Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Intel

The Celeron Casts Aside Its Crutches 113

Posted by Hemos from the let's-see-what-this-can-really-do dept.
A number of people have written in regarding AnandTech's new Celeron 800 review. Why does this one matter? This is the first Celereon to use a 100 Mhz FSB, rather then the 66 Mhz FSB [?] it has been hobbled with - the competition between the Duron and Celeron heats up.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Celeron Casts Aside Its Crutches More

The Celeron Casts Aside Its Crutches

Comments Filter:
  • ...and my submission about Intel and Transmeta teaming up [zdnet.com] doesn't. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

    Uh, Hemos, you need coffee. Like now.

  • Typical slashdot...

    Hey, at least the link works (doesn't it?)


    --

  • Don't you mean AMD and Transmeta? Perhaps Hemos rejected the story 'cause you screwed it up?
  • While getting the Intel Celeron to the 100 MHz FSB is a way-overdue step forward, it still can't compete against the AMD Duron.

    The reason is simple: Duron's CPU core is WAY faster than the Celeron, thanks to the Duron's Athlon-derived FPU unit.
  • It was AMD and Transmeta working out licensing issues for AMD's new technology that is coming out in 2002. It's for their server line of chips. Transmeta will be emulating their new instruction set.

  • Great, 100Mhz. Let's see...my Duron machine is at what again? And then how about my Athlon? Come on, Intel, make at least a significant leap.

  • Does it continue the Intel trend?? (Score:3)

    by James Foster ( 226728 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2001 @05:03AM (#535173)
    But its slower than the 600 Mhz Celeron... right?? Maybe if we recompile all our programs......
  • Sorry. Right, that's AMD and Transmeta. Thanks. When I submitted it, I had AMD though.

    Maybe I'm the one who needs the coffee. :)

  • Hemos, if you post something and have to ask if it matters,... then does it belong on a website which states "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters?"

  • Too little, too late (Score:4)

    by Drakantus ( 226374 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2001 @05:07AM (#535176)
    100mhz FSB, great. Unfortunatly, the duron still runs at 100mhz double-data-rate, or basicly 200mhz. The only thing holding it back (from the "cheap computer" segment) was a good integrated chipset, and they are becomming available right now. Not to mention the insane prices: while the 800mhz part isn't listed on pricewatch yet, the 766mhz celeron is $155. Actually if you search for the 800mhz celeron specificly, you will get two listing: $202 or $204. While at the same time you can purchase a 900mhz Athlon Thunderbird for $137, or a 1ghz for $169.

    Nice knowing you Intel.

  • This will hardly matter.. (Score:3)

    by infernix ( 300990 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2001 @05:08AM (#535177) Homepage
    Although we (as in all hardware geeks) know that the Duron is much faster, I'm sure that the Celeron 800 will still be sold very well. The same goes for the Pentium 4, even though it's clear that the Thunderbird is faster and cheaper on most points.

    Why you ask? Simple. Ask 100 random people what the difference is between Intel and AMD and the majority won't even know what AMD is.

  • Yes, but if you already have an Intel system, this could be a good option. I have an ASUS CUSL2 + celeron 433mhz system and I would probably consider something like this for an upgrade in 3 months or so when the price starts to fall and the availability is better. So anyways, I like my motherboard and really don't plan on changing it for a few years, so something like the duron doesn't work for me

    Now if you're building a system from scratch, this celeron processor doesn't make much sense since according to the article, a duron 600mhz matches the performance of this celeron 800mhz (for q3 at least). The prices on the Duron are much lower as well.
  • He asked WHY it matters!

    --
  • ...is that he splits the article up into no less than 20 parts. What the hell?

    - A.P.

    --
    * CmdrTaco is an idiot.

  • First set of cructhes (Score:5)

    by wmulvihillDxR ( 212915 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2001 @05:15AM (#535181) Homepage Journal
    I'm surprised this article wasn't labeled, "The Celeron Casts Aside its second set of crutches." The first set of crutches for the original Celeron was the lack of cache! Although, the lack of cache was more like a crippling shot to the groin with a nipple twist on the side.

  • ZDNet article ... (Score:4)

    by BitMan ( 15055 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2001 @05:16AM (#535182)

    FYI, ZDNet has an article here [zdnet.com].

    -- Bryan "TheBS" Smith

  • But since we are talking processors.. when I compile 2.4-pre what type of processor do I choose for the duron? It lists Athlon/K7 and Celeron but nothing for duron
  • Follow the link "Print this article" at the bottom of the page if you have JavaScript enabled, or simply replace the "showdoc" by "printarticle", as in this link [anandtech.com].

  • Heats up? (Score:5)

    by Stormie ( 708 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2001 @05:24AM (#535185) Homepage

    The competition heats up? Yeah right. On every single one of the (many) tests Anand ran, the Duron 800 beat the Celeron 800. Every single one. On most of them, the Duron _600_ beat it!! But that's OK, right, Celerons are cheap CPUs, not fast CPUs, I hear you say?

    (shuffles over to www.pricewatch.com [pricewatch.com])

    No price for a Celeron 800. But a 766 costs $155. And the Durons? $71 for an 800. $47 for a 600. What a miserable piece of shit this Celeron 800 is, 100MHz FSB or no.

  • The "new" Celeron is at 100 mhz bus speed, the "old" Celery officially runs at 66 mhz. Now my questions are (a) does this mean that the new Celery will give 150% the performance of an old Celery at the same clock speed?, and (b) is this new Celery that is released at 100 mhz any faster then a Celery that has been OC'ed to a 100 mhz bus. Can some knowledgable person give me an answer? Thanks in advance. Oh, and I know the answer to (a) is rather complicated and depends on what the computer is being used for, just give a detailed answer. :)

    (I have the strange craving for vegetables now and some nice dip...)
  • Not to mention that a full on PIII 800MHz, slot1, 100mHz FSB is only $176.00 (according to Pricwatch.com).

    Who would want to pay more for less?
  • If bus speed matters: then it may be worth remembering that Duron have a 200mhz bus. I think Duron compete with P3s. Duron leave Cellurons in the dust.
  • I'm not really an expert at that, but since the Duron is an Athlon Thunderbird with "only" 64kB of L2 cache (but the full 128kB of the L1 cache), the closest would be Athlon/K7.
  • the first Celereon to use a 100 Mhz FSB

    If anyone knew what they were doing, the Celeron 266 was the first Celeron to use 100 MHz FSB.

    news anyone?
  • The C-300A was known to overclock extremely well to 450 MHz; I've been running mine that way pretty much 24x7 for over 18 months without a glitch. The overclock, of course, was to run the FSB at 100 MHz, since the chip is multiplier locked.

  • (a) does this mean that the new Celery will give 150% the performance of an old Celery at the same clock speed?

    No. An application that was absolutely, totally bottlenecked by main memory access I guess would be 150% the speed, but that would never be the case, I doubt you could even write something like that as a theoretical experiment. Real-world improvement will therefore be anywhere between nothing and 50%. Intel claims the Celeron/800 (100MHz bus) is 20% faster than a Celeron/766 (66MHz bus), so that would translate to about 15% faster at the same clock speed.

    (b) is this new Celery that is released at 100 mhz any faster then a Celery that has been OC'ed to a 100 mhz bus.

    I think not, I don't believe there are any core changes or anything to this new Celeron, just the faster bus & clock speed.

  • I would think Athlon/K7. The Duron is simply a *slightly* crippled Athlon.
  • it's AMD and Transmeta teaming up, against Intel. Not Intel and Transmeta as you've stated...
  • The Celeron can't really have all that much life left; I'd imagine money poured into it, marketing and promotion wise, by Intel, is having ever-diminishing returns.

    Heck, the official clock speeds of Celeron's dont much matter anyhow .. so many of them were rated (and subsequently 'locked') under their real performance abilities.

    But yeah, I go with the general concensus that the whole Celeron line was to confuse consumers ... that whole 'you dont have to make a good product if more than 50% of your consumer base is ignorant of your market to begin with' thing. At any rate, now we'll really see if it's the commercials, or the quality of the chip that sells. Go AMD! I'd take a Duron 8 days of the week.
    If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.
  • Double the size of the edge connector / number of pins to the motherboard. Assume we have a generic processor with 10 connections to the motherboard (super simple example). This allows us to pass 10 bits of data at the speed of the FSB. Now lets double it to 20. This means that you can now pass 2 x as many bits in the same clock-tick of the FSB. This may seem like you're only doubling the speed, but due to the way binary works, you're adding 2^10 number of bits can be passed. Granted, the processor's connections would be huge, but it would be a quick way to speed up the "apparent processor speed" without actually doing much in the way of work. Motherboard's would have to be totally re-worked.


    Secret windows code
  • There have been a lot of comments, totally justified IMO, about how this new Celeron is still completely underpowered and overpriced in comparison to AMD's Duron and even Athlon CPUs.

    However, what about the power consumption of these babies? If I'm not mistaken, the Celeron has had some success with laptop manufacturers due to its lower requirements (read: longer battery lifetime), right? Now, does anybody know how the Duron compares in this respect?

  • Celeron 566 overclocks very nicely to 850 MHz - it is stable too! Celeron 366 to 550 MHz was also a very nice chip...

    The Duron is great but the motherboards are just finally starting to get decent...

  • OK, I know it's lame to reply to my own post, but..

    Intel claims the Celeron/800 (100MHz bus) is 20% faster than a Celeron/766 (66MHz bus)

    I should point out that quickly scanning over Anand's figures, there were only three tests that back up this Intel claim. Quake 3 at 640x480 (104fps vs. 84fps), 3Mbit DVD playback (24% CPU vs. 34%) and 6Mbit DVD playback (29% CPU vs. 37%). For everything else (and he did like 26 tests), the improvement was less (often far less) than Intel claimed.

    I know I look like an Intel basher, but really, this chip just sucks. Even if they halved the price it would still suck.

  • The biggest reason I feel the Celeron still outsells the Duron is due to a superior integrated chipset, namely the 810. We build PCs for a good deal of our small business customers and a simple, reliable, and low-cost solution vastly outweighs Q3 performance (or standard 2D performance for that matter) & overclockability.

    We typically use a Celeron & Intel's 810 motherboard for our low-end businesss PC's. The Intel board has integrated video, Intel 10/100 NIC, Norton Anti-Virus, and Creative sound. Not only do we get a motherboard with quality components, but we greatly reduce the overall cost of our machine and simplify construction/inventory due to the lack of physical boards that need to be installed.

    Now that the Duron is finally making inroads with an integrated chipset, perhaps it will be an option for us. But for now, due to the lack of a quality integrated chipset for the Duron, we will remain using Celerons for all our low-end PCs.
  • Now that they're at 100fsb, they should be a little easier to overclock. The systems nowadays don't overclock as well (as a rule of thumb) as they used to. This means that all of the motherboards with the nice increments between 100 and 112 will be of use. It'll keep the PCI clock more stable. About half the time I've overclocked, it hasn't been the chip that couldn't handle a speed I've been shooting for but the IDE drives, PCI SCSI card, etc etc.

    Dirk
  • For all those that say that this is unimportant, that all the tests still show the duron beating the new celeron, you gotta realize that durons don't run on all those celeron systems that are out in our homes now. Point being that I would much prefer upgrading my celeron system to a 100Mhz bus celeron than buying a whole new mobo and chip. For those upgraders out there (and there are so many of them) a 800Mhz celeron is very nice news indeed.

  • We needs benches vs p3 (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    To find out if the celeron is truly still crippled or not we need some benches vs a 100mhz FSB p3-800(since that is what the celeron2's are based on). Now that the celeron is 100mhz fsb as well the only limiting factor is the smaller(which we know didnt make much difference in the celeron1 vs p2 situation), and slower cache(this is probably still gonna be a killer).
  • Competition? The point of the Anandtech article is that there exists no competition between the two processors; the Duron is clearly, without a doubt, the superior part. It sucks that motherboard manufacturers can't get their heads out of the protective womb that is Intel brand name recognition and start supporting the BETTER technology. What's the point of capitalism if you're too scared to try it out? Balls to the new Celeron. It had it's day, and now Intel needs to think up something original.
  • the Celeron still outsells the Duron is due to a superior integrated chipset, namely the 810

    Actually, the VIA KT133 chipset for the Duron has had rave reviews [via.com.tw].

  • At least unlike some sites (Tom's), Anand gives you an index on each page so you can skip portions of
    the test that don't interest you.
  • Disclaimer: I haven't read the article yet.

    However as a general rule, Anand isn't biased towards Intel, or any other product. He tends to be impartial, fair, and even-handed. His problem is that he's never learned to read statistics. Consider a series of nine benchmarks comparing two items: If five benchmarks show a 1% performance increase of product 'a', and four show a 10% increase of product 'b', he's likely to conclude that product 'a' is better because it won more benchmarks.

    He's a good kid, and his site is great, but he needs some more math background. Or maybe just a sense of perspective.

  • Re:This will hardly matter.. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    They sure do know that Intel Athlon chip tho!
  • methinks. more to the point, the celerons are aimed at the budget market. who in their right mind will buy a celeron when a faster chip by AMD is the same price?

    intel need to change their marketing strategy, its not rocket science, they just need to price their products realistically compared to AMD.

    IANACM (I am not a chipset manufacturer)
  • Absolutely right! If I were buying a new computer, I'd almost definitely get an AMD processor and faster than PC-100 RAM. However, I can upgrade my current beast with just a new processor which will save a substantial amount of cash.

    Mind you, this makes me ask why there wasn't a comparison between the Celeron 800 and PIII-800. That's probably of more value to most people considering an upgrade to a current Intel system.

  • However, my next laptop will very likely have a Celeron processor in it. Then again, my current one has an AMD K6-2 300, and I've never had a problem with any chip...so who knows?
  • ...as far as FSB goes. No, the Duron doesn't have a 200MHz FSB, it has two 100MHz pipelines. So does the Athlon. I don't care what kind of AMD FUD you were reading, you were WRONG!!!
  • If you search for "celeron cpu 800" on pricewatch you will come up with prices of $202 and $204. Ouch. You can nearly get a 1.1ghz Athlon ($215) for that.
  • What's good about this news, assuming the new part is still SMP-capable, is you can put a couple of them into a BP6. This would be equivalent to running a pair of 533's at 100 Mhz FSB, which the 533's generally won't tolerate.

    And of course some overclockability can be expected. I'll be interested to hear how much....

  • The thing is most of the group of people who might actually bother to upgrade their computer by taking out one CPU and putting in a new one are the same people who might overclock. Not everyone who might swap CPU's might overclock, but a lot.

    This kind of makes the Celeron switch from 66MHz to 100MHz FSB less meaningful. In what situation do you have a computer where it makes more sense to buy a 100MHz FSB Celeron? If you have a Celeron 633 or less you should probably just overclock. If you have a 667 or more you still might overclock and if not, how much difference is a 800MHz/100 Celeron going to make, maybe 25%. Even once the price of the 800MHz/100 Celeron falls to $160 this is a poor use of the money. Perhaps once the 100MHz FSB Celerons reach 950 or 1000 a $160 CPU upgrade will make sense. However, by that time your 667Mhz Celeron system will be out of date enough/slow enough that only a whole new system will make sense.
  • I'm just not impressed! Intel doesn't do anything for me anymore.. I only use and recommend AMD chipsets, they're cheaper and faster.
  • I've got my C566 running at 935 Mhz with a 110Mhz frontside bus, I'm sure it beats the pants off this C800 and since the C566 sells for $59 on PriceWatch it could even be a better deal than the Duron!
  • What the hell is up with this revelation of the new 100 Mhz Fsb for Celeron. Hmm isn't that just a bit old, Like 1999

  • You're concerned about power consumption and you're looking at x86? PPC, man. You can use x86 to toast bread.

  • Yeah right. The program here is really preparing me to be a hell of a good electrical engineer. Let me tell you, I'm up to my waist in semiconductors around here....
  • This is an old trick - it's called going wide, instead of fast. The real life analogy is the throughput of a 10 lane expressway moving slowly, vs. a 4 lane highway moving quickly. Throughput may be the same, but the traffic on the expressway doesn't have to go as fast.

    Of course you have to remember that when absolute speed matters, going slowly on the expressway doesn't satisfy.

    Big machines usually go wider instead of fast. (A gross generalization.) Which is why a mainframe can push so much data, even though the clock rate of the CPU is probably embarrasingly slow. A Pentium II or III might have a 64 bit path to memory, which is a lot for a 32 bit processor - years ago an RS/6000 workstation could have a 256 bit path to memory.

    The problem with wider vs. faster is pin counts and wiring. When CPUs get too many pins, they become difficult to build and unweildy. Wiring on the motherboard becomes more complex too. That's why there is a lot of interest in 'serial' data transfer standards. Going wide is cool, it's just harder to build.
  • The only use for this that i can see is in cheap dual processor systems. I rather like the overclock warehouse dual p3/700@1gig idea myself though.

  • My Celeron has been running with a 100mhz bus for several years. (Celeron300A OCed to 450) The Celerons have been capable of the 100mhz bus for a long time, but Intel has purposely crippled them for marketing reasons. Bad Move.
  • Hmmm, I think both AMD and Intel have an interesting problem in the low priced chips department. How to beat the other guy's price/performance with the low priced chips to take market share, but not compete with their own higher priced performance chips. I don't think Intel would like the Celeron competing with the Pentium III line. One chip is there to compete for market share, (Duron & Celeron) and the other is to make the money (Athelon & Pentium III & 4). Wouldn't want the market share competition to cut too deep into the profit chips, hence the limited cache & FSB performance in the budget line.

  • Re:OK, Ok (Score:5)

    by cyber-vandal ( 148830 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2001 @06:54AM (#535225) Homepage
    According to pricewatch, a KT133 + Duron 700 costs $147, whereas a Celeron 800 costs $202, so you'd save a bit of time just buying a new Celeron, or for less money and an extra half an hour, you'll get a better processor and a motherboard together.
  • ...because atm I'm running a dual Celeron466 on a Abit BP6 mb w/ PC100 RAM. I've been looking for a decent upgrade for this box, and the only options were P3's, which are still very expensive at the higher end (not to mention having to change my RAM and figuring out a way to cool down the BX chipset).

    I've got two oversized fans on the processors, and they're running at least 5 degrees cooler than the BX. And this is for a 66Mhz fsb. At 133, which is required for a socket P3, it would be a _lot_ hotter...

    So this Celeron, while not performing as well as even a Duron, it makes for a good value option for me. No overheating, no memory change, just get the 2 CPUs and the 2 adapters, and I'm all set.

    Wohoo!

  • It is Content Protection for Recordable Media. I thought someone might want to know.
  • I thought one of the things that made the Celeron so nice was that you could almost always count on it to overclock from 66 mHZ to 100 mHZ without too much of a problem? Doesn't this sort of kill some of the overclocking potential that has made some of those celerons such an attractive buy? I guess now we've gotta up the heat and the risk to 133 mHZ.
  • While I agree with most of the posters here that Intel is frustratingly late on this one, I still have to point out one thing. CPU cost is not everything. Assuming the target audience is the entry-level user, then the advantage falls to Intel when you consider the final cost of the system.

    Sure, the Celeron is slower per MHz compared to the Duron, and costs $20-$100 more for the "same" speed. But... do entry-level users know this? Also, this cost is currently being offset by all-in-one, integrated motherboards. If you actually build a system using new components, a Celeron-based and Duron-based system end up costing roughly the same.

    So... the unknowing entry-level consumer will still probably buy the Intel-based system for its "Intel" name, and OEM manufacturers will still push the Celeron... for now. I'm not pro-Intel, per se. I just point out the facts. And the truth is, once AMD gets a wide availability of an all-in-one, integrated motherboard, the price/value difference will be undeniable.

    Well, at least that's my take on it...
  • AFAIK (I used to do 'Research and Development' for a large OEM, but this was a year or so ago now, so things may have changed back for the good. I doubt it tho..) The Celeron is fully capable of running SMP, however since ~500mhz (can't remember exactly when) Intel have stopped them from working together. There may be a hardware workaround (I believe there was some talk of doing things with slockets when slot-1 was still about), but that's the official position.

    --
  • My computer has been powered by an 800Mhz Celeron @100Mhz now for months. It's called overclocking.

    Later
    ErikZ
  • From Anandtech's benchmarks the Celeron 800 now slightly outperforms the Duron 600. The Celeron 800 though costs ~$200 and with time will fall to $160. The idea is it makes sense for people with the right motherboards to upgrade to a Celeron 800 instead of getting a new system. I think it would be better to get a Duron 700+mobo for about ~$160 right now. The Duron 700+mobo will outperform the Celeron 800 and cost less. The new mobo will also allow for a later CPU upgrade to a 1.2GHz Athlon. The Duron 700 is also quite overclockable.
  • Thats funny because my celeron300a has been running on a 100mhz FSB for over two years now. Are you telling me that is wasn't supposed to be run on a 100mhz FSB? I always wondered why they only charged $100 for a chip that seemed to perform as good as a $500 pentiumII400.
  • Eh? Did you miss Tom's Table of Contents at the bottom of each page? Unless you're not talking about tomshardware.com, I'm clueless as to what kind of coffee you drink in the morning....
  • By "integrated chipset" (poor term, my fault), I meant a motherboard/chipset that includes onboard video, sound, and possibly networking. The KT133 is definitely a great chipset, but it does not typically include onboard video or netorking (some have sound, I believe)..

    VIA is making a solution to that now (as well as SIS) for the Durons, but they are still in their infancy and didn't garner the greatest of reviews...
  • What about the fact that this is only a rather passe' 100MHz bus, instead of 133MHz. Others have mentioned the DDR/double-pumped bus issue, but at least that one's new and AMD, not Intel. By now, PC100 is downright OLD, and PC133 is the norm.

    Intel is clearly protecting the PIII by not enabling Celeron with PC133.
  • There is also significant cost in terms of minimum die size for a given pin count. A chip simply has to be at least a certain size to fit a certain number of pins. That's fine if you wind up using all of that silicon, but you could theoretically wind up with a bunch of extra (and expensive) space if your processor logic doesn't need all the silicon that it *has* to have because of its pinout.

    This was actually the driving force behind that Micron DDR chipset with 8MB of on-chipset cache a few months ago. Their chip's logic took up only a small fraction of the die size which was necessary for the number of pins the die had, so they filled up the rest of the space with (effectively free) cache. But I can bet you that they'd rather have made the die smaller instead, except that wasn't an option.

    Now, if you're proposing to double/quadruple datapath width, you're talking a significant increase in pincount, and thus a significant increase in die size, even if the chip doesn't need to be much more complex. You could possibly take advantage, as Micron did, of the sudden increase in available real estate, but the bottom line is that the chip will be more expensive and the motherboard will be more expensive as a direct result of widening the datapath.

    johnthomas
  • Rather than saying "Intel is protecting the P3...", you could say that Intel is merely pursuing a valid market segmentation strategy. Rather like AMD is pursuing with the Duron.

    Differently able processors at different price points.
  • All this talk about AMDs offering being cheaper, but from the best I can tell the cheapest/only way to a multi-processor system is through Intel.

  • One thing that you have missed is that motherboards for Celerons are about $50 cheaper...

    True dat. Anandtech make the same point equally well when they refer to the Duron, in their wrap-up of 2000, as "the processor without a home". There are far too few cheap Socket A boards out there, and it could end up hampering the Duron if it hasn't already.
  • Hm, my dual 450 celeron system has been running at 100MHz for a year or so... :)

    Oh... you mean now it's official?

    ---

  • Isn't there a mobile Celeron w/ 100Mhz FSB. According to Dell tech support my Inspiron 3800 w/ 600Mhz Celeron has 100Mhz FSB.
  • first of all, intel SMP (via BX) is buggy! it has thermal and cpu saturation problems. avoid...

    secondly, amd has already shown the SMP chipset. just give them a month or two to bring it to full market (production).

    only time will tell if theirs is buggy; but intel certainly is.

    --

  • ...the apparent allusion to the fact that they both need damn big heatsinks =) Puns, Hemos? Tsk.
  • Wouldn't want the market share competition to cut too deep into the profit chips

    This is where AMD really beats Intel. The Duron has a smaller die than an Athlon, because the chip was designed so that part of the cache could be left off. The result is that the AMD can produce more Durons per wafer (read: cheaper to manufacture.) The Celeron has the same die as a P3, with some traces cut to disable part of the cache (read: more expensive to manfacture.) So this is more Intel's problem than AMD's. AMD's real problem is marketing.

  • So...how far can you overclock the Celery 800 then? Anyone got it running over 1GHz yet?
  • Very recently (within the past few weeks) I had a reasonably intelligent friend say "Aren't AMD processors incompatible with stuff?" Granted, he hardly knows crap about computers, but this is the misconception most of the population has, and it's only perpetuated by idiot sales clerks at CompUSA and the like. I have personally overheard a CompUSA employee telling a customer that the "32x" on a cdrom box was the model number and that the 8x next to it was what they likely wanted. I wish I was kidding...
  • >FSB100Mhz it still has an
    > internal SBus of 66Mhz
    >but the chip is still only talking to the bus at 66Mhz.

    That doesn't seem to be too accurate (but i've been wrong in the past)

    sounds like B.S.

    I mean, I'm sure it's the same damn chips running at 100mhz bus, but is that really a big deal... (remember the celery 366 ->550 Over clock..)

    Can anyone confirm/deny this posters statements?

    *shrug* YMMV

    E.

    PS plus the "fa fa fooey" handle makes me suspect b.s. *Shrug*
  • isn;t intel coming to the party a little late with this...?

    It was sorta stupid, yet intersting strategy for them to effectively cripple/downgrade their own chips to take over the lower market tier...

    E.
  • If you want a good bang for the buck, Get an OEM Celeron II 566 ($60), a slotket ($10) and a decent cooling unit like a Golden Orb ($12). Pop it in and up the clock speed to 100mHz--tweak voltage as required. Voila! Celeron II 850 Mhz with no need to upgrade to PC133 memory! Runs about like a PIII 733 for most purposes. Make sure your slotket has voltage adjustment tweakability, though (especially if you have an Abit BH6 or BX6 Mobo) and use thermal grease. Best move I ever made.
  • WOW! Look at all the great advice streaming out of these ANONYMOUS COWARDS! I neither know nor care whether Bob Abooey is trustworthy or not, why the hell would I listen to ANY of you LOOSERS who bitch about KNOWN USERS who ACTUALLY LOGIN rather than posting as ANONYMOUS COWARDS!!! SHUT THE FUCK UP UNTIL YOU GROW THE FUCKING BALLS TO ACTUALLY SHOW YOUR FACE!!!. As far as I am concerned, all ANONYMOUS COWARD postings have exactly ZERO credibility with me. Fuck off you whiney little bitches and crawl back to your yahoo chat page and lie some more about yourself.
  • Anyone seen any overclocking results yet??
  • The celeron is SMPable the celeron II is not. This is due to the fact that the celeron 1 is just a pentiumII with the cache ripped off. where the celeron II is a crippled PentiumIII.(2 way associtave cache vs 4 way. if i remember correctly)
  • Horray Intel has disabled more functionallity of its processor line. First they make it not work with smp then they make it not overclockable.

    if it was 66mhz would be 12X at 100mhz that would make 1.2Ghz... (not that you would get there)

    but now its 100mhz 8x... blah cant do anything fun with that.. time to get a duron.
  • You prolly can't put the newer celrons into the older systems anyways.
    I got burnt when I wanted to upgrade my abit bp6 dual system to faster cpus. I would imagine intel
    will do the same thing here again.
    -C
  • There's a difference. Adding 2MB of cache on the PIII involves adding extra silicon, packaging, etc. They truly do have a higher cost, though I won't argue that the Xeon price rose more than the cost did.

    With the Celeron, 133MHz bus technology is already here, and in all likelihood, all currently produced parts are capable of running it. Consider that the early 300MHz Celeron ran a 66MHz bus, and we're talking double or more of that, now.

    Once the cache moved onto the chip with PIII, the difference between PIII and Celeron became pure (dying) package legacy, marketing, and selective crippling.

    I suspect the Celeron and PIII are the same die, perhaps with crippling fuses or bond pads on the former. Anyone know for sure?
  • This may seem like you're only doubling the speed, but due to the way binary works, you're adding 2^10 number of bits can be passed.

    um, no. you are multiplying by 2^10 the number of bits that can be addressed, but are only doubling the number of bits that can be passed in any given period of time.

  • The Intel board has integrated video, Intel 10/100 NIC, Norton Anti-Virus, and Creative sound.

    Wow! Norton Anti-Virus built into the motherboards! The amazing things Intel is doing these days ;-)

    -jon

  • How is "slightly better than bad" a good option? If you have a Celeron 433 and you are only looking at intel products, then you are selling yourself short.

    For 202$ you can get a 700 Duron bundled with an ASUS KT133 motherboardw/fan(you can prolly shop around and get it for less). For 30$ more you can get the same with an 800.

    How much is the the Celeron 800 going to retail for if it comes at ~170 in units of 1000? Does that mean it will retail for 170$- nearly twice the cost of an 800Duron? How much is it going to run you in 3 months? The price of the Duron bundle above has already dropped 20$ in the past two months.

    If the 600 Duron is about equal to the 800 Celeron(it's a little weaker, actually), then the 700 Duron is definitely going to be better.

    Even IF you already have the motherboard you do, if you are considering upgrading your chip, since you are willing to jump past all the other celerons to the 800, I don't see why you wouldn't consider swapping your mobo as well and jump ship to AMD. Then sell your CUSL2(and the chip you likely would have sold already), and guess what... you probably ended up spending about the same amount of dough in buying the 800 celeron(probably less if you don't mercy the board away)- only you have a better machine now.

    Or better yet- set up a family member with your old gear and help defray your upgrade costs(like I did). It's sorta like selling it, but you know it's got a good home. :) Sorry this is so long, but it bears repeating that this doesn't seem to be a good option unless you don't want to get the most out of your money.

    Once you get into the AMD family, speed comes cheap, and will only be getting cheaper.

    Egads I sound like an AMD ho... Then again... maybe I'm just a Mac user who wants to get the most out of any 'winblows' junk that I pay for.

    :P

    D
  • It's still slower than a Duron, and more expensive to boot. On pricewatch a Celeron 766 ($155) is closest in price to a Thunderbird (not Duron) 950 ($160) It's time to switch to AMD. At least on the low-end to midrange. The only possible reason I can see for buying Intel at this point is if a P4 suits your needs.
  • I'd disagree that Intel SMP with the BX chipset is buggy. First, the BX chipset is probably the most stable thing put out by a major manufacturer in recent years. There's a reason so many BX-133 mobos exist. Second, tons of people have been very happy with dual celeron BX systems (a lot hang out at BeNews ;) and I've yet to hear any complaints of stability from the BX chipset.
  • Except the Duron is identical to the Athlon except for cache size. They didn't cut bus back or take away the double clock. It's closer to the difference between a P3 and Xeon.
  • The BX chipset on the Abit BP6 will handle FSBs from 66 to 133 in (almost) 1 Mhz increments. The main problem is that the new 370 chips (originated from the pIII core) don't have the same pin layout.
    --
  • First, the BX chipset is probably the most stable thing put out by a major manufacturer in recent years

    for non-smp, yes, I agree. but I've had at least 4 different dual bx boards (tyan, asus, abit, supermicro) and ALL of them locked up tight with either NT or linux in seti@home. ie, under very very heavy, continuous smp apps, the system would hang. I tried better heatsinks and other system cures - nothing would fix it. there's even some KNOWN bugs in the bx system for smp - look for a program called cpuburn that detects these bugs.

    I've yet to hear any complaints of stability from the BX chipset

    then you obviously haven't looked around enough or done the research. believe me - I really WANTED it to work reliably; but just got tired of the deadlock/hangs and having to drive home to reboot my linux box when too much concurrent cpu activity ocurred ;-(

    --

  • OK, that's pretty cool. Mind you, the PIII-800 is
    currently cheaper (!!!) than the Celeron 800, so
    given my fairly high-end motherboard, I'm still
    more likely to go with that. Well, maybe. AMD is
    awfully tempting...

  • Unless you have used Linux as a workstation, heavily, you shouldn't comment on what it can and cannot do. Some of us write books just fine with Linux, graphics, 3-D modeling, etc... And games support is very good, just as good as Windows 2000 (provided they make a Linux port).

    I'm frankly sick of people who expect Linux applications to have good Office import filters, when Microsoft cannot even achieve such a feat with their own Mac ports and Works product. That should tell you something in where the problem lies (and it's not Linux ;-).

    -- Bryan "TheBS" Smith

Slashdot Top Deals

This restaurant was advertising breakfast any time. So I ordered french toast in the renaissance. - Steven Wright, comedian

Close