Intel Celeron D: New, Improved & Exceeds Expectations
by Derek Wilson on June 24, 2004 3:01 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
DirectX 9 Gaming Performance
Here, in all but Halo, the Celeron D 335 takes the lead in performance. In Halo, the 335 comes in second, which still isn't anything to shake a stick at.In the Gunmetal benchmark, all the Celeron D processors line up in front of everything else. Of course, with these DX9 games we are only talking about tiny differences, but this is still a complete change of character for Intel's low end.
Pay attention the the performance differences between the 20x100 Celeron D and the 2.0GHz Celeron. Performance advantages range from 5% and way up. The 20x100 Celeron D outperforms the 600MHz faster Northwood based Celeron every time.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
54 Comments
View All Comments
DerekWilson - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link
Sorry for all the L2 cache size problems -- and thanks for the support AtaStrumf :-)Still, no excuse. I accept responsibility and appologize for the mistake.
dankim333 - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link
Possible Ad Campaign:NEW! Intel Celeron D: Now with 23% less suck!
AtaStrumf - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link
I guess they're rewriting the article now :) Quite a big mistake with the L2 Cache, but hay, shit happens, no need to shout and yell about it to make yourself feel so much smarter mino.robg1701 - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link
Ah good, I see im not the only one to notice the 'slight' page long error about the old celerons having 256k cache ;)mino - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link
#18 the hell some mispronouncements."with sum BIG mistakes..." should be:
"with such BIG mistakes in every second sentence form Anand !"
mino - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link
PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAASE repair(or better-> REWRITE) that review, since(apartt from benchmark results) I didn't saw an article with sum BIG mistakes in every second sentence!Boys , I'm sorry for U but that Idiot who wrote that old Celeron does have 256k L2 is to be fired uppon !
Not to mention that 2.8Cel D should be compared to AXP2800+ or Semrpon2800+.
About 2500+ slower than 2200+: YES, it is a mistake undoubtedly there some where.
ZobarStyl - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link
Man what a week for Intel; they release all this new high-end stuff that isn't worth jack yet (and is o/c locked), then come out with some actually decent Cellys for the low end. Shoring up the low end but letting the high-end kinda simmer/slack off? Doesn't seem like Intel's style. Also, I wonder if it's almost too late to save the day, as the northwood-based Celerons were horrible and that will hurt that product's image for a while to come (don't forget there are still people who won't buy an AMD processor because of the old THG video =) )Dasterdly - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link
I agree with araczynski, first thing I looked for was a comparison from the prescot/northwood.araczynski - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link
throw in perspective by including a couple prescot/northwood scores on the graphs.tfranzese - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link
If only Intel were pricing these lower than competing AMD parts I might actaully build a system off these, but they'll have to work on that. Not to mention, as others have, the Sempron should be here soon and show improvements to an aging line.