Home

News

Forums

Hardware

CPUs

Motherboards

Video

Guides

CPU Prices

RAM Prices

Compare Prices



Sharky Extreme : CPU Reviews & Articles March 15, 2010





Be a Marketplace Partner








 Advertising Info

About the Double-Underlined Links



 - Most Active Threads
 - Technical Support
 - CPUs & Overclocking



Latest News


- SanDisk's SSD As Rapid As It Is Reliable
- OCZ Launches Limited-Edition SSD
- AMD Offers Low-Profile DirectX 11 Graphics Card
- Microsoft Gaming Keyboard Has Awesome Anti-Ghosting
- Matrox Lets Multi-Monitor Fans Double Up
News Archives

Features

- SharkyExtreme.com: Interview with Microsoft's Dan Odell
- SharkyExtreme.com: Interview with ATI's Terry Makedon
- SharkyExtreme.com: Interview with Seagate's Joni Clark
- Half-Life 2 Review
- DOOM 3 Review

Buyer's Guides

- February High-end Gaming PC Buyer's Guide
- November Value Gaming PC Buyer's Guide
- September Extreme Gaming PC Buyer's Guide

HARDWARE

  • CPUs


  • Motherboards


  • Video Cards


    internet.commerce
    Be a Commerce Partner














    internet.com
    IT
    Developer
    Internet News
    Small Business
    Personal Technology

    Search internet.com
    Advertise
    Corporate Info
    Newsletters
    Tech Jobs
    E-mail Offers



  •   


    Intel Celeron 2.0 GHz Review
    By Ryan "Speedy" Wissman :  November 8, 2002

    Benchmark Analysis

    The Celeron 2.0 GHz falls behind the competition in just about every 3D game benchmark in this review, even when overclocked to 3.0GHz. The CPU and Memory tests are a different story, though these are more interested in pure clock speed and memory throughput. It is surprising that the Celeron at 3.0GHz was not even able to keep up with the Pentium 4-1.8A GHz, or Athlon XP 1900+ in many instances. It is obvious that raw clock speed simply can't make up for the lack of L2 cache. Even a simple bump to 256K would yield higher results, and greatly increase the Celeron's price/performance ratio. Also keep in mind that we compared the Celeron at 3.0 GHz against standard-clocked Pentium 4 and Athlon XP processors, which are themselves quite able to achieve high overclock speeds and faster performance.

    Value

    One might argue that the Celeron offers considerable bang for the buck, as the 2.0GHz can now be found for as little as $100. If we compare the Celeron simply to the Pentium 4 that may be somewhat true (the Pentium 4-1.6A is approximately $120 and the 1.8A is around $140), however when the Athlon XP is thrown into the mix we have a totally different story. You can move all the way up to the Athlon XP 2000+-2100+ range before going over the $100 budget, and the Athlon XP 1600+ only costs half that of a Celeron 2.0 GHz.

    As such, we simply can't recommend the Celeron unless you're a diehard Intel fan and can't save up the extra cash to buy a real 1.8A-2.0A GHz Northwood Pentium 4. Also note that this statement is highly inherent on the retail price of the Celeron 2.0 GHz, so keep an eye out in case Intel goes into cost-cutting mode on their Celeron line.

    * Please note that online prices are taken at the time of review and are not intended to reflect long-term trends.

    Conclusion

    The Celeron 2.0 GHz does have its charms, especially the ease at which we were able to hit 3.0 GHz+ overclock speeds, but it's a difficult product to recommend. Gamers seeking a high-performance system should look at the Pentium 4 and Athlon XP processors, and at current price levels, the Celeron 2.0 GHz is more of a curiosity. Intel fans on a strict budget should still be pleased with its entry-level performance, and low price. We're hoping that Intel improves the line further, and upgrades the next Celeron revision with 256K of L2 cache. Maybe then we'll have a worthy successor to the old Celeron 300A.

    Pros:

    • Upgradeable Platform
    • Extremely Easy to Overclock
    • Northwood Core

    Cons:

    • Only 128K of L2 Cache
    • Lower-than Expected Overclock Performance
    • Athlon XP and Pentium 4 Offer Better Value

    Ratings:




    Page 1 Introduction
    Page 2 Performance and Test Systems
    Page 3 PCMark 2002 and 3DMark 2001SE Pro Performance
    Page 4 Quake 3, Jedi Knight II & Comanche 4 Performance
    Page 5 Return to Castle Wolfenstein & UT 2003 Performance
  • Page 6 Benchmark Analysis, Value and Conclusion


    Copyright(c) 2010 QuinStreet Inc. All Rights Reserved. Legal Notices | Licensing , Reprints , & Permissions | Privacy Policy



    The Network for Technology Professionals

    Search:

    About Internet.com

    Legal Notices, Licensing, Permissions, Privacy Policy.
    Advertise | Newsletters | E-mail Offers