Intel Celeron E3300 Processor

[Mastermind]

Introduction:-

The peak of the popularity of the Intel Celeron brand fell at the end of 90 years - in those days, when their production was used kernel Mendocino. Of interest were those that had at least four times cache second level (128K against 512K), rather than fully-fledged Pentium II and III, on the other hand, she worked at full processor core frequency. Clock speeds differ only slightly, targeting lower FSB speed allowed Celeron easier to accelerate, and even in normal mode, their performance was relatively high. So much so that in consequence of such errors, Intel is not repeated. Go to the Coppermine core resulted in the fact that the full speed cache memory and processors were Pentium III, except that in their case it was twice as much. In addition, these models have received and FSB 133, while the Celeron and remained at 66 MHz. Their remains can be dispersed, but much more interesting results were achieved through the purchase Pentium III with FSB 100.

And the situation developed exactly for this scenario - Celeron has always belonged to the family budget, but in terms of technical characteristics, they have never tried at least for some parameters compared with the "full" processor, due to the fact that he had always been their "cuts" . Is that at the time of transition from Pentium III to the Pentium 4 in this brand opened its second wind. Just because the kernel Willamette was, shall we say, not very good, the attractiveness of the platform is also the first time reduces the need to use expensive memory such as RDRAM, but the Celeron were all on the same platform, soon moving to a new kernel to the custom 130 nm ( 180 nm against Willamette and the old Pentium III), but also observed so many cache, which was a Pentium III. As a result, for some problems "budget" processor began to approach better than some top models. However, skewed then quickly eliminated: updated kernel North wood dramatically increased the attractiveness of the Pentium 4. Yes, and Celeron migrated to the same Socket 478, receiving the same micro architecture as the elder brother, but reduced to four times cache second level. Of course, over time processors under this brand is also becoming more sophisticated, but it happened with quite long delays on the Pentium. And the picture has not changed even when the latter family has ceased to be a senior in the model lineup from Intel. So rejection of Net Burst architecture and the transition to the Core 2 has led to what appeared on the market of the Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad. Pentium and Celeron also migrated to the new architecture, however, if the first was a dual-core, the second is still supplied with only one nucleus.

With time and have dual-core Celeron. And at this point in time and increased capacity of the cache, the second level (up to 1 MB), the frequency of the processor has reached 2.5 GHz, and they made the most perfect (for a device to LGA775, of course) process technology of 45 nm. We should not think that there was a revaluation of values - simply Pentium already moved to FSB 1066 MHz, have got 2 MB cache second level and storm line 3 GHz (formerly available only extreme model) clock rate. And interest in more affluent buyers in general shifted to processors, performing more than two-threads calculations in parallel - either provided with more than two physical CPU cores, or based on new architecture that supports Hyper-Threading.

What in these conditions we can to please (and vice versa) Celeron? Obviously, the competition with the older families of processors we can not go. But compare it with other junior is quite possible. And you have, the benefit turned to the topic last time we had a very long time - back in August 2008, when this family had just appeared the first dual-core processors. What has changed in half of the year? Let's check - is capable of anything new or Celeron it is still doomed to wear a contemptuous title of "plugs to the socket.

[Mastermind]

Testbeds:-

• Processor:- Celeron E3300
• The name of the kernel:- Wolfdale-2M
• Technology Prospect Island:- 45 nm
• Core Clock, GHz:- 2.5
• Multiplication factor:- 12.5
• Bus frequency FSB, MHz:- 800
• Number of nuclei:- 2
• Cache L1, I / D, CB:- 32/32
• Cache L2, CB:- 1024
• Socket:- LGA775
• TDP:- 65 W
• Price:- $ 57(97)

To test we took high-end model in the family, namely the Celeron E3300. In principle, one can not exclude the possibility of the future of faster models - not for nothing that Intel does not plan to use the trademark for processors LGA1156. Well, as they often return to the topic of budget processors do not have enough time (and being in the literal sense - our test set to slow models performed indecently long time), we decided at the same time and see how this relates to CPU overclocking. Not in the sense of how you can overclock, but in terms of what he increase in clock frequency can give. In principle, a processor could "play" yet - a high multiplication factor, a small cache, and a thin process technology allows to get more, but we decided to confine the specified mode for three reasons. First, such a result is often achieved without problems, even with the standard supply voltage (although for greater reliability we increase it to 1,4 V - tests are very long, so do the selection of frequency and voltage of the banal once). Secondly, to obtain it does not require anything extraordinary: only move one step up the ladder regular frequency FSB. Thirdly the same clock speed of our E3300OC exactly equal to that of Core 2 Duo E8600, whom she formally maximum among all processors for LGA775. However, lower frequency of bus and six times less than the capacity of the cache Last, many attached great importance, considering that the difference in frequencies between the two processors is always possible to compensate for the crackdown, but the cache does not build (with processor Intel, of course - with AMD products this way sometimes passes). So let's see - how this is crucial, first, and will help if such acceleration (a simple, but not so small) Celeron wedge into the ranks of more efficient processors (and how deep), second. Comparing it with the Core 2 Duo E8600 or quad models will not, of course - the problem is more modest: to get there in breaking up a third to climb to at least one step higher in the "Table of Ranks."

Selection of processors for comparison also the special problems not made. The ideal situation would, of course, Pentium E5200 - from our present character, it differs only twice the capacity of the cache memory of the second level. However, this model is the new method we have not tested, so we had to confine E5300. But its clock frequency of 100 MHz only exceeds that of E3300 without overclocking that much. We added and older at the time of testing Pentium E6500 - it will be convenient enough to compare with E3300OC: the same bus, but differ in cache capacity (2 MB to 1 MB) and clock speed (400 MHz is already in favor of the Celeron). Let's see what comes of this opposition. And dual-core processors from AMD - the new Athlon II X2 250 and the old Athlon X2 6000 +. And the "very old" - a megabyte cache per core and 90 nm process technology. Before the advent of Core 2 next of kin of the processors (and having a clock frequency of 200 MHz below), namely, the Athlon 64 FX-62 has been the most productive in the world among all desktop processors, x86-64. That's interesting - I have reached the current budget level processors are top models of three-four years ago (mid-range processors that long ago, it must be noted), or still not. And if not, what can they do this when overclocking to comparable or higher frequencies. Athlon II X2 250, of course, a class higher than the Celeron (although not much different from it at a price). But the slower modern AMD processors we have simply not yet been tested. In any case - for the qualitative analysis of this pair should be sufficient, as it seems.

[Mastermind]

Testing:-

Methods of test performance (a list of used software and test conditions) is described in detail in the article. For readability, the results in figures are presented in percentages (100% passed the result of Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 in each of the tests). Detailed results in absolute terms available in the form of a table in Microsoft Excel format.

3D-visualization

We so often repeated in the reviews, that final rendering in 3D-modeling programs immune to capacity cache memory, that they themselves believed this It appears, however, that not all so simple - within certain limits, of course, is immune, but 1 MB CPUs Core 2 is not enough. However, this fact is of purely academic significance - it is obvious that no one in sound mind and memory will not acquire a computer-based Celeron (or update an old Pentium, where the cache second level was the same) for this application. But from this it does not cease to be a fact - as we see, only the frequency of 3.33 GHz Celeron E3300 can only catch up with Pentium E5300, operating at a frequency of 2.6 GHz. Comments about the performance of E3300 in the normal mode unnecessary.

Scientific and engineering calculations:-

We have repeatedly noted that the sub tests collected in this group are very similar to the 3D-rendering, with the only difference being that are less susceptible to the capacity of cache memory. But it manifests itself only in containers of 3 MB of cache, and more, as we have today such processors there. Result appropriate. Although the old man Athlon II X2 6000 + managed to overtake and then joy.

Raster Graphics:-

A bit strange, but the processor is even good for the graphics In normal mode it is already capable to compete with all dual-core AMD, and overclocked form ahead of everybody. Thus, photo editing is quite possible to manage and budget processor. For an amateur, of course, processing - Photoshop on top processor twice as fast than the Celeron E3300 works (but, incidentally, overclocking allows knock off half the difference.

Data reduction:-

As expected, the small amount of cache memory in the packer test does not demonstrate Celeron anything that can be called "performance" if only out of politeness. Particularly disastrous situation in the application of DDR3, albeit with a lag of DDR2 Pentium E5300 is 10% (clock frequency is the difference between less than 5%). Dispersal radically improves the situation, the benefit, along with increasing clock speed increases and the nuclei of memory, but only one processor that can outperform overclocked to such frequencies Celeron - all the same Pentium E5300. Close to creep up as well to the old Athlon X2 6000 +, so that it can be argued that almost all family "old" Athlone "overclocked Celeron is already in the jaw (faster than we tested, there was only the exotic 6400 +, and the entire family of the basis of the 65 nm models with large cache was not at all). But only overclocked very bad. Although when overclocked too deserves such an epithet, because we see, "Amnesia" again not allow him to keep up with the Pentium E6500, with a 400 MHz lower clock frequency.

[Mastermind]

Compiling (VC + +):-

Want to make a mortal enemy? Slip the programmer Celeron Otherwise, the results and not even dispersal prevents E3300 to overtake at least a Pentium E5300! On the operation in the nominal regime (more so when using purchased "for growth» DDR3) and say no. Clearly, in the field of serious software development to acquire computers for such processors are really that out of frustration. However, home computers these things is concerned, so, dear parents, if your son (or daughter), studying computer science in school or institute, not save poor 500-1000 rubles (the difference between the cost of a decent budget and all budget "processor) for mental health child, remembering how yourself programmed BESM6 and were happy - now other time of day.

Java:-

Disastrous lack of cache memory Java-machine is not very important, but when its total mb of two nuclei - already felt. However, the results of "edible", but when overclocked and at all - Celeron was the fastest today among the participants. The only pity is that it overtakes processors running at much-lower clock speed, but overtaking - a reason to rejoice, since today is too little.

Audio Encoding:-

As we have already made sure, the capacity of the cache for the audio encoding is irrelevant - are important frequency, number of cores, and architecture (regularly AMD processors in this test at a disadvantage in other similar devices from Intel). This once again confirmed - Celeron is not bad even in normal mode and even using the memory type DDR3 (that today even in this problem is a bit contrived to "spoil the Mass"), and when overclocked it with ease ahead of all competitors. Moreover - when we compare the results with the Core 2 Duo E8600, working on the same clock frequency, it becomes apparent that the latter is very expensive processor faster except that due to FSB 1333. For the representative of the budget processor family result is simply excellent! And spoil him just what the market is already relatively inexpensive three-and quad-core processors, which essentially faster.

Video Encoding:-

In video coding repeat the previous "feat" was not possible, but first place in breaking up, after all, won. Even in normal mode Celeron E3300 «behaving decently, at least, ahead of the old AMD Athlon X2 and not so far behind the junior Pentium. But it is still lagging behind at 10 percent almost, though, we recall, the clock speed E3300 and E5300 differ by less than 5%.

3D Game:-

Celeron processor is not a game. Point. Exclamation point, rather - in the middle game results even in the sparing of 1280x1024 resolution and is not very weak graphics card is much lower threshold of playability. At exactly three in one - on the doorstep. And in those three even overclocking does not help "reach" at least until the lower boundary of comfort. You can (if it really feel an urge) to have fun port to consoles (the fact that their numbers are increasing, and the PC-exclusives less - a real balm for the soul owners of low-powered computers), or play a good old toys. You can also reduce the quality settings, selecting the condition to which the processor will still do the job. In general, apparent for users of older computers path. But what they have to go and would like a new computer, a seemingly modern CPU, it may well prove to be a shock for the most budget conscious buyers.

[Mastermind]

Conclusion:-

Dispersing the Celeron, we do not set ourselves the global goals (such as the study of mythical "overclocking potential") - just interested to see: Is there a particular processor in its current version at least some future? Intel increases the frequency of small steps, but what we immediately blurted 833 MHz, but also a faster bus - so sure. It turns out that much sense even with this growth are still there - we can catch up with Athlon II X2 and some Pentium, certainly, well, everything. Lifting the same frequency 100-200-300 MHz will not solve anything at all. And what could be? A processor could help the second megabytes of cache. In this case, however, it becomes a full analogue Pentium E5000, but that's okay with that. The latest model of the family has a clock frequency of 2.7 GHz, faster is designed to FSB 1066, so that no one bothers to take this niche what some Celeron E4000. Such facilities have the Core 2 Duo processor with a frequency of 800 MHz FSB and 2 MB cache, so that everything is similar to the E6000 (labeling was used, and Core 2 Duo, and Pentium with the same capacity of the cache and bus speeds). You can even do not expect the frequency of 2.8 GHz - the intersection between the Celeron and Pentium are not so frightening: a second brand will be actively used by processors for LGA1156, so that some of the E5000, you can simply rename the Celeron.

And one more benefit from the results of a hypothetical E3300OS there. Among users of perception: "I do not want your expensive processors - I'm the cheapest to buy, dispersal and get better performance. However, the test results it is obvious that the way we are able to disperse from the "cheapest" CPU does not get more than just a cheap rate. This, in fact, too, can break up, and walk up already "on average". Having started on average - close to tops. And in order to "break all" will still let them pay for the junior, but the representative of the oldest series, that the ideas of total savings by overclocking weakly compatible. If it does not set itself global objectives, you get a little more performance by overclocking possible, certainly, but not too much - just not as much as ten years ago. Specifically, growth has remained proportional to the increase in frequency, but it already solves nothing. The problem (if one can call it a problem) that if at that time the clock frequency is almost the central feature of the processor, but now it is just one of many, not primary. Obviously, when overclocking a CPU "does not abstract" Locked cache (sometimes not very important, but sometimes it can have a decisive importance - the tests compile example) and will have additional core, with all ensuing consequences.

With regard to the performance of new Celeron normally, then it can be evaluated in two ways. On the one hand, we see that not everything bad - this is the level of dual-core Athlon X2, but far from the youngest models of this line, ie those processors that only four years ago was an accomplishment for many users. If we talk about more intimate times and comparable price groups, it is clear that these processors are not worse than the Pentium E2000 (c same megabyte cache), and even able to "butt" in some cases, part of the Core 2 Duo E4000 (where the cache 2 MB , but the clock speeds and much lower). Given the fact that the world still employ a considerable number of computers in the single-core Athlon 64 or Pentium ® 4 (probably somewhere and find the Athlon XP is still possible), a very nice result. In the sense that if the old computer has changed not because it somehow did not suit, but simply because of a failure, you can quietly buy the cheapest on the market today and will not lose - the new system will at least no worse than the old. But the possible and different view of things - still talk seriously about the performance of Celeron not happen: in the budget segment, paying not much more you can get much more. For example, at the time of this writing, in Moscow, price Pentium E5200 differ from the price Celeron E3300 on some ... 90 rubles on average. It is quite a reasonable price for the "extra" megabytes of cache (which, as we have seen, not once) - the other parameters of these processors are the same. And even the Celeron E3200 did not allow too much to save, standing at 330 rubles cheaper than the same Pentium E5200. It is obvious that under these conditions Pentium much more optimal choice, with no difference - you're going to something to break up or not. A Celeron suitable only for those who do not care about performance in general, i.e. if you continue to consider it as a "plug socket": that the computer can run all the programs were launched. Here are just a range of Intel has been available other processors with the same characteristics ("so you can run it all and someday result wait») - Atom. At this point, willy-nilly, to think - whether to continue to communicate with the "full" desktops, if the speed is not included in the list of his merits, or for comparable money to buy a small Nettop?