad-pumped Front Side Bus (= 400 MHz), 3.2 GB/s
• 1.7 GHz, 1.8 GHz (0.18 µm), 2.0 GHz (0.13 µm)
• Socket mPGA478
• 128 KB L2 cache with full processor speed
• Instruction Trace Cache
• Rapid Execution Engine
• SSE2-Instruction Engine

The following articles contain more detailed information on the architecture of the Pentium 4.

Intel’s New Pentium 4 Processor

Intel Beats AMD To 2 GHz

Celeron: How the Models Size Up Against One Another

The Celeron family is noted for its confusingly large number of models. Whereas the first Celerons (Covington) could be had without an L2 cache in 266 or 300 MHz versions, the next generation entered the fray with the L2 cache (Mendocino core), starting from 300 MHz. It was at this time that the change from slot 1 to socket 370 took place, so you had to be very well informed in order to make sure that you were not buying the wrong model. It was possible to overclock some of these processors by up to 50%, so you could operate most of the 300 MHz Celerons at 100 MHz FSB x 4.5, instead of the usual 66 MHz x 4.5, which raised the speed to what was at the time a formidable 450 MHz.

Celeron: How the Models Size Up Against One Another, Continued

The Coppermine core then moved in at 533 MHz and brought with it a veritable flood of models. Intel managed to extract up to 1100 MHZ from this core technology, bringing a total of 14 processors onto the market and causing confusion primarily among private customers, since it was often not clear to the non-techie which processor worked at which FSB speed.

The Tualatin core gave a new lease on life to the Pentium III architecture. With 512 KB cache and various improvements, the Tualatin was able challenge the Athlon. The Celeron also benefited from this core, albeit with only 128 KB cache, and also with only the usual 100 MHz FSB instead of a possible 133 MHz. But Intel was concentrating all its efforts on the Pentium 4 – knowing very well that the route via the highest possible clock speeds could ensure domination.

The 2 GHz Celeron is essentially similar to the 1.7 and 1.8 GHz models, only the structure has been reduced to 0.13 µm. As a result the operating voltage falls to 1.5 V.

Celeron vs. Pentium 4: David vs. Goliath

From right to left: Pentium 4 2.26, Celeron 2.0, Celeron 1.8. It is impossible to differentiate between the different CPUs without the writing on the top.

Our test results leave little room for uncertainty. Despite the changeover to the Northwood core and a cool 2 GHz, the Celeron still falls way behind Pentium 4 models in most benchmarks tests. The differences are obvious: 128 rather than 512 KB L2 cache, and 400 rather than 533 MHz FSB clockspeed trim down the Pentium 4 architecture so much that the performance of the 2 GHz processor can only be described as adequate.

Celeron vs. Athlon XP: Same Conditions, Astonishing Results

In the coming months, Intel’s new 845PE, 845GE and 845GV chipsets will flood the market, and also enable support of DDR333. But in the low-cost sector economy is of prime importance, so for the tests we went back to DDR266 (CL2).

We “doctored” the AMD system in the same way. It is true that most home users would equip their systems with DDR333, but this would not reflect the picture in the market for complete systems. DDR266 remains the standard specification.

Once more Celeron fails to impress; in almost every discipline the Athlon XP takes a handsome victory, despite the considerably lower clock speed. The floating-point-intensive SPECviewperf is a discipline in which the Athlon excels.

Overclocking: Celeron at 3 GHz

This is how it might look – a 3 GHz-Celeron. But, unfortunately, this picture is just photomontage.

This is certainly the most important piece of news to come out of our tests: yes, the new Celeron once more comes up with the goods that users have expected ever since the appearance of the first Celeron: up-to-the-minute technology, a good price, and the capacity for overclocking until the cooler fins are red-hot. We managed to run our test model with no difficulty at 2.66 and even 3 GHz – even without having to use a particularly efficient cooler.

But because Intel locks the multiplier in the factory (in this case limiting it to x20), overclocking is only possible by increasing the FSB clock speed. As the Celeron operates at 400 MHz you really can’t resist the temptation to run it at 533 MHz. Practically all the new chipsets can operate both PCI and AGP at this system speed within the specifications (33 or 66 MHz). Operation successful! In practice, no problems are to be expected; we assume that any 2 GHz Celeron can be operated at 2.66 GHz without a second thought – provided that there is adequate cooling. There can, of course, be no guarantee of this, so you’ll just have to try it out.

We only achieved the leap to 3 GHz by further increasing the system speed to 600 MHz (150 MHz quad-pumped). In fact, no problems arose, but this sort of increase is not to be recommended for long-term operation. Our benchmark section below explains exactly what sort of performance you can expect from a Celeron of this type.

Test Setup

Benchmark Results

Quake 3 Arena

Comanche 4

3Dmark 2001

Sysmark 2002

PC Mark 2002

XMPEG 4.5

MP3 Lame

SPEC ViewPerf

Conclusion: It Promises More than it Delivers

One thing is certain: the Celeron is no longer the hot tip that it used to be, because the entry-level processors from AMD (Athlon XP 1600+ to 1900+) offer more performance for the same money. The Pentium 4 is not even in the running here: the current models are significantly more expensive, but also significantly more powerful than the Celerons.

If all you are looking for is a cheap all-round system, then the Celeron may score some points. Systems with Intel processors still enjoy the best level of support from the industry and benefit from the spotless image of the market leader. However, when buying a computer of this type you really should insist on the 2 GHz model: F for one thing, the performance difference between the Celerons up to 1.4 GHz and the 1.7 or 1.8 GHz models is only minimal – so the 2 GHz model is a better buy. Secondly, the new processor gets nowhere near as hot, and can also be overclocked if required, provided you have a motherboard for 533 MHz.

For the person who really wants to push the processor to its limits: 2.66 instead of 2.0 GHz (533 rather than 400 MHz FSB) should not present any real problems in practice, and can give this little calculating gizmo quite respectable performance. However, this is extremely dependent on the preferred area of application: if you want to compress MP3s or MPEG4 files, the processor speed plays a more significant role than the rest of the CPU architecture. In this context the overclocked Celeron offers an unbeatable price/performance ratio.

Things look very different with 3D games, because the Pentium 4 and the Athlon AP are still clearly superior. For example, when running Quake III and Comanche 4, the Celeron, overclocked up to 3 GHz, is easily beaten by the Pentium 4 at 2.26 GHz.

The conclusion to be drawn is that the Celeron, in its present form, can no longer keep pace with the Athlon XP and Pentium 4 by means of higher clock speeds. The Pentium 4 is considerably faster – but also much more expensive. AMD’s Athlon XP does not, as a rule, cost any more, but offers significantly higher performance in some respects (including with DDR333). Anyone making a carefully considered purchase would be better advised to go for an Athlon XP or a Pentium 4.