2GHz Celeron - Conclusion

(Page 2 of 2 )

Testing
For testing purposes, I compared the Intel Celeron 2GHZ against the Intel Pentium 4 2.0A (based on the Northwood core) and the AMD Athlon XP2000+.  According to AMD, the XP2000+ is rated to compete with the performance of 2GHZ processors. 

Intel Celeron:  128kb cache

Intel Pentium 4:  512kb cache

AMD Athlon XP2000+:  256kb cache

 

Test System (INTEL)

• Intel Celeron 2GHZ

• Intel Pentium 4 2.0A GHZ

• Abit BG7

• 256mb PC2700 Samsung

• Quantum Bigfoot ATA33 12gb

• ATI Radeon 7200

• Netgear FA311 NIC

• Generic 52x CD-Rom

• Antec SX830

• Raidmax 400watt power supply

Test System (AMD)

• AMD Athlon XP2000+

• Abit KX7

• 256mb PC2700 Samsung

• Quantum Bigfoot ATA33 12gb

• ATI Radeon 7200

• Netgear FA311 NIC

• Generic 52x CD-Rom

• Antec SX830

• Raidmax 400watt power supply

Tests

• 3DMark2001SE w/ patch

• PCMark2002

• SiSoft 2003:  CPU Arithmetic, CPU Multimedia, Cache & Memory

I used a Radeon 7200 instead of a high end video card was to make the 3DMark score completely dependent on the CPU and not the video card.  During testing, all memory settings are set to as low as possible--to obtain highest overclock.  The great performing Swiftech MCX4000 with a Y.S. Tech TMD fan was used on the socket 478.  The good performing GlobalWIN CAK4 with the clear thermal fan was used on the socket A.

Tests were done under Windows XP Professional w/ SP1.

   

Results

Cache results

Intel Celeron:

          

Celeron @ 2GHZ            Celeron @ 2.86GHZ

Intel Pentium 4:

          

Pentium 4 @ 2GHZ         Pentium 4 @ 2.86GHZ

AMD Athlon XP2000+:

          

Athlon XP2000+             Athlon XP2000+ @ XP2200+

 

As you can see from the results that the lack of L2 cache is causing the Celeron a performance hit in PCMark2002.  In overclocking the Celeron to 2.86GHZ, it was barely able to catch up to the Athlon XP2000+.  One thing to note however is that the Celeron was able to perform rather well during integer and floating point calculations.  In fact, it outperformed the Northwood 2A.  This should be because of the new core stepping--C1. Also notice the memory scores dropped when the Celeron was clocked in @3.06GHz. This was because we had to lower the FSB Ratio to accommodate the higher overclock. A higher clock will certainly help CPU scores, but dropping the FSB hurts bandwidth and lowers the Memory score.

---

Overclocking
The Celeron overclocked extremely well.  Using the Swiftech MCX4000 with the Y.S. Tech TMD fan, I was able to achieve a maximum stable overclock of 3.06GHZ (20 x 153).  This is a very nice 53% increase.  This was done with maximum voltage at 1.75v on the CPU, H/W strap set to Low, and DDR ratio was set to 1:1.  Cas setting was set to 2.5-6-3-3. 

          

wCPUid                   Celeron 3.06GHZ

When the Celeron is operating at 3.06GHZ, it is running at blazing speeds.  CPU intensive scores show that it gives highest benchmark.  3DMark, however, shows otherwise.  If you suspected 3DMark2k1 was FSB hungry, this will definitely confirm your suspicions, as you'll see below.

 

---

Conclusion
What can be said about the Celeron other than that it packs a hefty punch for a budget processor.  A quick check on Pricewatch.com shows a rough estimate of about $89.  The Northwood 2A comes in at nearly double the price of around $164.  The cheapest of all 3 CPU's is the Athlon XP2000+ which is about $74.  Users are sure to pick up the XP2000+ because it gives lots of power for such a low price.  I, however, would choose the Celeron 2GHz if I was on a tight budget.  The overclockability and performance is admirable and the stability of the Intel chipsets combined with this CPU would be a great choice for any enthusiast.  AMD users have to deal with VIA's compatibility issues and the tedious task of unlocking their CPU's.  I, for one, try to avoid it.  Although the Celery may lack slightly in gaming performance, it gives users a good bang for the buck in CPU intensive applications such as encoding and file compressions.  Not all hardcore gamers have the need to get a top end CPU to edit photos and mess around with videos.  The Celeron has certainly come back and showed us a little surprise. 

Pros

* Great Price

* Smaller Die size lets it run cool

* Overclocks like a CHAMP!

* Good performance for CPU intensive programs such as compressing files

Cons

* Only has 128kb of L2 cache

* Lack of L2 cache hurts gaming performance

Final Rating:  8/10

 

 

Thanks for joining us here today for the 2GHz Celeron Review. If you would like to discuss this article or any others, checkout the OCAddiction Forums. Or feel free to head back to the front page and checkout other news from top notch hardware websites.

 

DISCLAIMER: The content provided in this article is not warranted or guaranteed by Developer Shed, Inc. The content provided is intended for entertainment and/or educational purposes in order to introduce to the reader key ideas, concepts, and/or product reviews. As such it is incumbent upon the reader to employ real-world tactics for security and implementation of best practices. We are not liable for any negative consequences that may result from implementing any information covered in our articles or tutorials. If this is a hardware review, it is not recommended to open and/or modify your hardware.

blog comments powered by Disqus