Celeron M 1.86 GHz v. Core 2 Duo T5270 1.4 GHz

Which one would be faster for single-threaded applications? The dual-core-ness of the Core 2 Duo wouldn't help, except slightly in background tasks. I would guess the Core 2 Duo has better return per clock cycle, but is it enough to overcome a 466 MHz (33%) speed deficit?

 

I'm pretty sure the C2D would beat the Celeron with ease.

 

c2d hands down.

 

LOL! Yet again more people posting misinformation....nizzy why do you keep posting misinformation all over this forum? I have seen posts from you in other thread and it seems like you just post what feels correct to you....at anyrate...

The Core2Dou would not be much faster at all. Depends on the app also. That Clereon M could SMOKE that C2D in certain apps.

The Celeron M 440 1.86ghz is a coreduo chip with simply one core active and less cache and slower fsb. The newer Celeron M 5xx chips are made from Core2Duos

In single threaded apps clock is KING but due to the newer core arch. in core2duo, more cache, and slighlty faster fsb this will make the c2d catch up but it will NOT be superior to the Celeron M. Anyone who disagrees simply has never owned these chips before and are just "guessing" by what they "feel" would be correct.

 

Celeron M 540 at 1.86 GHz to be specific. Didn't realize there was a 440 model.

Now I'm not sure what to believe - my initial thought was the Celeron, I thought they were based on C2D's, and the only response with more than half a line says Celeron. But 87.5% of the votes say Core 2 Duo. Too bad no one's tested these in Bye Bye Super Pi.

 

Oh there is NO question about it then.
Celeron M 540 1.86ghz will SMOKE that core2duo in ANY single threaded app.
Celeron M 540 IS a core2duo chip with 1 core active and slightly less cache and slightly lower fsb. All the 500 series Celeron Ms are core2duos chips. All previous verisons below 500 were coreduo/pentium M.
The less cache and slightly lower fsb will NOT over come a massive clock advantage of 466mhz.

NO WAY.

Again, Anyone who disagrees simply does not know what the are talking about.
Dont bother looking at the poll. People voting for c2d are simple wrong and I have clearly proven it here with superior knowledge.

 

A couple of wPrime results from my library:

U1500 (1.33GHz, 2MB L2 cache) = 126s
1.6GHz Pentium M (1MB L2 cache) = 113s

If the objective is to run one lengthy single-threaded application then the single core CPU would be faster. If the objective is overall smooth operation with several single-threaded applications sharing the CPU time then the dual core CPU is more likely to succeed because of less queuing for a slice of CPU time.

The U1500 in my Sony G11 gives acceptable performance most of the time but I have learnt that I need to be patient when the CPU is busy doing something.

John

 

If you're deciding on the processor when buying a new computer, go with the Core 2, it's definitely more future-proof than the Celerons, even if the Celeron runs slightly faster in single-threaded applications.

Side Note: Is he banned for good now?

 

@Apollo13
What kind of single threaded apps will you be running?

Onion is temporarily banned for 2 days.

 

Oh come on.

 

It's actually a hypothetical; I'm planning to stick with the T7500. But I've been debating with one of my friends, who got a Vostro 1500 with the T5270, whether the 5270 or Celeron M 540 would be quicker for single-threaded applications. I almost persuaded him to buy a Celeron 540 and switch out the 5270 for it, before he realized the whole point of his buying a cheap system was to not spend money on it.

Applications running on it are games from a few years ago and antivirus/spyware killer. I know my favorite game is a single-threaded CPU killer, but he doesn't play my favorite game.

 

Funny how they banned onion when he is right.

 

Debatable. The Celeron-M has higher clock speed and tghe same cache per core, but it is based on teh Core Duo not Core 2 Cduo so it's a slower Core.

I'd buy the Core 2 Duo for the dual core capability and the speedstepping. Celerons tend to run hot and can be a pain over extended use as you have to keep an eye on temps and cooling.

 

hes not right

theres no way a celeron would even beat a core 2 even if it was 3ghz.

 

moon angel you are incorrect. All Celeron Ms 500 and up are Core 2 Duo like onion said. This has been confirmed many many times. CPU-Z and even Intel website confirm All Celeron Ms 500 and up are based of core2duo Merom core.

It is not debatable. The Celeron M is faster.

 

You're right a Celeron would not. A Celeron M 540 will as it is the exact same chip as core2duo.

Banned or not onion is right. Kind of funny the guy posts the correct answer and he gets banned.

 

Noone's banning him for stating the correct answer. He got banned for the way he stated that answer, and for the way he treats and talks about people on here.

Why is it not debatable? Simply cuz you said so? Who are you again?

Show us facts that is it faster, and we'll agree that this topic is "not debatable". But until you do so, you are just talking out of your ass.

You smell a lot like Onion, why do I have the feeling that it's him with a newly made up name. None ever defends Onion, especially not the way you are, so what does that say?

 

He said Celeron-M 540 which is indeed based on Core 2 Duo. There are two 1.86GHz Celeron-Ms, the 440 and 540 so we had to clarify which. I just saw 440 on the previous page so, I was wrong about that. I have a Celeron-M so don't think me ignorant of their specs and origins.

Onion is not banned for posting correct answers, onion is banned for his awful attitude in other threads.

Well if you want proof it'll be hard to find. No-one compares Core 2 Duos to Celerons, they compare them to Turion X2s and the like. Let's break it down. Unholyone, pay attention.


The Celeron-M is the budget version of three series of Intel chips, The Pentium-M, Core Duo and Core 2 Duo. There have been three ranges of Celeron-M, the 300 series (Pentium-M based), 400 series (Core Duo based) and the 500 series (Core 2 Duo based).

The features (or lack of) that make the Celeron-M the budget chips are these and only these:

1: A lack of total level 2 cache when compared to mainline chips
2: A lack of the speedstepping.
3: Lower FSB speeds in some cases than relevant mainline chips.

A Core 2 Duo T5270 has a total 2MB L2 cache. You can't split it in half, it doesn't work like that but the Celeron-M has the same amount of level 2 cache per core as the lower Core and Core 2 Duos. The Celeron-Ms are also based on the exact same cpu architecture as their more expensive counterparts so lack nothing there. Speedstepping has no effect on cpu performance, however it does affect battery life and heat output.

So, taking out speedstepping for the moment as irrelevant to cpu performance, Differences amount to FSB and cache. The T5270 has an 800MHz FSB while the Celeron-M 540 has 533MHz. The T5270 has 1.4GHz and the Celeron-M 540 1.86GHz. The Celeron-M 540s were introduced for the Santa Rosa platform and use the same socket and chipset. They also use the same Core. So what we have in effect here is a 1.86GHz Core 2, with half the cache and only one core.

The OP specified single threaded. This removes the second Core from the equasion. Not taking into account the system performance while multitasking, as the OP specified one single threaded application, the Celeron-M has 466MHz advantage, and gives away 266MHz of FSB. The Core 2 wins on Cache.

Given that no mobile chipset can yet utilise 800MHz ram, with 533MHz ram the Celeron would gain a ram advantage. The lower FSB when matched with ram speed would give a 1:1 cpu:ram cycle ratio which would be quicker than an 800MHz FSB with 533 or 667MHz ram.

So the faster FSB really has no bearing when using 533MHz ram as the Celeron will actually be quicker with 533MHz ram when it comes to practical ram speed. So it boils down to 466MHz VS an extra MB of cache. Hard to say, very hard.

Speaking as someone who lives with a Celeron-M laptop I'd say get the Core 2 Duo for the following reasons:

1: The lack of speedstepping on a Celeron-M reduces battery life and increases heat output. Both of these are annoying.

2: The added multitasking capability.

However we must take into account price difference. For a small premium the Core 2 is definitely worth it, but for a large premium I would say it is not.


Unholyone - I think we can agree that I'm not too bad when it comes to Celeron-M info. I have a long long history of educating members of this forum about Celeron-Ms and how they're not always "rubbish".

I hope the above helps the discussion and helps the OP's choice of cpu.



Edit: The numbers would be hard to find but one comparison would be a super-pi calculation. It is single threaded, but doesn't really utilise a lot of ram I don't think, so the ram speeds would not be comparable.

 

I'd give dual core serious consideration especially if you will be running background apps like anti-virus. I had a relatively new dual core Asus that ran like crap out the box until I uninstalled Norton's. I'm currently running a 1.8 Pentium-M notebook now and the only time I really miss having a dual core is when I'm running in power saver mode on battery. On the dually even with the CPU throttled down to the minimum videos still played smooth but on the P-M it skips frames like mad until I set the CPU back to full speed.

 

Thats fine but OP clearly is stating under single thread app. Hes clearly stating that he does not care about multitasking. In this situation the celeron wins. Windows services and its other processes are neglectable.

Im not going to get banned like onion did for posting correct information am I? Sorry guys but antivirus and spykiller are at rest nearly all the time so the celeron m wins when gaming and single threaded apps....

While his overall experience would be better with dual core but thats not the point. The point is he wants a CHEAP laptop that can run single threaded apps faster like games...so how does the celeron m win?

Core 2 Duo - ALOT more expensive, slower in single threaded apps.
Celeron M - MUCH less expensive and faster in single threaded apps.

As you can see the choice is clear.....Celeron M wins.

Please dont ban me!

 

incorrect. it would depend on the game. almost all games that have come out in the past year and half are multithreaded. many benchmarks have shown that dual cores perform a good bit better than single cores of the same clock speed. thus, depending on the game, you may see better performance with a dual core processor.

 

That nice but OP CLEARLY stated and I quote "Applications running on it are games from a few years ago" Please read the entire thread before posting.

Again, Celeron M wins....

Its kind of funny how in this situation and thread it has been shown the Celeron M is clearly the better CPU yet nobody can show how the core 2 duo would be a better buy. I find that funny.

 

Celeron M drains battery soo fast.
Nowadays, it's very rare to be single threaded.

Intel determined celeron to be budget processor, it lacks VT........
C2D is powerful processor.
Budget wont beat a powerful one.

If you buy celeron, and decide to sell your notebook sometime in the future, Celeron based platform's price would decrease significantly...
no offense...just my2c

 

Thanks for your input but that didnt make any sense at all as the celeron m 540 "budget" processor IS a core 2 duo chip.

OP clearly stated the laptop WILL be in a single thread enviornment and did not state battery life was an issue.

Oh and by the way, NONE of the 5000 series of Core 2 Duos support VT other than the T5600.

You will actually lose alot more money reselling the core 2 duo in the future as you're paying a HUGE premium over the celeron and this premium which will greatly degrade in the future since its one of the slowest core 2 duos chips you can buy. In the near future that core 2 duo will be flooded on ebay as people upgrade thier laptops and it will be nearly worthless. Equaly as worthless as the celeron M....you are obviously not in laptop resales as we are. We have been resellers of laptops on ebay for over 4 years now.

I dont know if you just posted to be a troll but please double check specs and laptop resale economics as the information you posted is basically all incorrect other than the a celeron m unit having less battery life.

 

unholyone, you didn't actually read my post then... I made some good cases for buying the Core 2 Duo based on my experience owning a Celeron-M. These are not based on out and out power though.

 

Its only 50 dollers more on dell.com

 

Currently Intel's C2d line are the most powerfull but that said.
Celeron is said to be worse than sempron which is a castrated Amd so i really do not find it attractive even if it is clocked at 3GHz vs a 1,2Ghz C2d

 

Umm, maybe you should read before posting. Where do you get your saying that the CM clearly wins? Do you have benchmarks? Other tests?

It's kind of funny how you keep blabbing on about the CM, yet you have NO PROOF (other that you saying it) to back that up. I find that even funnier.

So until you give us concrete proof from real benchmarks, you saying that the Celeron M clearly wins is purely an opinion.

 

But background processess and services do matter and affect overall system performance whether you admit it or not. Just because you run a single threaded application doesn't mean all that stuff running in the background just suddenly comes to a screeching halt.

 

As I said, no-one really runs comparable numbers. I'd say my previous rather long post is a pretty good breakdown of the concepts. Personally I'd take the T5270 but I'd rather a T5250 with 667MHz ram. The T5270 is a rather pointless cpu in Intel's lineup.

As for wolfraider, your post clearly show you have no contact with Celeron-M cpus and know nothing about them, or even Semprons for that matter.

 

Exactly, so when he says "The Celeron M clearly wins", it's just his own personal opinion with absolutely nothing concrete to back him up.

Your post dissecting the 2 cores is the closes we have to an actual benchmark.

 

The thing you you dont understand that the Celeron M 540 is a single core2duo core. This is not the old Pentium 4 based Celeron. I dont understand how you can not understand this....

Its clear you're just a troll and should be banned. I will alert moderators about your thread trolling.

 

Again, background processes are neglectable. Proof is in one computers CPU usage at 0% to 1% when you're not doing anything. Thats neglectable...

Celeron M 540 wins again.

 

Unfortunately unholyone a lot of people know very little when it comes to the realities of Celeron cpus, they just assume Celeron = bad.

Others of us know better.

 

Proof?

Again, you keep avoiding that, and once again that statement is purely an opinion backed up by anything. You can keep saying that the CM is based off the C2D core, but that's all you got, nothing concrete...

 

Sort of unavoidable, seeing how it was being marketed back in the day. Even I felt that anything Celeron is bad, but later on I realized that it's based on C2D [the newer ones, at least]. Well that's my understanding anyway. If it's wrong, please correct me

You've to keep an open mind these days

 

Ok, here are some numbers:

Super Pi, single threaded application. My understanding is Core 2 Duos can only use one Core for this but I think access most of their 2MB cache.

Celeron-M 540 for 2M: 1:23

T5470 1.66GHz for 2M: 1:17


Bearing in mind that the T5270 loses 266MHz to the T5470, it looks like fairly level pegging. Numbers are sourced from NBR, the Celeron one from the "Test your cpu speed" and the T5270 from JerryJ's Vostro 1500 review. The difference in super pi for two cpus 266MHz apart but otherwise the same is around 6-8 seconds based on the Core Duo results in the same thread.

So it looks like they would post very similar results, on a single threaded application, exactly as I theorised.

How is that?

 

Here is also some notebook CPU benchamark results sorted by SuperPi score (single threaded): Notebookcheck.com

Although there isn't scores for these particular processors in question, there's scores for Celeron M 520, which is lower clocked than the M 540 and for few Core 2 Duo T5xx0 processors.

 

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=107265

 

As you can clearly see in those scores the Celeron M 520 1.6ghz is nearly on par with a Core2Duo 1.66ghz.

Celeron M 520 1.6ghz - 39
Core 2 Duo 1.66ghz - 34

Makes sense as the core 2 duo is clocked higher and has faster fsb + more cache.

This PROVES the 1.86ghz Celeron M 540 will SMOKE a Core2Duo 1.4ghz in single threaded apps.

 

Anyone find it funny that unholyone joined today, while onion was banned yesterday? Plus they have the exact same a-hole demeanor - thinking they're better than everyone else?

 

Yeah he is onion.

Ok people READ THE POST! I posted comparable scores proving they are evenly matched, please read the post and take heed of the numbers or I'll close this thread. Idon't know why I bother.

 

Look on page 2, I thought so too about him being Onion.

 

It doesn't actually prove anything since there's only one run made for some of those scores. I didn't post that page to be a proof for your claims. It just gives some idea of the performance differences. Also note that C2D's score higher in Dhrystone and Whetstone.

And don't ever expect that your fellow forum members will care or respect your knowledge about anything, if you don't show any respect to them.

 

Because Dhrystone and Whetstone are multithreaded. We are disscussing single threaded apps.

Super pi being a single threaded app clearly shows a Celeron M 540 is superior to a core2duo 1.4ghz.

These are proven facts. Is it really that had to accept? Both CPUs use the exact same core. The little extra fsb and cache does very little when you have a massive 466mhz lead of the Celeron M 540.

Case closed everyone...Im sorry you guys dont like to hear it but Clereon M 540 wins in this situation.

 

I've had both & The Celerons suck, all of them.

I like when trolls call people trolls....

I've never seen a computer stay at 0% for less then 1 second so, it's clear they are important.

Please show some Proof.
A tip: people treat you the way you treat them.
You should be nicer if you expect help onion/unholyone.

 

I do not know and I do not care as to why this thread had to grow so long to answer a single question.

The Core 2 Duo is much better than the Celeron CPU in ALL applications, end of story.

 

If you look you'll see the C2D has a 6 second lead.
The 266MHz difference will be neglible.

Now, in my first post I tried to help you. Know all I say is:
STOP TROLLING, PLEASE?

 

WHAT? You're the one trolling...

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile....html?&deskornote=&or=&search=&sort=superpi1m

Super pi 1m

Celeron M 520 1.6ghz - 39
Core 2 Duo 1.66ghz - 34

Celeron M 540 1.86hz clearly SMOKES the c2d 1.4ghz. These are confirmed records.

 

I looked similair models C2D wins.