The month of May was very busy with the migration of Intel Pentium 4 processors to 533MHz bus and the launching of many new chipsets. Against this background the release of the new budget solutions from Intel Celeron family remained almost unnoticed. Nevertheless, the new Celeron processors working at 1.7GHz and 1.8GHz are absolutely new models, so we cannot disregard their launching. The matter is that new Intel Celeron processors released in mid May are based on Pentium 4 architecture, i.e. on the "cut down" 0.18micron Willamette core.

Every time Intel announced some budget solutions on new cores, the event attracted a lot of public attention. This extreme attention can be explained not only by the fact that this way they raised the minimum performance bar for the contemporary PCs, but also by the fact that Celeron CPUs have very often boasted pretty high overclocking potential, which allowed overclockers to get a fast and relatively cheap product for their systems.

However, there is one more reason why the launching of Celeron processors based on Willamette core is worth our particular attention. When we reviewed Pentium 4 processors on NetBurst architecture in the past, we mentioned several times that they were often slower that the CPUs working at the same core clock frequency but based on some different architecture. So, the transition of Celeron processors to NetBurst architecture pushed some computer enthusiasts to think a bit more about the expected performance of these solutions. Sometimes, we could even come across the opinion that new Celeron CPUs working at 1.7GHz and 1.8GHz would work even slower than their predecessors supporting 1.3GHz and 1.4GHz and based on Tualatin core. This article will help us to figure out the actual performance of the new Value processors. However, before passing over to the tests let's dwell a bit on the features of the newcomers and the general situation in the budget CPU market.

New Celeron - Pentium 4's Younger Brother

New Celeron processors, available only as 1.7GHz and 1.8GHz models, are based on Willamette-128 core. This name describes excellently the new processors. Celeron (Willamette-128) is the same 0.18micron Pentium 4 but with a smaller 128KB L2 cache.

I would like to point out that the new Celeron, like its predecessors, is built using three major Intel's principles for developing low-cost CPUs from the performance ones. These principles look as follows:

• Budget CPUs are based on the same architecture as the performance ones however feature smaller L2 cache.
• Budget CPUs use slower bus than the performance ones.
• Budget CPUs work at lower core clock frequencies than the performance ones.

When Intel applied these three principles to Pentium 4, they got new Celeron CPUs on Willamette-128 core. The major features of the new solution are the following:

• The processor core is codenamed Willamette-128. It is manufactured with 0.18micron technology.
• L1 cache: 8KB for data, trace cache for around 12000uops.
• 128KB on-die L2 cache working at the full processor frequency. 256bit L2 cache bus.
• Core clock frequencies equal to 1.7GHz and 1.8GHz. The models working at 1.9GHz and 2GHz are due by the end of the year.
• 400MHz Quad Pumped processor bus, Socket478 physical interface.
• Supports MMX, SSE and SSE2 instructions.
• 1.75V Vcore.

It's true, the new Celerons are none other but the same Pentium 4 with a smaller 128KB L2 cache memory and 400MHz bus, while the today's Pentium 4 processors feature 512KB L2 cache and 533MHz bus. Moreover, you should note that the cache of Celeron processor is organized in absolutely the same way as that of Pentium 4, they both feature the same amount of associativity areas and follow the same algorithms.

Proving this point we would like to offer you several diagrams showing the performance of systems built with Celeron (Willamette-128), Pentium 4 (Willamette) and Pentium 4 (Northwood) processors when working with memory blocks of different size:

As we see, when we use up to 128KB data blocks, the L1 and L2 caches of all three processors work similarly fast.

I would also like to say a few words about the reasons that inspired Intel to use 0.18micron manufacturing technology for its new Celeron processors. To tell the truth, it looks very strange especially since the previous Celeron models based on Tualatin core were produced with 0.13micron copper interconnect technology. However, things get more or less logical if we take into account the fact that all Pentium 4 processors are now moved to 0.13micron technology and Intel still has quite a lot of production lines working only with 0.18micron process. This is exactly the reason why the3 new Celeron CPUs will be made with 0.18micron technology. This state of things is going to last until the beginning of next year when Celeron processors start using a "lite" version of 0.13micron Northwood core. By the way, the migration to 0.13micron technology is expected to be accompanied by the increase in its L2 cache memory up to 256KB.

It is also a very pleasant surprise that all desktop Intel CPUs are again designed for only one socket - Socket478. New Celeron CPUs can work in the same mainboards as Pentium 4 processors, which implies a lot of promising opportunities for the future upgrade of today's low-cost systems.

AMD's Competitors. Duron? No, Athlon XP!

In order to be able to evaluate all highs and lows of the new Celeron processors, we should compare them with the competing products from other manufacturers, AMD in our case. However, it would be incorrect to simply compare the performance of new Celeron processors with that shown by the fastest Durons. And we are going to explain why a bit later in this article.

As you know, the Celeron processors started using Willamette core with a smaller 128KB L2 cache, which allowed Intel to increase the core clock frequencies of its budget CPUs quite noticeably. In this respect, AMD decided to introduce a number of changes into its own plans in the Value market.

We have already told you that Appaloosa CPU core initially intended for next generation Duron processors was removed from the latest AMD roadmap. It is true, Appaloosa would never let AMD outperform Celeron (Willamette-128) because it doesn't have any architectural advantages compared with the currently used Morgan core. That is why AMD decided to undertake something simpler: they changed the prices of Athlon XP processors, which used to be positioned as a high-performance solution, so that it could be also used in budget systems with the sub-$800 system block. As a result, Athlon XP processors on Palomino core and then those on Thoroughbred will be replacing partially Duron in Value PCs by Q3-Q4. Later on, the Value CPU family based on Thoroughbred core will be available all year 2003. This way, Celeron processors based on "new" Willamette-128 core will have to compete with Athlon XP one day.

The new AMD roadmap and new products positioning look as follows now:

To get a better idea of the situation in the CPU market let's have a look at a similar chart composed for Intel stuff:

As you can see from the tables above, in this quarter Celeron (Willamette-128) working at 1.7GHz and 1.8GHz is opposed to Athlon XP 1600+. Next quarter AMD is going to oppose its new Athlon XP 1800+ to the upcoming Celeron 1.9GHz. In Q4 2002, AMD's positions in the Value CPU market look even more attractive: Celeron (Willamette-128) 1.9GHz will have to compete with AMD Athlon XP 1900+. Also we expect a new Duron (Morgan) working at 1.4GHz to come out in the end of the year. So, this is how low-cost AMD processors acquired 256KB L2 cache and 256MHz bus support in a wink of an eye.

At the same time I would like to point out that this year AMD will terminate the production of classical Duron processors completely. Duron 1.3GHz will be discontinued in Q3, and Duron 1.4GHz will be in production only until the New Year. However, Athlon XP 1700+ CPUs will keep coming out until Q1 2003, Athlon XP 1800+ and 1900+ - until Q2 2003, and Athlon XP 2000+ - until Q3 2003.

The official info from AMD and Intel mentioned above, which proves that Celeron will now have to compete with slower Athlon XP processors is also backed up by the today's pricing. The diagram below shows the current prices for Intel Celeron, AMD Duron, slower Athlon XP and Pentium 4 CPUs (the prices date back to June 10, according to Pricewatch):

As you can see, Celeron 1.7GHz and 1.8GHz can now compete not only with Athlon XP 1600+ but also with Athlon XP 1700+ and 1800+. All these CPUs from AMD cost less in retail than the faster Celeron models. And bearing in mind that the mainboards and memory for the new Celeron CPUs and Athlon XP cost about the same, we get every right to consider Athlon XP 1600+, 1700+ and 1800+ the primary rivals for Celeron 1.7GHz and 1.8GHz.

New Celeron CPU Overclocking Experience: Vain Hopes

You know that almost all Celeron processors have always boasted excellent overclockability (this is especially true for slower models based on the same core), which sometimes allowed increasing the core frequency by over 50%. Therefore we couldn't leave out this highly important topic this time too.

At the same time, you should realize that you can't expect too much from the Celeron family this time. The use of 0.18micron manufacturing technology for the new Celeron CPUs imposes significant limitations over the nominal and over-nominal increase in the core clock frequency. So, keeping in mind that that maximum official clock frequency for Intel Celeron on Willamette-128 core as well as for Pentium 4 on Willamette core is only 2GHz, we should accept that we will hardly be able to overclock our processor far over 2Ghz bar.

The experiments we carried out proved this point completely. When we overclocked Celeron 1.7GHz, we managed to increase the FSB frequency from 100MHz up to 125MHz only. In other words, Celeron 1.7GHz overclocked only by 25%, i.e. up to 2.12GHz. In this case we applied almost all the overclocking tricks each of you can actually use: we increased the Vcore from 1.75V up to 1.85V, and used a high-quality cooler with pure copper heatsink for our CPU.

So, those of you who have always been considering Celeron as a ideal solution for overclocking purposes, will have to wait for the new CPUs on 0.13micron Northwood core. These upcoming babies due in 2003 are expected to be able overclock up to over 3GHz.

Testbed and Methods

To test the performance of the new Celeron processors we assembled a platform based on i845G DDR chipset from Intel. For a better comparison we included slower Pentium 4 processors working at 1.8GHz and featuring 256KB and 512KB L2 cache as well as previous Celeron CPUs based on Tualatin core with 1.3GHz and 1.4GHz core clock. We should also point out that although the fastest Socket370 Celeron 1.4GHz was announced together with Celeron 1.7GHz, it will be shipped to the market in very limited quantities in order not to spoil the sales of the slower Socket478 Celeron processors.

Among the testing participants you will also see the competing processors from AMD, namely: the today's fastest Duron 1.3GHz, three Athlon XP CPUs rates as 1600+, 1700+ and 1800+ (the actual working frequencies are 1.4GHz, 1.47GHz and 1.53GHz).

Moreover, we also tested a Celeron 1.7GHz overclocked up to 2.12GHz.

As a result, our testbeds looked as follows:

All tests were run in MS Windows XP Professional. The mainboards were set to show their highest performance (the timings were set to the minimum).

Performance

This time we decided to make the used benchmarks set a little bit shorter. First of all, we took into account the fact that Celeron processors tested will be targeted for low-cost home and office PCs. As a result, we didn't run any benchmarks in professional applications. At the same time, we added a few more gaming tests. But, let's start from the very beginning.

According to SYSmark2002 new Celeron CPUs on Willamette-128 core are much faster than their predecessors based on Tualatin core. In particular, Celeron 1.7GHz outpaces Celeron 1.4GHz by 34%. However, this is still not enough for the newcomers to be able to beat the slowest Athlon XP CPUs positioned for the same market segment.

In Internet content creation applications the processor bus bandwidth matters a lot. As a result, new Celeron CPUs manage to run neck and neck with the slowest Athlon XP models. Moreover, you shouldn't forget that with the shift to Willamette-128 core, Celeron processor family acquired the support of SSE2 instructions, which are used by many content creation applications.

I would also like to point out the fact that Celeron 1.8GHz with 128KB L2 cache appeared nearly as fast as Pentium 4 1.8GHz with 256KB L2 cache. However, at the same time, Pentium 4 1.8AGHz with 512KB L2 cache is considerably faster, than its younger brothers with smaller cache.

In the regular office applications the performance of the new Celeron is considerably higher than that of the older ones. However, the low-cost Athlon XP processors are again ahead of them. Note, anyway, that all SYSmark2002 tests showed an indisputable failure of AMD Duron, which was completely defeated by Celeron on Willamette-128 core boasting higher clock frequency and wider bus between the CPU and the memory.

During data archiving, new Celeron processors on Willamette-128 core appear much slower than their Tualatin based predecessors with lower core clock. For instance, Celeron 1.3GHz outperformed Celeron 1.7GHz by well over 10%, no matter how paradoxical it seems. It can be explained by the fact that "older" Celeron processors feature twice as large L2 cache, while the wider processor bus of the "new" Celerons cannot make up for it.

During the encoding of the audio stream into mp3 format, the Tualatin based Celeron CPUs are again faster than their Willamette-128 based successors.

The video encoding into mpeg4 format is very sensitive to the data transfer rate between the processor and the memory. Therefore, no wonder that overclocked Celeron managed to defeat all the other racers here. Also Celeron processors managed to beat slower Athlon XP CPUs for the same reason.

Moreover, we would like to point out that the L2 cache size has almost no influence on the performance, which we concluded from the similar results shown by Celeron 1.8GHz, Pentium 4 1.8GHz, and Pentium 4 1.8AGHz.

We have also measured the time each of the testing participants required to perform the final rendering of the Islands scene in 3ds max 4.26. So, the lower value stands for faster performance. New Celeron CPUs proved faster than their predecessors in this test. However, they fell behind low-cost Athlon XP CPUs and even AMD Duron 1.3GHz.

The results of 3DMark2001 SE didn't turn unexpected to us. In the good 50% of all cases considered before the situation was just the same.

In Return to Castle Wolfenstein game built on Quake3 engine the situation is pretty typical. New Celeron CPUs are faster than the older ones, but at the same time fall behind the slower Athlon XP selling at a lower price.

In Serious Sam: The Second Encounter with traditionally faster performance belongs to CPUs with Athlon architecture. That is why in our case all Celeron processors are even slower than AMD Duron 1.3GHz. Also smaller L2 cache of Willamette-128 based CPUs compared with the cache of Tualatin based processors caused the failure of the new Celerons here.

In the new role game from Microsoft called Dungeon Siege the situation is pretty typical. We would only like to stress that Celeron overclocked up to 2.12GHz failed to surpass Pentium 4 1.8AGHz.

In the popular Comanche 4 helicopter flight simulator game, the performance of new Celeron CPUs appeared dramatically low. They fall very far behind all their competitors.

We also measured the performance of our CPUs in the strategic Civilization III game. To do it we took the time the systems built with different CPUs needed to think and generate a new move (we used a preliminarily recorded game at the highest level of difficulty and for the maximum number of players).

Again Celeron on Tualatin core outperformed Celeron on Willamette-128. However, this was not the most interesting thing there. L2 cache appeared to have a lot of influence on the performance in Civilization III. As a result, Pentium 4 1.8A GHz, which boasts the largest L2 cache of all the CPUs tested, managed to leave all the others significantly behind.

In the synthetic PCMark2002 test from MadOnion.com the leader turned out an overclocked Celeron. Its performance appeared close to that of Athlon XP 1600+.

When we tested the memory subsystems in the same benchmark, the results appeared pretty predictable. The leadership was won by a system built on Celeron CPU with the FSB frequency set at 125MHz.

Conclusion

The shift of the Celeron family to Willamette-128 processor core together with the introduction of the Pentium 4 CPU architecture and Socket478 in the budget solutions from Intel is a pretty logical and natural step. Having reached 1.4GHz core clock, Tualatin processor core used in Celeron processors before didn't allow any further increase in the working frequency of the budget CPUs. Therefore, Intel replaced the core with the one featuring higher frequency potential. And just like in case of the move from Pentium III to Pentium 4, this situation has its highs and its evident lows.

First of all, we have to point out that Celeron CPUs now use the same processor socket as Pentium 4 solutions. This is an indisputable advantage of the new Celeron family, which provides unlimited opportunities for future upgrade of the low-cost systems.

As for the performance, the advantages of the new Celeron CPUs are not so evident. Of course, they boast higher bus bandwidth due to the implementation of 400MHz Quad Pumped Bus, however smaller L2 cache sometimes brings all the advantages of this bus to naught. And of course, you shouldn't forget about all classical highs and lows of the NetBurst architecture, which we have already covered on our site many times. So, the new Celeron CPUs on Willamette-128 core not always appear faster than the old ones. And if we compare them with the competing solutions from AMD, namely with slower Athlon XP CPUs, they will very often prove completely defeated.

Unfortunately, Celeron processors on Willamette-128 core will not be able to satisfy overclocking fans too. Compared with the impressive overclockability of the Celeron CPUs based on other cores the overclocking potential of our today's heroes appeared quite disappointing.

However, when the Celeron CPUs move to 0.13micron technology in early 2003 and get a twice as large L2 cache as they have now, their performance will make them highly promising and attractive solutions.