Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Celeron D Core gets a Speed Boost

CowboyNeal posted more than 10 years ago | from the new-life-into-old-lines dept.

Intel 173

qtothemax writes "The new Celeron core was released on the 25th. The processor, using Intel's new model number naming convention, looks to be quite a bit faster than the old core. The new core is based on the 90nm Prescott, which offers respectable performance, compared to the very slow Northwood based Celeron. It features a 256kB L2 cache, and a 533mhz FSB. Looks like Prescott's longer pipeline is more then offset by the better branch prediction and most importantly the doubled cache when it comes to the smaller cached Celeron. This Celeron may be able to compete with AMD's offerings based on more then name brand alone. Reviews and benchmarks are at Anandtech. I couldn't find any other good reviews, as budget chips rarely generate much excitement."

cancel ×

173 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Core (1, Redundant)

rfernand79 (643913) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551483)

Is this core closer to the P4 core or a completely different one? I'm not familiar with Intel's current family, but I seem to remember that Celerons were based one on the P2...

Re:Core (5, Informative)

strictnein (318940) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551520)

I'm not familiar with Intel's current family, but I seem to remember that Celerons were based one on the P2

The first ones were based on the P2. Then they based them on the P3. And then the P4. And now this one is based on a newer P4. As any intelligent manufacturer would do, their cheaper product line is simply based upon older versions of their more expensive product line.

Re:Core (4, Interesting)

Orgazmus (761208) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551525)

Looks like its close to the P4, like the old cellies were P2's with less cache, and then the coppermine cellies with P3 cores.

Remember my old cellie 633 running rock stable at 950 mhz :D

Re:Core (2, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 10 years ago | (#9552550)

More to the point, the oldest celerons were P2s with no L2 cache and only the usual (pitiful) amount of L1. Later celerons that got (128kB of) L2 cache had the cache running at full speed and so for tight loops they could execute faster than a P2 of the same clock rate, which had half speed cache.

Incidentally AMD had some interesting cache speed stuff going on then as well. Systems had either half speed or third-speed cache memory on them, the 700 MHz being the last unit with half speed and the 733 and up having third-speed. Hence a 700 was usually faster than a 733 under load.

Re:Core (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9551529)

They're based on the P4 core. Celeron just means the budget range and is usually a cut down version of whatever Pentium is out at the moment.

The first Celeron was based on the Pentium II and then it went to Pentium III cores and finally Pentium 4 cores.

Re:Core (2, Interesting)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551577)

In every case, with every Celeron I've ever worked with, I've found "regular" (i.e. non-crippled) chips running anything near half of the Celeron's posted speed, to be far far more capable.

I'd rather be running an old PIII coppermine, or tualatin than any Celeron p.o.s. I've never seen any use for them except to snare uneducated consumers.

Re:Core (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9551729)

Moderators like this are starting to severely piss me off.
Core (Score:0, Redundant)
on the first post. Moron. Replies are all positive mods so maybe this mod is just an idiot who needs to lose his mod status?

What's The Point? (1, Offtopic)

monkeyman_67156 (571036) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551491)

Does anyone at slashdot actually use a Celeron, rather than, say, some variant of an Athalon XP?

Re:What's The Point? (3, Informative)

mOoZik (698544) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551535)

It gets me when people write "Athalon" instead of "Athlon." Is it so damn hard?

I still use the Celeron, because at the time, it was a good option. It is perfect for an average PC for an average user, but the prices on the ATHLONS have fallen so much so that it wouldn't make sense to get a Celeron.

Re:What's The Point? (2, Interesting)

GreatDrok (684119) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551642)

My father-in-law is still using a dual 400Mhz Celeron BP6 based system. I set it up as his NFS/YP/SMB server recently as it had been gathering dust for a while. Turns out that it is really snappy (running RH8 with yum updates via fedora legacy). A pair of 400s in a server seems to be quite nice compared with a single 800Mhz processor.

Ah, the BP6, those were the days :-)

Re:What's The Point? (1)

prescot6 (731593) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551806)

It gets me when people write "Athalon" instead of "Athlon." Is it so damn hard?

I still use the Celeron...

I think you mean "Celron"...

Re:What's The Point? (1)

Tiggan (581390) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551917)

I suppose you were trying to be funny, but you missed. According to Intel, it's Celeron.

On another offtopic note, the word is THAN, not THEN. Why is that one so hard for people to get right?

Re:What's The Point? (0, Offtopic)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 10 years ago | (#9552044)

Even more so, WHY do people insist on correcting spelling, especially on the internet? If we did the same for grammer, both typed and spoken, all we would be doing is having flame wars about it. You KNOW what he meant... so leave it at that.

Re:What's The Point? (3, Funny)

Enigma_Man (756516) | more than 10 years ago | (#9552188)

GRAMMAR :D

-Jesse

Re:What's The Point? (2, Insightful)

callipygian-showsyst (631222) | more than 10 years ago | (#9552333)

Yes! I use Celerons when I need to put a rack of 1/2U machines up to serve web pages. As long as I can keep the ethernet adapter saturated with a good server like thpptd, there's no need for a faster or more expensive processor.

Re:What's The Point? (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551635)

Well the Celeron M's are pretty good, but really they are a totally different product, just witht he Celeron name for some reason.

Of course we use Celerons. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9551997)

The Tualatin-core Celerons from 1.0 thru 1.4GHz with 256k cache were some of the best bang for the buck processors in that clock speed range for Linux servers. They overclock quite nicely too. I'm running a pair of servers based on these chips that cost me only about $100-150 per server to build. And that was with brand new compact micro-ATX cases too! They made for me the perfect "server appliances" to be my Internet firewall, web, email and general purpose fileservers.

Celeron 2.6GHz (5, Informative)

strictnein (318940) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551493)

What Anandtech's review really seems to show is what an absolute piece of shit the 2.6GHz celeron was. In most of the benchmarks it was beat by the 1.6GHz Duron for fuck sakes. It was also beaten by a P4 1.8GHz, which wasn't too suprising, and even an AMD Athlon 1700+ (which runs at 1.47GHz - we're talking a 1.13GHz gap here).

Of course, last time a celeron interested me was when the good old Abit BP6 board [firingsquad.com] was out.

Re:Celeron 2.6GHz (3, Insightful)

Orgazmus (761208) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551545)

The cellies lost their value when P3 became outdated.
The Celerons with coppermine cores were kinda fun ;)

Re:Celeron 2.6GHz (1, Interesting)

FuzzyBad-Mofo (184327) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551630)

Last fall I was checking out a notebook with a Celery 2.x GHz chip in it. The damn thing couldn't even play a Divx-encoded movie fullscreen without stuttering like crazy. Pretty pathetic for any chip over 1 GHz. (Hell, even my P3 650 does better)

Re:Celeron 2.6GHz (2, Insightful)

Fweeky (41046) | more than 10 years ago | (#9552211)

Sounds more like a graphics driver problem than anything CPU related. Pathetic, yes, but not (just) because of the CPU.

Re:Celeron 2.6GHz (1)

FuzzyBad-Mofo (184327) | more than 10 years ago | (#9552320)

It was a CompUSA "special" de jour and I'm sure it either had a crummy graphics board, driver issue, or both.. We were looking for a notebook to replace my sister's ailing Acer, and I hastily steered her away from this lemon. It's good to try before you buy. :)

Re:Celeron 2.6GHz (1)

magarity (164372) | more than 10 years ago | (#9552507)

Last fall I was checking out a notebook with a Celery 2.x GHz chip in it. The damn thing couldn't even play a Divx-encoded movie

If you were testing it in the store, keep in mind that the default install from the factory will have absurd amounts of preinstalled software, all of which is set to 'fast start' mode where it's already running. So that laptop might not have been as bad as you think.

Celeron 2.6GHz (better oveclocked) (5, Informative)

IYagami (136831) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551644)

You can find a very good review at

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/cel er on-d.html

. They show that a Celeron D overclocked to 3.8 Ghz (yes, really) can outperform even a Pentium4 3.2E (Ok, only sometimes ;-) )

Sorry about my english

But they run cooler (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9551767)

The Northwood based Celerons were perfect for low powered reliable integrated solutions.

Re:Celeron 2.6GHz (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9551791)

Agreed. I sell computers for a living and I seem to spend all my time explaining to people why an Athlon 2.0GHz (2400+) out performs the Celeron 2.6GHz.

Intel's insanely high clock frequencies with comparably lower performance are slowly driving me mad from people with questions about the competing Athlon models.

Perhaps I should just raise my prices, use shitty mainboards, less RAM, less HDD space, shared onboard graphics and install 3.2GHz Pentium 4's in all my computers. The scary thing is they'll probably sell better. :-/

Re:Celeron 2.6GHz (4, Insightful)

afidel (530433) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551878)

Not only that but the Prescott P4 2.4Ghz is only $10 more than the Celeron 2.8, and the P4 part will wipe the floor with the Celeron even giving up 400Mhz. The worst thing you can do to a P4 core is make it stall waiting for reads, and quartering the cache is guarenteed to do that, so why anyone would consider the Celeron for anything other than a web browsing box I can't fathom (and even then you would have to be stupid to use the fastest part).

Re:Celeron 2.6GHz (2, Insightful)

sglane81 (230749) | more than 10 years ago | (#9552229)

When trying to teach people about computers, I think it's best to use analogies from things they have at least a partial understanding of. When it comes to CPUs like the Celerons vs P4s, I use the analogy of a Formula 1 car to a school bus. I make it quite clear both vehicles run at the same speed (top end and acceleration). Considering this, you can move more people in the bus than the F1 car. Everyone I've talked to understands this. When it comes to stuff like ports (as in TCP and UDP), I use the analogy of a house with windows and doors.

Re:Celeron 2.6GHz (4, Insightful)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 10 years ago | (#9552078)

While that is pathetic, most people who buy a computer with a Celeron in it probably wouldn't notice much of a difference. Even a 1GHz processor is enough for what most people do - web browsing, word processing, listening to music, playing solitaire, etc.

Re:Celeron 2.6GHz (1)

BigBir3d (454486) | more than 10 years ago | (#9552105)

the 2.x gen celerons were for people like me... sales drone working at a small office. i don't need high video playing capabilities... as long as i can use word, excel, mozilla firefox, setiathome, norton anti-virus and our accounting app, i am good to go. plus they were cheal dell bpxes with good warranties. if i wanted performance i would have gotten us P4's or AMD's nicer stuff.

frist psot (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9551494)

Oh damn. I need a dictionary!

my god (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9551670)

YOU
SO
FUCKING
FAILED
IT!

why do you even bother?

Re:my god (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9552428)

Dunno. Is that what your mom said as well?

In Other News... (5, Funny)

Apocalypse111 (597674) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551498)

...AMD has recently announced that they will be producing a dual-processor board for its own low-end CPU's. Computers built with this hardware will specialize in playing 80's MP3's.

They're calling it the Duron-Duron.

Re:In Other News... (0, Troll)

Orgazmus (761208) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551572)

They're calling it the Duron-Duron.

That line kinda gives away the joke, but its sorely needed when you look at the slashmods :p

Re:In Other News... (5, Funny)

PD (9577) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551591)

That line kinda gives away the joke

Rather typical of punchlines, wouldn't you say?

Re:In Other News... (1, Offtopic)

Orgazmus (761208) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551722)

Well...
A really good joke is only funny until someone tells you why ;)

Re:In Other News... (4, Funny)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551741)

They're also announcing a monster 5-processor workstation board, to be called the Pentathlon.

Re:In Other News... (2, Funny)

Luveno (575425) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551825)

I bet you've been saving that joke for the right occasion for a loooooooong time.

Re:In Other News... (1)

Phurd Phlegm (241627) | more than 10 years ago | (#9552071)

I bet you've been saving that joke for the right occasion for a loooooooong time. Probably since 708 B.C. [modern-pentathlon.com] , hmm?

Re:In Other News... (1)

Apocalypse111 (597674) | more than 10 years ago | (#9552251)

No, I've only been holding on to that one for about a week, since I read it on bash.org [bash.org] .

Market Statistics (4, Interesting)

artlu (265391) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551509)

Does anyone have a good website which outlines just how many low-end processors are sold every year? From my POV, I cannot understand how the low-end processors survive. Granted, they use less power for mobile applications, but I would rather spend an extra $30-$50 on a processor then most other components of the system.

Or is it all just marketing?
Aj

GroupShares Inc. [groupshares.com] - An Interactive Stock Market Community

Re:Market Statistics (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9551561)

Its all the P.O.S. Hp's and compaqs that keep celerons going. I see celerons all the time and its usually the PC's that make me want to rip my hair out. XP is just not made to runs on a celeron with 128 megs of ram.

Re:Market Statistics (3, Insightful)

Zorilla (791636) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551609)

It seems the usual OEM tactic is to put together a really fast-looking PC and then put a Pic N' Save version of a current generation video card in - one that will be outperformed by a previous generation card that costs less and has more features. A lot of the Dells I've seen recently had GeForce FX 5200s in them, for example.

Re:Market Statistics (2, Insightful)

mattyrobinson69 (751521) | more than 10 years ago | (#9552301)

whats wrong with the GeForce FX 5200? what would you recommend from nvidia, for the same price range?

Re:Market Statistics (2, Insightful)

Zorilla (791636) | more than 10 years ago | (#9552420)

Although I have no firsthand information about it, the comments I usually saw about it showed that it was outperformed by the Geforce4 Ti 4600. It also seems to be the OEM card of choice. Previous cards I usually saw in OEMs included the Geforce2 MX and RIVA TNT2 M64, which were also budget cards.

It's probably true that the performance of the 5200 wasn't neutered as much as it was the case in earlier generation. I don't really think there's anything "wrong" with the 5200, but I very much disliked the TNT2 M64, especially when I saw it get outperformed by my Voodoo 1 (in games that weren't 3dfx biased, like Unreal).

If I turn out to be right about the performance, perhaps the price for a GeForce4 Ti 4600 is less?

Bad Moderation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9551661)

Why was this post modded down? It is a perfectly valid post with a valid opinion.

Re:Market Statistics (2, Informative)

Zorilla (791636) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551576)

I cannot understand how the low-end processors survive.

Several years ago, it used to that Celeronswere known for their great overclocking capability, although I doubt that's as much the case anymore. When you could get a 20% speed boost, it was worth it. Now, it seems to be more economical to just buy a higher rated processor than to spend even more money on a water cooling system, since that's the kind of effort it takes.

Re:Market Statistics (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551684)

Of course, the water cooling system will last through several computers (well, except for the waterblock if the shape/size/attachment mechanism of the CPU changes)

Re:Market Statistics (4, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551835)

The original 300MHz Celerons were very overclockable. Intel had a much higher yield than they expected, and most of them could run at 450MHz with no extra cooling. The same thing happened with the AXIA T-Birds (Athlons), where the 1GHz version could be pushed to 1.33GHz (again, with no extra cooling). The yields on 90nm chips are such that this kind of thing probably won't happen again for a while.

Re:Market Statistics (4, Interesting)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551648)

with a celeron big names like compaq & etc can build a box that's both cheap and has a 2.8ghz sticker. who cares about what the box can do, it's 2.8ghz baby!

another reason is that they're good enough for office work by a wide margin.. and cheap..

Well, think about who buys them... (3, Insightful)

sirGullible (750869) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551668)

Not everyone is a geek, and i know plenty of non-geek regular people buy Celerons. From any, say...Best Buy ad, you can see cheap celeron based pc's aimed at families buying their (possibly first) computers. All they need is to browse the internet, listen to some mp3's, instant message, and thats about all. Celerons can accomplish that. They don't really care about overclocking or playing doom 3 or benchmarks or much of that. Also, dell likes to use celeron processors for its lower end systems, so i'm sure dell contributes alot to that.

Re:Well, think about who buys them... (1)

mattyrobinson69 (751521) | more than 10 years ago | (#9552340)

i have a mate who's starting a higher ed computing course next year with me - he bought a dell because the box was black (he liked the box!) and he bought a 2.1ghz celleron (roughly). He recons its "shit-hot" because its 2.1ghz.

also, he runs windows XP with no firewall and suprise suprise, port 25 is open.

he makes me doubt the 'higher' part of higher education.

It's accumaltive not just CPU (1)

msgmonkey (599753) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551710)

When putting together a PC based around a budget CPU most PC builders also go for a slightly lower spec'd mother board, memory, hard drive, graphics card, etc.

Eventually that $30-$50 saving becomes $150-$200.

THAN god dammit! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9551748)

Twice by the submitter and now this.

Why can't you people tell the difference between than and then?

Re:Market Statistics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9552058)

good job amd fanboy. p4 celerons cost less than half of a regular p4. since most people don't need all the fancy things the p4 has, a celeron is just perfect for them.

celeron's are terrible (2, Informative)

wyldeone (785673) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551511)

Never will buy another celeron, having had some very bad experiances with them. If you want a good, cheap proccessor it's always better to go with AMD, becuase their Duron series is much better than the celeron series.

Re:celeron's are terrible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9551527)

Care to explain?

Re:celeron's are terrible (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9551552)

Mod insightful and shut your piehole, slashbot.

Re:celeron's are terrible (4, Informative)

Bishop (4500) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551935)

Start reading here [anandtech.com] or here [tomshardware.com] , and be enlightened.

From a December 2003 article [anandtech.com] :

When we can find a 1.6GHz Duron for just over half the price of a 2.6GHz Celeron and get better performance consistently in almost every test we ran, the choice is clear.

Re:celeron's are terrible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9552062)

That doesnt explain the "bad experiences" the original poster talked about.

Re:celeron's are terrible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9551932)

I really don't think this is flamebait. Whats up with the moderators & their negative mod crusade today? Someone piss in your cornflakes? This is NEWS...not censorship. Read the damn moderator guidelines.

Re:celeron's are terrible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9551970)

Well, I would agree with you but this person didn't bother posting any sort of evidence to back up his claims, hence flamebait or troll would be more than appropriate.

Re:celeron's are terrible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9552312)

You shouldn't have to evidence facts. Just don't mod up then if it irks you, but stay off the fucking troll/flamebait buttons.

Re:celeron's are terrible (1)

sirGullible (750869) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551953)

well, you don't even have to buy a duron.
IIRC, some of the athlons are competitively priced against the celerons.

Editing baron (-1, Offtopic)

consolidatedbord (689996) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551575)

Prescott's longer pipeline is more then offset

...more than offset...

Duron's success (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9551640)

Budget chips CAN create excitement. At least they should. I remember when Duron was a new thing. I bought the 750MHz model and got 1/3 to 1/2 more speed with the same amount of money..

I was really suspicious about the Duron but later on I learned that it was just a rather cool hack at the time. They removed some expensive gate (or something alike) from the cpu and replaced the same function with some very clever engineering.

They gained some speed and lost one of the most expensive parts of the cpu with one strike. Someone else might be able to recall the details better.

Anyways the point is: The fact that it is a budget chip means nothing. Some budget chips can wipe the floor with some more expensive "premium chips" if they fit your application. I am always interested in the budget versions since that's where you see what the basic technology tweaked to maximum can do.

Budget chips are also a huge market since lots of embed stuff and alike (terminals etc) will in time utilize that. Many people also want to read their email and do their banking and do not care wether it takes 3.5 or 3.2 seconds for the page to render.

Re:Duron's success (2, Insightful)

Neil Watson (60859) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551728)

It is also important to note that the average user would not notice any difference between the performance of a budget vs a premium CPU. How much speed does one need to send an email to mom?

If you are buying 300 PCs for an office and can save $20 each buy buying a Celeron or Duron that makes you look good.

Re:Duron's success (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 10 years ago | (#9552130)

if it takes 3.anything seconds to render a page you need to put away your TRS-80 and get a new machine

Submitter is Intel fanboy? (5, Insightful)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551643)


This Celeron may be able to compete with AMD's offerings based on more then name brand alone

Ummm.. what? The fastest $117 2.8ghz celeron got the shit kicked out of it by a lowly $55 Athlon 2400XP. Who in their right mind would buy one of these chips? I guess if you really want SSE3 or the only game you play is Quake3 it's a good deal, but otherwise there's no point.

Re:Submitter is Intel fanboy? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9551702)

>Who in their right mind would buy one of these chips?

people who don't visit slashdot? people who's never heard of AMD? and believe me, there are many of them out there.

i'd bet that you yourself own many, many things of which there are cheaper and better alternatives than what you have - and you bought what you bought because of lack of research, reliance on brand names, indifference, etc. the same can happen with the general public when it comes to computer chips.

Especially when... (1)

artemis67 (93453) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551706)

that same $117 will buy you an Athlon XP 3000, why even both with Celeron?

Re:Submitter is Intel fanboy? (1)

Too Much Noise (755847) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551798)

I guess if you really want SSE3 or the only game you play is Quake3 it's a good deal, but otherwise there's no point.

Actually, SSE2, too - AthlonXP has only SSE. However, these being budget chips, you really shouldn't care too much about SSE stuff.

the outstanding question is what happens to the Durons next?

Re:Submitter is Intel fanboy? (4, Interesting)

Neil Watson (60859) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551803)

There are many vendors and buyers out there that honestly believe that one should only buy Intel as AMD is unstable. I once had a vendor tell me that. I asked them to cite proof of their claim. They could not.

Re:Submitter is Intel fanboy? (3, Interesting)

biz0r (656300) | more than 10 years ago | (#9552103)

I had a friend of mine that has consistently told me this...or rather he 'warned' me and cautioned against using them in my servers at work. Well thats interesting as I've got SEVERAL AMD machines that have been up for almost 2 years now (running linux, of course). And the only reason any of them ever get shutdown is for hardware failure (I should note I never have had a CPU related issue) or a kernel update that I just can't avoid.

Re:Submitter is Intel fanboy? (4, Funny)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 10 years ago | (#9552139)

There are many vendors and buyers out there that honestly believe that one should only buy Intel as AMD is unstable.

Well, Intel has been making x86 CPUs since 1978, but AMD didn't start making them until 1979. Obviously, AMD has had less time to iron out any stability problems with their products.

Re:Submitter is Intel fanboy? (4, Funny)

Tenebrious1 (530949) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551813)

Ummm.. what? The fastest $117 2.8ghz celeron got the shit kicked out of it by a lowly $55 Athlon 2400XP. Who in their right mind would buy one of these chips?

That "Intel Inside" sticker on the case is worth $62... I hear it adds 50 gigahorses of torque to the hard drive.

Re:Submitter is Intel fanboy? (1)

Epistax (544591) | more than 10 years ago | (#9552255)

I hear it adds 50 gigahorses of torque to the hard drive.

As a former Intel intern I can vouch that what this man says is completely true.

Re:Submitter is Intel fanboy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9552527)

no but i bet it gives it a killer refresh rate..

Re:Submitter is Intel fanboy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9551819)

Ever stop to THINK that maybe the submitter was referring to budget chip offerings from AMD? NOT the Athlon that you make reference to? Who the crap modded this AMD fanboy insightful? BTW I've been buying AMDs exclusively for my last 3 machines so I'm not just exchanging 'fanboy' flak.

Re:Submitter is Intel fanboy? (1)

ImpTech (549794) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551822)

Well, 'got the shit kicked out of it' is a bit of a stretch. The 2.8GHz did compete well in at least half the tests. Of course, one can't help but notice that the fastest Athlon tested was the 2600+. My suspicion is that if you throw the 2700+ and 2800+ into the fray, the picture will look quite different for the Celeron D. And since you can get either for less than $117, I can't imagine why they weren't included except to skew the results.

Oh, and I was amused to see my lowly 2500+ come out on top in several of the tests, it being only a $75 processor these days. AND they typically overclock to 3200+ (2.2GHz) quite nicely.

Re:Submitter is Intel fanboy? (1)

line.at.infinity (707997) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551965)

Who in their right mind would buy one of these chips?

I am thinking of maybe buying the Celeron that is being mentioned in the article. Lower cost ($65-ish as opposed to the $117 Celeron that you mention), lower energy consumption than Athlons, plus my current CPU sucks. Then again my PC with the slow CPU is only being used for bittorrent leeching/seeding so maybe an upgrade isn't really necessary.

BTW, Intel's celeron d page is here:
http://www.intel.com/products/desktop/proce ssors/c eleron_d/

Re:Submitter is Intel fanboy? (5, Interesting)

qtothemax (766603) | more than 10 years ago | (#9552097)

Disclaimer: I'm the submitter. I AM NOT an intel fanboy. If I was going to buy a budget processor today it would DEFIATELY be an Athlon. I think a new processor core is always somthing that should be discussed on slashdot. Also, Intel is moving in the right direction by not screwing people who buy Dell and nothing else, or don't know better and think AMD is crap. My girlfriend wants to buy a laptop, and when I told her to get an AMD she kinda sneered because it isn't the intel she is used to. Funny thing is that her desktop is an AMD K6-II, but she doesn't even know it. Like it or not the vast majority of people who don't know better have NO IDEA that the celeron sucks comapred to the Athlon, and that the intel chip is more expensive. This is at least a break to everyone out there who would buy a celeron over an Athlon just because of the vision that intel is the "trusted name brand." Think of it like toothpaste or somthing similar. Do you read up on toothpaste before you go to the store and buy it? I seriously doubt it, but I guarantee there is a dentist somewhere who is seriously pissed off about Crest's poor quality. Most people just want a computer that works, and they buy Intel, because that's what they had before, especially in the budget PC market, just like probably >90% of you just buy the same brand of toothpaste you always get. Woulden't it be nice if they improved Crest with really not much reason to do so, since you're going to buy it anyway? So consider this new celeron as less of a screwing of budget PC buyers, who generally have no clue what they are getting. People who actually follow processor preformance can probably scrape together the extra $100 to get an Athlon64. I personally would still definately go with AMD, but I woulden't have to get in a fight with my GF anymore if she insists on getting a Dell with a celeron in it. I would actually almost consider myself an AMD fanboy, but I found this interesting, and see it as intel throwing to bone to the ignorant.

Re:Submitter is Intel fanboy? (3, Interesting)

qtothemax (766603) | more than 10 years ago | (#9552179)

One more point: I thought it was an interesting oddity that the Prescott architecture actually IMPROVED preforamance by a decent margin in a Celeron, while it caused a slight decline in the P4. It shows how the preformance gain from cache really is logarathmic, more then offsetting the preformance loss of the extra pipeline stages. Intel just made an interesting statement about the P4 extreme edition.

Re:Submitter is Intel fanboy? (1)

the quick brown fox (681969) | more than 10 years ago | (#9552477)

who is seriously pissed off about Crest's poor quality

Submitter is Colgate fanboy?

Re:Submitter is Intel fanboy? (2, Insightful)

teg (97890) | more than 10 years ago | (#9552129)

Who in their right mind would buy one of these chips?

End users buying the CPU itself (a very minor part of the market)? Not at lot. As part of a system? Quite a few more

One reason is that Dell, the #1 PC manufacturer only ships Intel. And their systems are usually priced pretty competively, at least if you want to use quality components. For companies and non-techies, reliability, support and other parts of the "total" package adds up to be far more important than a few percent performance they wouldn't even notice.

Also, I'd take Intel chipsets over Via or SIS anyday. Nvidia can be painful too, they don't even have an open networking driver (although a reverse engineered one exists for at least the NForce 2).

Re:Submitter is Intel fanboy? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 10 years ago | (#9552520)

I used to feel the same way about VIA chipsets as you do but they really have improved dramatically. The rule used to be never use a first-generation VIA chipset, but I know several people who have done just that and with good results.

Incidentally SiS is making very nice chipsets now. I have an Athlon XP system with one of their higher end chipsets (with the MultiOL PCI) and I think it's fantastic.

Also released: (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9551654)

Intel has announced their new Xeon line will now incorporate an additional 4 hamster bus. The Xeon line is well known for having quick hamsters parse data in a quick, while adorable manner...

Nice (5, Insightful)

marnargulus (776948) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551680)

A speed boost is always nice, but is it really necessary? I think faster RAM would be a better advance, and faster bus speeds for harddrives as well. While the processor might be able to handle more data, we still are having trouble getting data there in the first place. Bring on the 2 gig on-die cache where I run all of my current apps and OS straight on the proc. That is what I'm looking forward to.

I don't understand... (4, Interesting)

The Hobo (783784) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551776)

From TFA:

Holding in the middle of the pack is definitely not a disgrace for these budget processors.

I don't understand, a chip that costs less, has more cache, and has been a proven good chip (the Athlons) beat this new processor which is considered budget...
I myself bought a Duron 650 3 years ago, it lasted me that long. When my PSU died, I decided to upgrade to a 2500+, and left my old computer alone. Last Christmas I went home and set up some new Dell PCs my family bought with 2.4 Celerons, and just from watching a fresh install of XP running (which is usually fast) I almost swore that the 2.4 Ghz Celerons were slower than my rebuilt Duron 650 Mhz, and this is without benchmarks.. it probably wasn't 'factual' by a stopwatch's perspective, but it shows just how bad these chips inherently are.

Re:I don't understand... (2, Insightful)

Cat_Byte (621676) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551979)

With less than 256M of RAM, XP *will* run that slow. I don't know how much RAM they had, just a thought to keep in mind.

Flappers (1)

bobblebob (758047) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551814)

The core is now going to extent the XPTS subsystems of FLAPPER. This has to be a good thing for page swapping as the registes will now be as fast as a ferrit.

SPEEK NGLESH?? (0, Troll)

xgamer04 (248962) | more than 10 years ago | (#9551967)

Do Slashdot editors feel the need to edit submissions at all?

The new core is based on the 90nm Prescott, which offers respectable performance, compared to the very slow Northwood based Celeron.


This needs to be "Northwood-based." The way you state it, dear qtothemax, will have less intelligent parsers thinking the Northwood core is slow, which it is not.


Looks like Prescott's longer pipeline is more then offset by the better branch prediction and most importantly the doubled cache when it comes to the smaller cached Celeron.


This is not a sentence. Also, it's than.


This Celeron may be able to compete with AMD's offerings based on more then name brand alone.


Please use the word THAN.

Wow, twice burnt in one paragraph, (1)

an0nymous (790179) | more than 10 years ago | (#9552304)

but at least (s)he gave an accurate warning on the newsworthiness of the review.

Re:SPEEK NGLESH?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9552334)

yes, i also felt this was a great oversight on the part of kbn!

Co34 (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9551992)

to keep up as implem3ntation to

NX command in the Celeron? (4, Insightful)

BLKMGK (34057) | more than 10 years ago | (#9552016)

AMD is putting the NX processor command into it's low end CPUs, I didn't see any mention of this in the article. Does anyone know if Intel is following suit with it's low end CPUs? Anyone tested the effectiveness of the NX command on an AMD CPU with Linux or the beta SP for XP? IMO if it's as good at stopping overflows as claimed this could provide a competitive edge to the company that has it if the other doesn't....

"Budget chips rarely generate much excitement" (1)

an0nymous (790179) | more than 10 years ago | (#9552033)

Blunt warning from the submitter and yet SD editors consider this 'News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters'? Maybe SD management should reconsider their audience, and reword their mission/logo statement, from "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters" to "Sometimes News for Nerds but at all times stuff that generates a lot of traffic."

Speed Bump, er B oost. (2, Funny)

ayeco (301053) | more than 10 years ago | (#9552098)

See, it's called a "speed boost", not a "speed bump". The Celeron is a Pentium witha speed bump built in.

then vs. than (1)

hshana (657854) | more than 10 years ago | (#9552306)

C'mon people, it's not that hard. Hate to be the grammar Nazi, but the poster did it several times...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?