Celeron 2 Overclocking 78
James Yu writes: "FiringSquad has a new overclocking report on the new Intel Celeron 2 processors. These new Celerons are based on the Pentium 3 Coppermine core, but only have half the L2 cache (128KB instead of 256KB). We were able to get one of our 566MHz chips all the way to 901MHz. Sounds like it could be the second coming of the 300A. "
PIII overclocked to 1438Mhz? (Score:1)
Re:SMP (Score:1)
dropn of #celeron(EFnet)
LNUX overclocking considered dangerous (Score:1)
Contender for CeleronII, try CuMine (Score:1)
Re:Spitfire (Score:1)
-A Coward from Dell Tech Support
Re:SMP (Score:2)
Socket 7 doesn't provide signals for CPUs to invalidate each others' cache lines, and for two threads to disagree about the state of main memory would cause Bad Things. You could only make it work by disabling all onboard caches, after which I doubt you'd come out ahead. I think Socket 8 (for Pentium Pros) was used in SMP systems, but a single Athlon or P3 probably has much better bang/buck nowadays.
I'm really looking forward to SMP Athlon; they use Alpha's bus protocol, and each CPU gets a dedicated 200MHz pipe to the memory controller!
sigh (Score:3)
The PDP-10's last laugh (Score:2)
On some (but I don't think all) of the PDP-10 processors, the registers were also the first few words of memory. To get a speed boost, some programs would put critical code into these addresses.
TECO was one of these progrmas. Your familiar EMACS began life as extensions to TECO
Come to think of it, todays microcomputer caches will hold a large chunk of a PDP-10's main memory as welll . . It seems to me that in '84 or so my university upgraded to 512k, though I don't remember whether that was in 8 bit bytes or 36 bit words . . .
the 640k barrier (Score:2)
Programs that didn't directly access the video hardware did not have a 640k limit. However, given that the available display adaptors had hard-wired addresses, once the industry started using direct acces, it was not possible to move the addresses of the video cards, which both the IBM design and msdos would have allowed.
Re:Yes and No--look at the stepping, on the casing (Score:1)
If that is the case, then I will be able to upgrade when they get cheap enough (ie. the lowest priced Intel CPUs).
Any idea if that is feasible?
Apparently Intel wanted to make it impossible to build SMP systems using Celeron 2, but then, they also said this for the original Celeron...
Buss spead is it. (Score:3)
Not because it's a faster chip or anything. It just runs the bus at 100MHz to 133MHz. When they push the Celeron to the edge it has a bus speed of 106MHz. Video intensive benchmarks will be affected by what the external bus speed is at more than any other benchmark.
What I want to see is something pearly CPU intensive like a compilation benchmark. I build kdelibs in just under 2 hours on my P200 with 64 Megs. How long will it take on a Celeron@901MHz with 128 megs of RAM ?
Not a 300A (Score:4)
They managed to pull some incredible clockrates out of the FCPGA Celeries, but in no way are they comparable to an equal Pentium 3:
While the original Celeron 300A@450MHz offered the same performance as a similarly clocked Pentium II, we can see from the benchmarks that the new Celeron will be significantly slower than a Coppermine P3 of the same speed. At 901MHz, the Celeron only outperforms the P3 by a minimal amount.
It's still a pretty good deal; spend about $180 for a Celeron 566 vs. $230 for a P3-600 133mhz FSB. Just keep in mind that a P3-900, when it comes out, will mop the floor with your Celeron
--
Re:Why Less L2 Cache? (Score:1)
Re:Yes and No--look at the stepping, on the casing (Score:1)
In this [gamepc.com] gamepc.com review, they seem to think that "Intel has finally caught on and fully disabled SMP with this particular Celeron family", but I can't work out whether they're just being stupid (i.e., putting FC-PGA Celerons in a PPGA board and expecting them to 'just work'). Do you happen to have definitive information that the new Celerons can be run dual?
thanks,
Hamish
Re:I've said it before I'll say it again... (Score:1)
I've said it before I'll say it again... (Score:2)
Re:SAVE OOG FROM A GRAVE INJUSTICE!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Score:1)
Re:Why Less L2 Cache? (Score:2)
Re:PIII overclocked to 1438Mhz? (Score:3)
Yeah, they're using the Super Pi calculation program as a benchmark. Starting at the top ranker, their cooling methods and CPU speeds are:
1) Liquid nitrogen (1438MHz on a PIII/800)
2) Liquid nitrogen (1360MHz on a PIII/800)
3) Liquid nitrogen (1283MHz on a PIII/800)
4) Water-cooled peltier (1210MHz on a PIII/866)
5) Water-cooled peltier (1270MHz on a PIII/850)
Check out this screenshot [big.or.jp] of the leader's CPU stats.
Re:Why Less L2 Cache? (Score:3)
Correct , but this is not enough to explain the performance difference. There is something else as well:
Here is hoping for a Abit BP6-2 (Score:4)
I read the inkiling of an article over at BP6.com [bp6.com] that you could run the PIII FC-PGA in a BP6 with an adapter. I suspect that the same should be capable with the new celerons, still a newer board would be even nicer.
However, the most interesting thing I heard was this from ars [arstechnica.com]
But there's more than higher clock speeds to these puppies. For one thing, they include the SSE instructions which, while they may or may not help you personally, definitely can't hurt to have. More importantly, they will be fabbed at 0.18 micron and include 256k of L2 cache. Now before anybody gets too excited, they plan to cripple them down to the standard 128k cache size. But if the BP6 showed us anything, it's that disabling can beundone... could be some exciting times ahead for overclockers...
Mmmmm. Imagine O/Cing one of these and enabling the crippled cache! Wooo!!!
I wonder if there is a serial number on these chips... Hmmm.
And finally, I know that someone is going to start posting how overclocking can destroy your chip YADDDA YADDDA YADDDA. Well I have heard it before and this Celery 300A @450 in my machine has not exploded yet. If you don't like overclocking, don't do it. Just don't tell others not to because you are not comfortable with it.
SMP (Score:1)
Is there anything besides the B6-P which is a cheap SMP board? Especially, is there any way to SMP slot7's?
Also, has anybody seen a cheap 4 or 8 way mobo?
thanks.
SMP (Score:2)
Can these run in an ABIT BP-6?
Re:Why Less L2 Cache? (Score:2)
Re:Buss spead is it. (Score:1)
"Mr. CPU, I'd like you to meet Mr. Video Card. He'll be cramping your style today."
In this case the video card is the bottle neck. In cases where it isn't so much a factor (low res) the celery did better then when it was a factor (high res).
Re:C300A was a misstake that they won't repeat. (Score:1)
Re:AMD's new competition (Score:2)
It is -absolutely- worthwhile to speculate about this, because it's goign to be reality in less than 6 weeks, possibly no more than 3-4 weeks. It means something because -stock analysts- are actually paying attention to this sort of thing, as are folks who give a shit about their computing platforms.
Second, AMD has already demo'd Tbird at 1.1Ghz. All indications show that TBird will likely be at 1.4-1.6Ghz at the time Willamette is released (if you want to talk about vaporware...). All indications also show Spitfire outperforming, or being on par with, the current Athlon. We'd have Spitfire -now- if this weren't the case (the original launch date was Mid-April, it's been moved into May).
Speculation is what makes people rich, people with your attitude stay middle-class.
Re:I've said it before I'll say it again... (Score:1)
Oh, and if you're so inclined, you can also overclock this setup. I run it at default speed using lower CPU voltage, your choice...
So, SMP is not (yet) for the masses, but it certainly is a viable and economically sound choice for some.
Re:Why Less L2 Cache? (Score:1)
Intel could sell the SX line cheaper than the DX line, for home/unpower users, and sell the DX chips to business/high output (for the time) users.
One assembly line, two marketing campaigns.
Re:SAVE OOG FROM A GRAVE INJUSTICE!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Score:1)
Re:Okay then, read this (Score:1)
Re:Why Less L2 Cache? (Score:3)
A small amount of fast L2 cache is faster than a large amount of slow L2 cache. However, you should start seeing L3 caches becoming common in upcoming Athlon systems... maybe 1 meg and higher!
EC
"...we are moving toward a Web-centric stage and our dear PC will be one of
Not only that, but .... (Score:1)
Ever since I got my new PIII, my computer is doing the strangest thing, does anyone else's computer .... talk to them? Mine's got an Intel pottie mouth.
Re:gotta love Intel!! (Score:1)
NOW... in come the overclockers, and WOW, can these babies overclock!!!
Wow, did we read the same article? I was under the impression the article expressed a sense of disappointment that the celeron was so similiar to the coppermine. If anything the article convinced me that the celerons were "ho-hum" overclockers and weren't really worth the money, better to wait and see what is up AMD and Intel's sleeves.
Cheat off my paper... (Score:4)
Synopsis
The celeron version of the coppermine has recently been released. These guys wanted to Over clock two of them to see how they'd perform when compared to their higher cache counter parts. 2 566 celerons OC'd to 901mhz and 850mhz performed marginally better than a coppermine 650. The celeron un-overclocked performed much worse than the coppermine.
If any of this is wrong, its your fault... eyes on your own paper man.
Re:Why Less L2 Cache? (Score:5)
Nearly right. The real reason that it's much cheaper for them to do it this way is because often times they'll make a PIII and there'll be a fab problem somewhere on the 256k L2 cache. Used to be, that PIII was either destined for a lower speed bin (maybe the flaw won't cause failure at lower speeds), or for the trash. Now, they can just turn that half of the L2 off and sell it as a Celeron 2!
Thus, the cost savings isn't just from only having "one assembly line", but rather because they can salvage chips that would otherwise be tossed in the trash. Of course, they almost certainly have to purposely disable half the L2 of some perfectly good chips so that they have exactly as many Celeron 2's as marketing says they need on the market...but you get the idea.
Definintion Required: (Score:3)
mount it ontop of a circa 1870 grandfather clock.
Then would I have the world's oldest overclocked machine.
OR would I have to dip the C64 in liquid hydrogen first?
Re:Why Less L2 Cache? (Score:1)
Well its the truth, one of the main reason for killing the L2 Cache is that no one (thenormal users) cares about that number... the Processor speed on the other hand... now thats a seller!
On a more serious note, the L2 cache makes it more exp. to make chips, if it is kept at larger sizes and hence you see Intel and AMD making handstands to get away with using smaller Cache and still keep pushing up the Mhz Limit...
gotta love Intel!! (Score:3)
OK now here is what I love about Intel.. Gamers like em cause they overclock.. which is the coolest thing to do if you ask me.. freaking having more cooling in your system is like adding stuff to a cars engine to let it BREATH!!! And well the ppl. who dont overclock will love the price... Intel has this all figured out I tell you and this is going to be just like the 300A's!!
Just for your INFO: They are keeping the clock at 66Mhz (default)... now as the article mentions this is usefull cause you can overclock by simply changing the FSB to 100!!!
The 566 has a 8.5X multiplier and a 66MHz bus speed (8.5 x 66MHz = 566MHz). We used an Abit BE6-II for our overclocking tests, and after dabbing on a little thermal paste and slapping on a fat fan, we started overclocking our first processor. The FSB speeds flew by as we went higher and higher. The CPU was still stable when we hit the magic 100MHz FSB for a 850MHz clock speed.
Okay then, read this (Score:1)
I'd disagree there - read this [slashdot.org] post by OOG and then this [slashdot.org] one. The idea AFAIK is a sort of troll on form rather than content - posting clever stuff in a stupid way and seeing how it gets moderated. After all it should be what the poster says and not how they say it that counts.
Re:Why Less L2 Cache? (Score:1)
Re:Why Less L2 Cache? (Score:1)
Re:SMP (Score:1)
-Foxxz
It depends on the application... (Score:4)
I ought to buy a cheap Celery-2 just to get my numbers on Distributed.net up to a respectable level.
But anyway, it all depends on what your applications for the processor are going to be, as to whether it'll really be worth the extra money. When a really good SMP Celeron-2 motherboard comes out, that and 2 cheap Celeron-2s will probably be cheaper and as effective in Linux or Win2k than a Coppermine P!!! at a speed grade or 2 above the 2 Celerons. In other words, the Celeron 2 still has its place even among the technocracy.
Yes and No--look at the stepping, on the casing (Score:5)
So, if the stepping of a CuMine--whether Celeron or full-cached--is 1, then it isn't certified for SMP. If the stepping of a full-cache Coppermine P!!! is at least 2, and prefereably 3, then it's fully SMP capable, definitely. While the Celerons are not certified for SMP work at all, and never were, they use the same core and therefore are SMP capable with the same caveats about the processor stepping. In fact, Celerons are probably just Coppermine P!!! with half the cache rendered unusable; this makes sense from an economic standpoint, because as AMD learned with their ghastly K6-III yields, much of the on-die cache can be ruined when the processor is being made; AMD had to disable all the on-die cache on such processors and sell them as cheap K6-2s, and when Intel gets a dud Coppermine it can still be sold as a Celeron as long as half of the on-die cache is still salvageable.
So, to make a long story short, yeah, the new Celeron-2s can do SMP as long as they're not stepping 1, and preferably at least stepping 3. The trick is finding a motherboard that can handle 2 SMP Celery-deuces; I think MSI is coming out with one soon, based on a VIA chipset.
Personally, I'm holding off my upgrade path (a lot--I'm still on a high K6-2 machine) until I can get an SMP Athlon Thunderbird setup, toward the end of the year. I do, however, plan to buy it one processor at a time--I ain't made of money. Personally, I'm happier with AMD chips just because I'm pissed that ChipZilla has been using the same processor core for so many year now it's pathetic. If not for AMD, we wouldn't have either Coppermine P!!! or Celery-2 processors yet--look at Intel's old roadmaps. It's obvious that they never have cared for advancing microprocessors for the desktop user. But, I digress...
Re:Celeron sucks (Score:1)
Re:SMP (Score:1)
Why Less L2 Cache? (Score:2)
Could anyone out there tell me why they just can't put more cache on and make it run at full clock speed? Is there a technical reason, or is Intel just being stingy?
Why not Pentium III's with 512k L2 cache running at full clock speed?
Re:AMD's new competition (Score:1)
Yeah, but... (Score:5)
For all the people looking for a BP6-2 (Score:1)
This card allows you to put Coppermine processors on normal Socket 370 boards, which normally don't support FCPGA processors. For more info on overclocking and these cards (in the future), I suggest HardOCP [hardocp.com] and Overclockers [overclockers.com].
Re:SMP (Score:1)
Friendtech converter cards [friendtech.com], convert from FCPGA to PPGA, has yet to be shipped, but should be available within the week.
Re:Yeah, but... (Score:1)
Just watch as your overclocked Celeron 2's melt as they try to uniquely identify themselves 901,000,000 times per second! ;-)
Benchmarks. (Score:1)
Re:gotta love Intel!! (Score:1)
Here here! There really is a striking resemblance between this and the hot-rods of the 50s. I mean, you've got machinery that a high-schooler with a paper route or a part-time summer job can afford to tinker with. You've got noisy fans, companies competing to make the fastest chip, high-end chip hot-rodders using LN2. I love it!!! Better yet, there probably won't be any reason for the EPA to saddle these babies with anything like a polution control.
Re:C300A was a misstake that they won't repeat. (Score:1)
C300A was a misstake that they won't repeat. (Score:3)
AMD's new competition (Score:2)
There are register rumors (thereby lending credence to the word "rumor") that the spitfires are actually faster than the Athlons. The register claims that they are holding back the spitfire until they can release their new athlon with on-die l2 cache. I don't know if that's true or not, but the Spitfire definitely looks like a serious contender for the Celeron II.
Re:SMP (Score:1)
Re:AMD's new competition (Score:1)
Re:Cheat off my paper... (Score:1)
Re:SMP (Score:1)
Re:Why Less L2 Cache? (Score:2)
1 ghz (Score:2)
Spitfire (Score:5)
This brings about another question: will Intel continue to dominate because of its name, or will AMD gain market share because of the probable superior performance of its Athlon series? I guess the answer depends on who gets more OEM support. AMD has won over several big name companies like IBM, but Intel's domination was shown when Dell decided to stick with Intel and froget about AMD despite Intel's production problems. It shows who has power when a company decides to lose money (Dell) rather than anger Intel.
Why? Oh..Why? (Score:1)
Besides, I used to have an overclocked Celeron and it made the system incredibly unstable. Personally, I think increased stability improves performance much more than a few unstable extra MHz-es worth of processor speed.
sigh.... (Score:1)
Even if we are to ignore the issue of this post being 'newsworthy', The reviews' implication that a P3 650 performs on par with the ~900Mhz Celermine is laughable. The reviewers decided (for whatever reason) to limit the 3d benchmarks with an old (many would say obsolete) video card. The bottleneck is clearly not the CPU at this point, an assertion backed by many of the other reviews of these chips. There is just no technical reason to support the odd results they got, nor were any attempts made to explain them.
Come on people, let's at least try to analyze what we read on the web before we submit it to
Re:AMD's new competition (Score:1)
Ok, first off, no offense to FreshView here, but I'd like to point something out.
AMD HAS NOT BEGUN SELLING THEIR VAPORWARE SPITFIRE
This thread is full of "wait and see what AMD will offer" or "AMD will trounce" or "AMD this, and AMD that" blah blah.
I couldn't care less which chip is faster. The deal here is that you can actually get your hands on the Celeron II. It exists. It can be purchased. It has been reviewed and tested by the public.
AMD spitfire chip is not out, cannot be purchased and is 100% speculation. Making it 0% worthwhile to speculate about.
Re:SMP (Score:4)
Don't forget that the celeron IIs are FCPGA (the chip is flipped, so equivalent pins are in different locations on the array), not PPGA, so hopefully ABIT or someone will come out with a FCPGA to PPGA "slocket".
I'd really like to see ABIT come out with a redesigned BP6 for FCPGA chips. I'd hate to have to get a higher priced dual slot-1 board in order to run SMP Celeron IIs with slockets.
On the other hand, for those brave-but-stupid people out there, you can work on your technique for hammering those pins back out the other side of the package to convert an FCPGA to a PPGA chip 8-o.
Karl
I'm a slacker? You're the one who waited until now to just sit arround.
Re:Benchmarks. (Score:1)
nice chips (Score:2)
Is it worth it? (Score:2)
Is it clever marketing ? (Score:1)
The whole Celeron range of CPUs seems to be deliberately crippled, unless you think Intel actually wants you to overclock them.
Intels website is at www.intel.com [intel.com] and more information on hardware can be found at tomshardware.com [tomshardware.com]
thank you
dmg
Re:PIII overclocked to 1438Mhz? - Not for us all (Score:1)
Chris...
---
Re:Spitfire (Score:1)
It's kinda like the Tommy Hilfiger thing.
Re:AMD's new competition (Score:1)
SO, where are all the 1GHz PIII's?
Intel was in such a rush to annouce they would have then, and they still don't have any kind of yield. AMD had 1GHz Athlons out BEFORE the date they posted!
The spitfire may not be out, but based on AMD's track record, I wouldn't be so doubtful that it's coming.
Actually, right now AMD's Athlons are as fast as PIII's at the given clock, and they are not priced much highter than Celerons! Yeah, why wait for the Spitfire, when you can get an Athlon 700Mhz chip NOW, for under $300!
Re:Celeron sucks (Score:1)
Remember, Celeron 900Mhz = 650Mhz PIII Cu. (approx) Dual CPU != 2X performance. For single process apps, an PIII/Athlon 850 will destroy a Celeron o/c'ed @ 900Mhz. In a configuration where you could actually use the 2nd CPU, it may acutally tie.
Based on my benchmark (3D Games) Athlon is the way to go for ppl who want performance, and a great price.
Re:Here is hoping for a Abit BP6-2 (Score:1)