backtop

Hardware Intel "Conroe-L" Performance Unveiled
Anh Tuan Huynh (Blog) - April 11, 2007 11:00 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 34 comment(s) - last by Justin Case.. on Apr 30 at 3:55 PM

"Conroe-L" CPUID information courtesy of HKEPC
The single-core Celeron's give AMD's Athlon 64 a run for the money

Intel cancelled the single-core Pentium E1000-series before it saw the light of day for the dual-core Pentium E2100-series. The single-core Conroe-L core that formed the cancelled Pentium E1000-series lives on in the upcoming Celeron 400-series. Intel expects to launch two Celeron 400-series models next quarter, the Celeron 440 and 430. These new Celeron models feature 2.0 GHz and 1.8 GHz clock speeds, respectively.

Aside from missing a core from its dual-core counterpart, the Conroe-L-based Celeron 400-series has 512KB of L2 cache like the current Cedar Mill based models. Unlike previous generation Celeron models, Intel equips the Celeron 400-series with an 800 MHz front-side bus, similar to its Pentium E2100 and Core 2 Duo E4000-series. When the Conroe-L Celerons hit, they will replace current Cedar Mill Netburst architecture models at sub-$60 price points.

Intel’s Celeron 400-series will have to take on AMD’s single-core Sempron and Athlon 64 processors. Early benchmarks of the Celeron 400-series show promising performance from the value-priced processor – beating out or giving the Athlon 64 3500+ a close run.

Application Benchmarks
Application
Celeron 440
Athlon 64 3500+
Cinebench 9.5
 317
332
ScienceMark 2
1030.58
1183.13
Super Pi
32s
39s
DivX 6.2
1:50.2s
2:03.9s
Lame 3.97
35.56s
35.59s

The Celeron 440 shows its strengths in multimedia benchmarks, beating out the Athlon 64 3500+, despite the 200 MHz frequency advantage of the Athlon. It also beats out the Athlon in benchmarks such as PCMark05, SiSoft Sandra 2007 and Super PI.

3D Benchmarks
Game
Celeron 440
Athlon 64 3500+
Doom III
103.1fps
105.2fps
F.E.A.R.
88fps
89fps
Serious Sam II
81.6fps
96.5fps

Gaming benchmarks are a tossup, however, the Celeron 400-series stays close to the Athlon 64 3500+.

Celeron 400
Processor
Number 		Core
Frequency 		Bus
Frequency 		L2
Cache
4402.00 800MHz 512KB
430 1.80GHz 800MHz 512KB

Expect Intel to launch the Celeron 400-series next quarter for $59 and $49 for models 440 and 430, respectively.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
AM2 X2 3600+
By Spartan Niner on 4/12/2007 12:07:17 AM , Rating: 5
With the availability of AM2 X2 3600+ Brisbane processors for $65 shipped @ the Egg and elsewhere now, I find that despite it being low-end, it's the best price/performance bargain out there. Throw on a $10-$15 Arctic Cooling cooler and get anywhere from 2.4GHz-3GHz and you have very reasonable performance out of a budget dual core. Paired with a nForce-based AM2 motherboard and some Super Talent 667MHz DDR2 you can have a great budget rig. With upcoming price cuts AMD may very well solidify its price/performance advantage in the low-end/budget-overclocking market.




RE: AM2 X2 3600+
By aurareturn on 4/12/2007 12:17:28 AM , Rating: 5
Even better... The X2 3600+ is now $55. The Celeron cannot compete with that.


RE: AM2 X2 3600+
By spartan014 on 4/12/2007 12:33:38 AM , Rating: 2
Intel needed to bring this out before the AMD announced its price cuts..

Still, I think loyal customers of Intel will rather go for this option rather than the AMD solution. Good to see that Intel caters to the average consumers, who would rather look at the price than performance. With this chip they can switch from netburst to conroe for better performance..


RE: AM2 X2 3600+
By Milliamp on 4/12/2007 1:49:59 AM , Rating: 2
AFAIK Intel will be doing their own price cuts on April 19'th.


RE: AM2 X2 3600+
By JackPack on 4/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: AM2 X2 3600+
By hubajube on 4/12/2007 11:27:29 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
It's a losing proposition selling your premium branded, 126mm2 processor for $55.
Since when are Celerons "premium branded"?


RE: AM2 X2 3600+
By JackPack on 4/12/2007 6:57:24 PM , Rating: 2
I'm talking about Athlon 64 X2.


RE: AM2 X2 3600+
By maroon1 on 4/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: AM2 X2 3600+
By hubajube on 4/12/2007 11:27:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Celeron 440 can beat 3600+ in single threaded applications
Who cares it's $55!


RE: AM2 X2 3600+
By nofumble62 on 4/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: AM2 X2 3600+
By Justin Case on 4/12/2007 12:58:48 AM , Rating: 1
And where did you hear that, exactly? With AMD's current yields (which are pretty good), low-end CPUs should have no problem reaching mid-range speeds. Sure, you might get a lemon, but the same goes for any CPU.


RE: AM2 X2 3600+
By Dactyl on 4/12/2007 1:08:59 AM , Rating: 4
Low end (slow) CPUs from both manufacturers have plenty of headroom

Expensive CPUs from AMD have almost none (10% is lucky) but Intel has lots (30% is easy)


RE: AM2 X2 3600+
By Justin Case on 4/30/2007 3:55:44 PM , Rating: 2
If they all had "lots" of room (and 30% surely is lots - it means getting a 3GHz CPU to run at 4 GHz), then Intel would simply sell them as a faster grade. They're not a charity, and they would love to have a stable speed grade above the current maximum.

When more than 20% of their CPUs can reach a speed more than 20% higher than the current limit, they'll release a new model, it's as simple as that.

Until then, you might get lucky and get a unit that overclocks a lot, but chances are that the high-end models won't have more than 10% headroom with stock cooling (and probably no more than 20% with _any_ cooling).


RE: AM2 X2 3600+
By Kurz on 4/12/2007 1:13:18 AM , Rating: 3
Ummm... the AM2 X2 3600+ can get up to 3150GHZ
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php...


RE: AM2 X2 3600+
By DrMrLordX on 4/12/2007 6:24:58 AM , Rating: 2
I was able to do some benchmark runs on my X2-3600+ at 3.2 ghz (on air). Couldn't quite get everything stable though.


RE: AM2 X2 3600+
By gramboh on 4/12/2007 4:42:19 AM , Rating: 2
I just built a C2D E6600 and am loving it, but I will not deny the awesome value of the Brisbane 3600+ X2 at $55US, that is just insane value if you are going to overclock and can hope for 2.6-3GHz, at those speeds an X2 is pretty powerful.


RE: AM2 X2 3600+
By Synd on 4/12/2007 12:47:22 AM , Rating: 2
The X2 3600+ can be found for only $55 @ http://www.roguecomputer.com/index.php?page=sale

cheaper then Egg.


RE: AM2 X2 3600+
By hubajube on 4/12/2007 11:34:04 AM , Rating: 2
Your link goes to a hard drive. Also, how reputable is that company? Do they even have it in stock?


RE: AM2 X2 3600+
By dice1111 on 4/12/2007 12:24:57 PM , Rating: 3
There is a new amazing technology in web browsers these days! It's called "scrolling down".

You should try it some time...


RE: AM2 X2 3600+
By JamRockaz on 4/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: AM2 X2 3600+
By Neoprimal on 4/12/2007 9:46:28 PM , Rating: 2
I'll be upgrading from said 3500 soon and I've been swayed over to Intel by the Core Duo 6600. As hard as I look, I can't find an AMD CPU that outperforms it at the price.
Regardless of this Intel vs. AMD crap, Intel seems to be at the forefront right now....and as someone else has mentioned, comparing intel's 'brass' (celeron) to amd's 'gold' (athlon 64 x2) is nothing to be proud of. This means that AMD is struggling to keep a foothold. I've been with AMD for yeeeears (since the K6 line) but I think it's time to jump ship, unless within 1 month AMD can step up.


RE: AM2 X2 3600+
By JamRockaz on 4/12/2007 10:27:20 PM , Rating: 2
Before you vote down a post read carefully and try to understand the poster's point of view. I wasnt talking about which company is the speed king. I was talking in terms of overclockability and intel has that edge


Not realy
By tekzor on 4/12/2007 12:26:41 AM , Rating: 2
The don't need to compete, just bring out the new line of celeron to punish AMD some more.




RE: Not realy
By justjc on 4/12/2007 7:16:14 AM , Rating: 3
I'm afraid you're right. Just the fact that it says Intel, on the badge, will get a lot of the people to buy the new Celeron even if it's inferior to a simular priced AMD processor. AMD could use the break, but ignorance probably will be the winner.


RE: Not realy
By Moishe on 4/12/2007 7:46:18 AM , Rating: 2
funny thing is, the Celerons have been severly handicapped almost since the brand came out. Yes there have been the shining moments here and there but they are really cheap because they're really cheap low-end CPUs. The marketing works though. If Intel can remove half the caches and clock the chips lower and sell em for super cheap, it hurts AMD and people still see the Intel logo and buy them.


RE: Not realy
By hubajube on 4/12/2007 11:35:10 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
The don't need to compete, just bring out the new line of celeron to punish AMD some more.
Are we back to this shit again? Good God!!!


Price is what matters here...
By psychobriggsy on 4/12/2007 8:53:35 AM , Rating: 2
If Intel can undercut AMD's prices at the same performance then it'll be popular at the low end. I guess AMD's 3800+ is still going to win over the top Celeron however.

Also why do the tables have alternating bold/non-bold text, it's really odd.




RE: Price is what matters here...
By Targon on 4/12/2007 9:27:55 AM , Rating: 3
The problem with this is that the benchmarks here are for the old single-core Athlon 64, which will probably disappear before too much longer. AMD doesn't have the fab capacity to bother producing single-core processors.


RE: Price is what matters here...
By Kurz on 4/12/2007 7:25:33 PM , Rating: 2
The problem mainly with Intel boards is in order to reach good FSB's you need awesome components. Since AMD doesn't have North bridge the price of the motherboards is reduce by a bit.
Except for the awesome boards...

But you can see that a $98 AMD board can still get you up to 3 GHZ easily. And because the north bridge isn't in question its a bit easier to over clock.


BAD NAME
By Mitch101 on 4/12/2007 9:14:01 AM , Rating: 2
If anything they should have taken a note from the graphics companies and called this the Conroe LX or GT instead of using the Celeron name.

Luckily for Intel thier Marketing department only screws up the bottom end of thier chips.




RE: BAD NAME
By kalak on 4/12/2007 9:59:34 AM , Rating: 2
"Pentium Conroe 2 DUO LXT 2M OC" :-))


RE: BAD NAME
By zsouthboy on 4/12/2007 10:46:13 AM , Rating: 3
Wrong.

Brand extension is short-term good, but long term bad.


hmm
By yacoub on 4/12/2007 8:06:47 AM , Rating: 2
I think the AMD is a better deal here, where as if you step up around $25 you'll be able to get the new Pentium-E E2xxx series chips in a couple weeks which should perform a little better.




RE: hmm
By DublinGunner on 4/13/2007 12:53:32 PM , Rating: 2
These are quite obvioulsy going to be aimed at the OEM market, as opposed to consumer retail.

I personally wouldnt pay more than about €20 for one of those.

Considering its competing against single core Athlon 3200+ (a 4 year old CPU), I doubt anyone that would be educated enough to actually walk into a store, buy one and install it would pick it over a similarly priced dual core X2 or slightly more expensive Core 2.

I'd imagine they will be going into cheapo Dell machines and Laptops.


"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton











botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki