2Ghz Celeron is here! anybody got one?

[mczak]

Has somebody already seen the 2Ghz Celeron? Datasheet at developer.intel.com is up, but no reviews, no tests, no nothing, which is disappointing, given that this thing should be an overclockers dream. The 2Ghz Celeron is a Northwood C1 stepping, so I'd suppose it should hit 3Ghz or so - not that I'll buy one, doesn't fit into my a7v133 ;-).

mczak

[mtnbikerjerry]

At 128K Cache. You could pick up a 1.8A with 512k that will out perform it. I could be wrong. Since no one has yet got a hold of these new babies.

I am waiting for the 2.5 Ghz (400fsb) to come down in price. I heard that 3Ghz stuff is going to require another motherboard. P4 3.06Ghz.

[funnyperson1]

well i remember reading a review saying that in some apps an oced 128 cache Celly Willamette is almost half as fast as the similarly clocked northwood...really the only reason to get a Celeron right now is if you already have a Socket 370 board....if not....AthlonXPs with DDR give more bang for buck....

[jdmcnudgent]

i have seen a 2 gig celly 478 at the local comp store, for $120, but why would you want one of those, they are not a overclockers dream, more like a overclockers nightmare. but they are affordable.

[asw7576]

I rather invest in real CPU with 512KB cache!! Bigger cache means bigger storage, and thus more data transaction can be done in single clock.

[lyle]

I posted in this forum about 3-4 weeks ago wanting to know if the 2 gig celly was NW or Willy core. Most everyone believed it was Willy core. Well, I just saw the same data sheets at Intel, 130 nm process, 1.525V core, got to be C1 stepping NW core. I have four P4 systems here and I got the bucks, so I ordered a Celly 2 gig just to see what it'll do. It's a little stiff at $125 retail, but what the hell, it'll be a fun proc to play with. It may end up replacing a 1.7 willy in my internet/email/office prog setup.

[Silent_Strider]

I would think that the 2gig C1 celly is a rather good overclocker. not just because its a C1 but also because there is less cache that potentially can hold it back. this is pure speculation, but I dont think 3 gig would be out the question wirh good air cooling. Besides, less cache also mean less heat.
But then again, if you get it to 3 gig it probably wouldn't perform much better than a 2,2nw. Depending on the app ofcause.

regards

[Lumberjack]

Well, the performance hit the celly takes from its 128k cache compared to the real P4 when its overclocked is all going to depend on how high you get the front side bus. The higher the fsb, the less impact the smaller cache will have.....I'm thinking about picking one of these up to play around with when the new i845 chipsets come out.....

[looktall]

tomato overclockers (http://www.kumagaya.or.jp/~touma/) have one.

http://www.kumagaya.or.jp/~touma/image17/suce30191677.gif

they got it to 3.01ghz. the only problem was they had to turn off the L2 cache to do it. which does help overclock, but kind of defeats the purpose of overclocking.

[Silver arrow]

I'm not so fond of these PIV celerys... I compared my benchies (Tualeron 1.3 @ 1.74) to a benchmark of a PIV 1.7GHz and mine were much higher (about 20%). I'd go for P4. 128k cache is not enough!

[ol' man]

Originally posted by Silver arrow
I'm not so fond of these PIV celerys... I compared my benchies (Tualeron 1.3 @ 1.74) to a benchmark of a PIV 1.7GHz and mine were much higher (about 20%). I'd go for P4. 128k cache is not enough!

You got a 1.3 cel-t to 1.73GHz? Sweet! Very sweet!

I can do those speeds with my 1.4GHz PIII-s but my PCI speeds are all out of whack! 164+MHz fsb.

I am running my PIII-s @ 1.4GHz though 1.22v right now. I can hit 1.6GHz on 1.5v and 1.7Ghz on 1.6v.

[Silver arrow]

That's even sweeter. Unfortunatelly, Tualatin P3s have insane prices here, so all I could afford at the time was a celery. It's doing great though :). I can hit 1768 stable, but I need much higher voltage (1.7 or 1.75v I think) and the heat output is much higher... Under load @ 1742 my volcano 7 has ~4000 rpm which is acceptable... But @ 1768 it soon goes to max 5000 RPM. At that speed, volcano is like a hair drier.
It is interesting to note, that my chip will POST @ 1807 :D. But for that I think I'd need some serious cooling and something like 2v :) :) :). Sudden death syndrome follows.

[800XL]

I've got one of these new 2.0gig Celerons but I've not had much chance to do any comparison testing vs a P4. Right now its on its fourth day straight running under load at 2.8Ghz at stock voltage with stock cooling. 3Gig posts, but WinXP refuses to boot. I can't say for certain it is the CPU, Gigabyte mainboard, or DDR holding it back. More volts does not appear to help. Perhaps more cooling will, once I get a chance to get my hands back on the machine that is.

[lyle]

Ah, crap, I got my celly 2.0 yesterday and thought I was doing fine at 2.5 at default voltage and OEM cooling. I'm not done playing with it yet, not by far, but since you're running at 2.8, I'm getting a Swifty or Alpha and see what this thing can really do. Temps are not too bad either, ~40 deg C under load. I'm going to really like these C1 chips.

[SKYY]

Originally posted by looktall
tomato overclockers (http://www.kumagaya.or.jp/~touma/) have one.

http://www.kumagaya.or.jp/~touma/image17/suce30191677.gif

they got it to 3.01ghz. the only problem was they had to turn off the L2 cache to do it. which does help overclock, but kind of defeats the purpose of overclocking. It's supposedly a bug with wcpuid. The program reports all new C1 Celerons to have 0 kB of L2 cache. Check it yourself...

Anyway, here's some benchies I found at the [H] forums:


Here are the benchs from Sandra....
Celeron@2.0Ghz at left and 3Ghz at right
http://netcity7.web.hinet.net/UserD...3284/c/c2ca.jpg
Celeron 2.0Ghz@3Ghz but multimedia
http://netcity7.web.hinet.net/UserD...3284/c/c2cm.jpg
CPUID with SuperPi
http://netcity7.web.hinet.net/UserD...3284/c/c3pi.jpg

Nice chip. I'm just not sure whether the 3.0 GHz is a guarantee or not.

[looktall]

SKYY, i spotted those benchmarks on the [H] forums before. (there's a similar thread as this over at OCAU that has a link to that [H] link. it's also where i got the link to tomato overclockers. :p )

i'll say the same here as i said at OCAU, i'm not very impressed.
with the 2ghz at stock speed, my 1.1A@1.6 spanks it in the sandra cpu arithmetic.
with the 2ghz@3ghz it beats my benchmark by 1300 points, which isn't too bad, but i would've expected much more given it's almost double clock speed.

[Silver arrow]

Could someone repost those benchmark images? The links no longer work...

EDIT:

these are the right ones
http://netcity7.web.hinet.net/UserData/84713284/c/c2ca.jpg
http://netcity7.web.hinet.net/UserData/84713284/c/c2cm.jpg


I expected more for 3 GHz. At arithmetic sandra benchmark it only beats my tualeron for 900 points.

[Silver arrow]

There's one thing we're forgetting though. Only one benchmark shouldn't just decide the fate of a CPU. If we take AMD and Intel CPUs that have the same sandra score, they will perform different. It depends what u need it for. Gaming? Serious work? Server?
These new celerons have rather poor sandra score for their speed, but we would need more tests. How do these celerons perform running games, etc, etc...