Intel rolls out dual-core Celerons, dual-core suddenly less impressive
By Donald Melanson 
posted January 22nd 2008 12:27PM
posted January 22nd 2008 12:27PM
As expected, Intel has rolled out its first dual-core Celeron processors, bringing the low-end and often-derided processor line up a few notches and quite possibly making quad-core the new dual-core once and for all. The first of those processors to hit hte market is the 1.6GHz E1200 model, which relies on the slightly less-desirable 65-nanometer manufacturing process and boasts 512K bytes of cache and an 800MHz front-side bus. Not exactly the most impressive of processors, but nothing to sneeze at either, especially considering its $53 price tag -- in quantities of 1,000 units, that is. No word on any other dual-core additions to the line, but given Intel's track record of processor offerings, we'd expect this to be only a taste of things to come.
"Well, considering that I have my $43 single core Celeron-L 438 1.8GHz (Core2) overclocked to 3.06GHz and it outperforms a $900 Athlon FX-57, I'd say this new dual core is one hell of a processor."
You need to get up to date man. The FX-57 was back when AMD was on top. Intel has had the upper hand for a while now. FX-57's are going for $150 on ebay. Go get yourself a new Q9450 and see what the future is really like.
Quad cores really are becoming the new dual cores. I have a Q6600 Quad core overclocked to 3.82 Ghz and couldn't be happier with it.
psh, 3.8GHz . . that just pisses me off.
nothing personal, just speed envy.
I'm stuck with a Celeron M 1.5 GHz...
I feel sad, very sad...
Of course an E8400 45nm Core 2 Duo will overclock to over 4 GHz all while running cooler than your Q6600 AND costing much less.
Yes, I'm a geek. :)
A DUAL CORE CELERON????
That's like making a Honda Civic with 1001 HP
No, it's like putting a turbo charger in a Chevette.... sounds like a good idea at the time... but in practicality, it's stil a Chevette.
I guess you are new at this computer business. What once was "hot stuff" is always soon "bargins" in electroncis.
When it comes to Honda Civics with 1001 hp, that sounds more like putting any modern processor in a computer that runs vista. Considering that the speed would be supercomputer-worthy some years ago doesn't make a computer that runs vista feel any faster.
But it is not only computers that runs slower on faster engines, the type-r of this generation Honda Civic is not as nippy as the type-r of the previous generation just because of all the extra weight caused by new gadgets.
You can put as much perfume you want on a pile a sh!t, it dosn't change what it is...
512k Cache? as in 256k x 2? or 512k x 2?
Either way, thats... umm... great...
/me huggles his 4mb x 2 cache....
You can huggle your fancy 4mb of L2, i love my 512k of L2, and get this, its from a Athlon XP 3000+ barton core. go check out how much it costs, and how old it is. oh, and yeah, it plays crysis on medium. with an AGP video card from ATI.
You can huggle your fancy 4mb of L2, i love my 512k of L2, and get this, its from a Athlon XP 3000+ barton core. go check out how much it costs, and how old it is. oh, and yeah, it plays crysis on medium. with an AGP video card from ATI.
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1340
Seriously engadget, fix this issue, so that it wont let 2 posts of the same content get posted, and the other issue with replying to a comment, and from that page on, replies wont, um, get posted under the coment the poster tried to reply to.
@Bobs
Congratulations. We're all happy of your... Marvelous achievement.
How you know its time to upgrade:
The cheapest $50 CPU on the market has 2x the L2 cache as yours, its got 2x the cores, and its rated the same speed... I feel like I should be in a museum...
I've got an HP 8750C Pavilion Desktop PC with a Pentium 3 450mhz - 256 mb Ram (maximum allowed) and a 20 Gigabyte Quantum Fireball HDD which is slow as sh!t.
I refuse to part with it cause it has dual DVD-RW drive bays and DVD Copy X Platinum so I can run off copies of DVD's in an hour.
I do most of my work with newer laptops and I have a computer lab at work of eMac's and a G5 desktop so I'm not really hurtin' for a new PC.
My HP a735w is like that creepy grandpa who can not only own you at CSS, but also attends TWL tournaments, and wins.
ghz is not a computer speed rating, it is number of cycles per second the processor handles.
In case you didn't get my drift, I don't hold Civics in high regard.
The new e8400 and e8500 are also out as of yesterday!!!
I saw one guy take the e8400 up to 4.7 on air. Drool................
yeah, those chips are awesome. Just waiting for the lower-priced options.
dual-core less impressive, my ass, engadget.
Didn't the Pentium Dual Core (the castrated Core Duo) by default pretty much take up the slot of where a the Celeron would be? Where exactly will this *new* Dual Core Celeron fit in then? Let's get this straight, Intel is now offering FOUR CPUs with dual cores? Core 2 Duo, Core Duo, Pentium Dual Core and then Celeron Dual Core? Nothing like adding confusion to the market place!!!
no confusion. The only one worth getting is Core 2 Duo.
You forgot the Xeon, which is obviously the best processor for servers and workstations :)
i have a question maybe someone here can answer..
why are xeons restricted to servers and not gaming?
like what i'm saying is, why are core 2 duos > xeons when it comes to gaming?
on paper it seems to me like xeons would out perform them
it has to do with the chip architecture doesn't it
Was really talking about the consumer market - obviously Intel also offers enterprise processors in dual and quad cores - doubt we'll see dual core celerons in servers anytime soon.
Also, many of the "extreme" editions of the Intel line were (are?) enterprise cores married to consumer interfaces (think about the old socket 478 Pentium 4 EE based on the Xeon Gallatin core)
This is good news. The way I read it is that Intel has found a way to increase yields, and for $53 a CPU, there's nothing to complain about. Soon we should be able to get pretty good low end computers. I'm sure this CPU would be going into my next home server, replacing the 1.7 GHz P4 that's been running for the last 6 years or so.
That wouldn't be a bad processor for a do it yourself Linux based NAS box...
$53? For what it is, this probably isn't a bad chip. Pair this with some cheap motherboard and use budget components to build a cheap computer that's great for email, webapps, and light office work (Read: typing documents or simple spreadsheets with no complex calculations). This could very well be an option for my next linux router!
Does this mean cheaper laptops or even desktops coming out in the market?
I do a lot of heavy processing...research work, video encoding..things like that.
My dual-core boots Vista up in an instant and as for DVD encoding - 260 minutes in under 1.5 hours?. I'm pretty happy with it.
Although quad-core may the new dual-core, I don't think I'll be switching until Windows 7 comes out.
But we'll all have quantum computers by then and will live on the moon
Quad-core is more marketing fluff than actual performance. Unless you're shelling out for the top of the line (a foolish move), a faster Dual-core is a better buy, and will be for a while.
but in the future, (once applications have full multi-threaded support) you'll wish you had 4 cores instead of 2. It's future proofing. Of course... I'd not recommend buying any of the available quad cores because they're first and second gen. The new stuff that AMD and Intel have planned (like Intel adding Hyper Threading back into the mix) will make what's out now the crap they put in low end boxes ;)
The software in most programs likely won't take full advantage of quad-core for the lifetime of the machine you buy now.
What's the point of future-proofing if you pay a premium now, only to potentially never capitalize later? Getting a DX10 card is future-proofing. Quad-core is throwing your money/performance away. Buy dual core now, upgrade/switch to quad later.
Well, considering that I have my $43 single core Celeron-L 438 1.8GHz (Core2) overclocked to 3.06GHz and it outperforms a $900 Athlon FX-57, I'd say this new dual core is one hell of a processor.
*edit* Celeron-L 430, my bad (see above ^ )
Interesting, I always thought the Celeron D was dualcore, but according to Wikipedia its not. How decieving, intel. Touch'e!
65W TDP... BOO! dual core 65nm mobile chips can make it to 35W, it's a shame this couldn't have been brought down.
Ugh, as a former CIO, suggesting the purchase of Celerons to cut costs was the single biggest regret of my career. Nothing bottlenecks like a Celeron.
I wonder how far these chips will over clock...
(although if i was in the market for a lower end pc, i'd still pay $30 more for a dual-core pentium E series.)
Karl HacksWell, I agree that it is odd that Intel named a processor Celeron D, despite the fact that it isn't dual-core. The only benefit of a Celeron D is that it has twice as much L2 cache as a normal Celeron.
and the celeron d was em64t capable, the previous generation wasn't. I have a celeron m440 in my laptop and it performs almost perfect for what I do. I don't play games 24/7, I have a life, and I do homework and listen to music on it (which it handles without a hiccup). the only thing I would change is the TDP, because the fans have to run when they really shouldn't if I had a c2d.
I see this new dual-core celeron making a very nice (cheap) HTPC. Get a little shuttle box with this inside and some massive HDD's, and your ready for media center.
umm, maybe its not the processors fault, maybe you need a clean of the OS (Or install one worth downloading ;)) Maybe pop in some more ram.
I am using a celeron 900 mobile, that is clocked at 630mhz(its an eee) which can run ubuntu, with spangly compiz and the emerald decorator, openoffice, thunderbird,opera and songbird allrunning at the same time. The performance is fine, and feels a lok nippier than the vista machine I tried whaich had some midrange processor that was probably on paper about 4* faster than this machine.
Intel still makes celerons? :/
Cheaper desktops would be awesome, though.
How about Intel rolls out those yorkies.... In the mean time file this article in the who cares section..
i'm sorry but.... you spelled "the" wrong "hte"?
I bet the intel people were at a meeting and one of them said "I wonder what happens when we stick 2 crappy cpus together" and thus the dual core celeron was born. Stupid question but my P4 ht 3.4ghz is still faster than this right?
don't hte the speller...