celeron benchmarks?

Does anyone know of celeron benchmarks against other current and older mobile CPUs?

I'm trying to see how much of a difference the L2 cache makes on performance and if it justifies the extra 50-100 dollars.

 

The celeron chip is no longer (has never maybe) been a good chip.

The $50-100 extra will be well spent.

 

I've always said no to a computer with Celeron. Anything will help. Definetly worth the money.

 

a celeron processor is about as good as a piece of celery without any ranch dressing

 

Heh Heh.. that was a good one RedSensiStar. Celerons were never more than underclocked pentiums that failed the test. Instead of trashing them, Intel disabled cache, underclocked them, and sold them off as celerons, the ********.

 

A fine name dreamt up by the marketeers to imply speed. However, something like "Crippleon" would have been more appropriate.

Apart from providing a means to sell CPUs which would have otherwise have been binned (the T2060 is a recent equivalent in this respect), the Celeron range enabled Intel to undercut other suppliers of CPUs at the budget end of the market where purchasers assume that the Intel name automatically brings a good product. That said, an up-to-date Celeron is just about OK for today's least demanding applications, but I would recommend anyone to look for the cheapest of the dual core CPUs, even the T2060.

John

 

Trust me i have a rather old celly 1.5 with 256mb of ram and it not a good idea to have PS7.0 and Word and firefox open with 10+ tabs.

BTW, here an benchmark of mobile processors and it include some cellys(near the bottom).
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html

 

Thanks for that link to notebookcheck. I hadn't seen it before. I've got an old Fujitsu P2020 with a 633MHz Crusoe at home. It would probably manage to get into bottom place (but the real constraint on performance is 128MB RAM).

Tom's Hardware is developing a new mobile CPU chart. I understand from the feature that it is work in progress and will be progressive extended. I doubt that they will got back to the Celerons but it would be useful if they include the bottom end dual core CPUs.

 

DO NOT GET CELERY...i mean Celeron...or whatever. Avoid that processor like plague.

 

Well apart from a load of budget bashing the replies on this thread so far seem to have been entirely useless, congratulations everyone.

First off, what kind of celeron? If it's a Celeron-M it's not as bad as everyone here seems to think, after all they've never used one so what the hell do they know?

If it's a P4 or before based Celeron then really, I wouldn't.

If it's a Celeron-M then you should know certain things about these cpus:

1. No Celerons even mobile ones have speedstep. This hurts battery life considerably as the processor can't clock down when it's not being used. If you intend to use the battery a lot a Sempron or a higher price cpu like Turion or Core would be better.

2. Celeron-Ms are based on the exact same cores and manufacturing processes as their more expensive counterparts, which usually means they are fine for power. They of course lack speedstep and a second core which a lot of cpus have these days. They are fine for most tasks but a lot of use of either a) heavy-duty multitasking or b) very cpu intensive work such as compiling, encoding or heavy photoshop would really want something faster.

3. There are now three families of Celeron-M, 300, 400 and 500. The 300 series are based on the Pentium-M and score equivalent benchmarks to the Pentium-M around 100Mhz slower, e.g. a 1.6GHz C-M will benchmark around the same as a 1.5GHz P-M. Newer Pentium-Ms will fare better due to a 533MHz FSB.

The Celeron-M 400 series is based on the Yonah Core, that of the Core Solo and Core Duo. They are clock for clock faster than a Pentium-M but of course slower than a Core due to the halved L2 cache.

The Celeron-M 500 series are based on the Merom core of the Core 2 Duo cpu and have 1Mb L2 cache, half that of the T5000 series C2Ds and a quarter that of the T7000 series C2Ds. The first C-M 500 is being released Q1 2007, the C-M 520 which is 1.6GHz and 533MHz FSB. A 1.73GHz C-M 530 is being released in Q2. The C-M 500 series is being adapted for use in the new Santa Rosa platform and will appear in Q3 2007.

So:

Which type of Celeron is it? What kind of tasks do you want the laptop for? What are your upgrade options? The $50-100 upgrade is probably worth it if it secures you a Core Duo or Turion X2. Anything else and it probably isn't.

 

Jess makes a good point; while the Celeron is a budget CPU, it still has a good amount of power. The biggest disadvantage to having a Celeron in a notebook is the lack of SpeedStep. That means more heat and less battery life.

Dual-core is so cheap nowadays - the "Pentium Dual-Core T2060" is worth looking at. It is usually only marginally more expensive than the Celerons.

 

At idle, yes. Under load I find it's usually as cool or often cooler than most mainstream cpus, especially Core Duos.

 

Jess, thank you for your detailed explanation about the different types of Celeron and for pointing out the lack of Speedstep. However, I think it is a trifle unreasonable to call the preceding advice useless The original post asked about benchmarks and some were found. And we also advised that paying a little more money for something better would be a good idea.

John

 

Sorry John, I did note your post was a lot more useful than the others, but you must admit a lot of them were along the lines of

'don't get a celery, they suck!'

Which is neither true nor helpful. I too would advise getting something more advanced if money permits, what gets me is the cpu arrogance on this forum which basically equates to if it's not Core Duo it's not worth getting. Budget cpus are still riled especially Celerons and whereas the older PIII and P4 based chips were a bit lame the Celeron-Ms deserve no such censure.

Could we ever (god forbid) have a constructive and informed thread about Celerons? It would appear not. This and the silly posts annoy me, as I have a Celeron-M and it's a great little cpu. I admit its flaws, I have done in my first post, but having run xp machines based on everything from a PIII based Celeron at 933Mhz to a 2400MHz Athlon 64 I would by no means call it slow or 'rubbish'.

This attitude towards Semprons and Celerons especially I fear not only means that some users are coerced into buying more powerful cpus than they need and as such have less of their budget to spend on more important components but also that the budget users get scared or disgusted by the attitude and don't feel like they can post freely.

It is a typical human bias, being against something because of what it is not because of it's individual attributes. It is akin in my opinion to hardware racism and should be quelled if at all possible because it gives a bad image at the very least and this I have been trying to do since I joined.

 

I dunno, I always thought Celerons were just neutered Pentiums with less cache, low clocks, and no power savings features. Are the Celeron M's different?

 

The latest Celeron-Ms go from 1.6-2Ghz which is about the same as most mainstream line cpus these days. Your appraisal seems to be about right, I think however the Celeron-Ms are the first to be based on really good chips in the first place.

Personally I have owned a Celeron 933Mhz and a PIII 933MHz and I can't tell the difference.

 

Thanks for the informative posts, Jess.

The Celeron that I'm looking at is a Celeron-M. I'm not sure which generation it is but I think the upgrade will probably be worth it.

I wish that there were more controlled benchmark comparisons between the mobile CPUs like there are for the desktop CPUs. It would be nice for those, like me, looking at the low-budget spectrum of laptops.