Wednesday, May 11th 2011

New Sandy Bridge Based Celeron Processors Detailed

Amidst the rather high-profile launch of Intel's Z68 chipset platform, Intel Smart Response technology, and Larson Creek SSDs, Intel is also readying its cheapest processors for the LGA1155 platform, this time carrying the Celeron brand. Based on the new Sandy Bridge processor architecture, the single-core Celeron G440, and dual-core Celeron G530, Celeron G540 processors stick to the very basics in terms of feature set.

The chips lack Intel HyperThreading or CPU Turbo Boost, run at low clock speeds, and have just 2 MB of L3 cache enabled. The G440 is a single-core/single-thread chip clocked at 1.60 GHz, with 650 MHz graphics (1.00 GHz Turbo), and 35W TDP. The G530 puts on a second core, is clocked at 2.40 GHz, with 850 MHz (1.00 GHz Turbo) graphics, and 65W TDP. The series is topped off with G540 dual-core, which is clocked at 2.5 GHz. Expect these chips to take up sub-$100 price points.Source: CPU World
Add your own comment

33 Comments on New Sandy Bridge Based Celeron Processors Detailed

#1
cheesy999
Singlecore and only 2Mb of cache - all we need is unlocked multipliers and ghz record!!!
Posted on Reply
#2
Assimilator
I wish Intel would kill off the Celeron brand already. The i3s are already slow enough as is. :(
Posted on Reply
#3
DanishDevil
That G530 would be a great chip to put into customers' machines that are light users.
Posted on Reply
#4
Fourstaff
Unlocking possible? :D

I thought they were using Pentium last time round for the low end 1156, or they used both?


by: Assimilator
I wish Intel would kill off the Celeron brand already. The i3s are already slow enough as is. :(
The new i3 processors are total beasts when it comes to gaming, able to take on the Phenom II x4 and winning most of the time.
Posted on Reply
#6
Assimilator
by: Fourstaff
The new i3 processors are total beasts when it comes to gaming, able to take on the Phenom II x4 and winning most of the time.
I'm looking at this from a workstation perspective. I'd much rather have a true quad than a dual-core with HyperThreading - my employer has recently purchased a bunch of i3 boxes and they are actualy slower than some of the LGA775 Q9550s they are replacing. When you're running multiple instances of Visual Studio with SQL Server chugging along in the background, having more than 2 dedicated cores becomes a necessity.

We shouldn't be comparing SB to Phenom anyway; it's like comparing gold to shit. Yeah, shit may be cheaper, but that don't change the fact that it's shit.
Posted on Reply
#7
Fourstaff
by: Assimilator
I'm looking at this from a workstation perspective. I'd much rather have a true quad than a dual-core with HyperThreading - my employer has recently purchased a bunch of i3 boxes and they are actualy slower than some of the LGA775 Q9550s they are replacing. When you're running multiple instances of Visual Studio with SQL Server chugging along in the background, having more than 2 dedicated cores becomes a necessity.

We shouldn't be comparing SB to Phenom anyway; it's like comparing gold to shit. Yeah, shit may be cheaper, but that don't change the fact that it's shit.
Ah, say so first before I make myself look like a n00b. Phenom II x6 is actually quite competent in multithreaded environments at its price point.
Posted on Reply
#8
KieranD
Can someone explain what's the point of a new Celeron if i3 exists? I thought that was Celerons replacement?

OFF TOPIC - Phenom IIs are not shit they do pretty well in most tasks and with the recent price drops make a decent budget buy but sandybridge is a good buy for new buyers not upgraders, tbh sandybridge isn't even utilised to its max anyway so its a mute point.
Posted on Reply
#9
DanishDevil
by: Assimilator
I'm looking at this from a workstation perspective. I'd much rather have a true quad than a dual-core with HyperThreading - my employer has recently purchased a bunch of i3 boxes and they are actualy slower than some of the LGA775 Q9550s they are replacing. When you're running multiple instances of Visual Studio with SQL Server chugging along in the background, having more than 2 dedicated cores becomes a necessity.

We shouldn't be comparing SB to Phenom anyway; it's like comparing gold to shit. Yeah, shit may be cheaper, but that don't change the fact that it's shit.
Why did they buy i3's for that application? That wasn't a smart decision. These chips are going to be used for multiple instances of Visual Studio. This is going to let the office computers and home word processing/email/internet users upgrade from their Core 2 Duo and skt775 Celeron machines to something current-generation with less heat output, better power efficiency, and better performance clock for clock.
Posted on Reply
#10
blibba
by: KieranD
Can someone explain what's the point of a new Celeron if i3 exists? I thought that was Celerons replacement?
i3s are Core 2 Duo replacements - high performing dual cores (e.g. E8400).

Pentiums will take over from the old Pentium Dual Cores (e.g. E5200) and Celerons from the old Celerons (e.g. E3400).

i5s and i7s fill in the quad space, with the i5s performing a similar role to the Q9400 and the i7s filling in for the old top end quads, like the Q9650.

When Socket 2011 hits, it'll perform similarly to top-end SB, just like 1366 overlapped with the top end of 1156, but offer more enthusiast options (e.g. 8 cores, more PCI-E lanes).
Posted on Reply
#11
NdMk2o1o
by: Assimilator
I wish Intel would kill off the Celeron brand already. The i3s are already slow enough as is. :(
Slow?? compared to PII x2 or heaven forbid Athlon II x2's?? I think not, this is a case of Intel saturating the market and they are doing a hella good job of doing it atm, AMD needs to pull a miracle outta there ass to compete with Intel in the mainstream market, seriously.

On a side note, AMD have their APU so all is good :wtf:

I would imagine these to be able to easily compete with the lower end AMD market of dual and single cores and outperform them at the same time, AMD is in trouble if they don't catch up with Intel's current offerings, never mind what they have in the pipeline. T'is indeed a sad time for enthusiasts if that is the case, cause :wtf:if Intel have both price and performance then we are all screwed :mad:
Posted on Reply
#12
spynoodle
Now Intel's getting smart. They need more budget processors to combat AMD.


Granted, I'd rather have AMD catch up. Monopolies are bad.
Posted on Reply
#13
MikeX
I hope this puny does 4.5 ghz right off the box
Posted on Reply
#14
blibba
by: MikeX
I hope this puny does 4.5 ghz right off the box
It'll have about 10% OC headroom at most - SB chips barely overclock at all without multiplier adjustment, which won't be enabled for Celerons.
Posted on Reply
#15
u2konline
Seems like a waste of time, IMO. Are the Pentium e6800 faster than these chips?
Posted on Reply
#16
blu3flannel
Seriously? You can only stretch a product line so far, and Celeron has run its course. Just make cheaper i3's (i1's?) and call it a day.
Posted on Reply
#17
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
People need to get over the Celeron name and realise that it doesn't matter if they name then Celerons or i3 or i1 or whatever, it isn't going to make the processor perform any better.:slap:

I really wish Intel didn't kill off FSB overclocking, because I bet these chips would scream! I know my Celeron@4.0GHz definitely screams, and I haven't found a game yet that it can't handle.

by: KieranD
Can someone explain what's the point of a new Celeron if i3 exists?
A sub-$100 processor for office computers, simple as that. There is really no point in putting a $100+ processor in a machine that wouldn't even stress a P4. OEMs are still using 775 hardware in new machines, or even worse AMD platforms, because the cheapest 1155 processor is $125. That is way to expensive for basic office system.

Believe it or not, not every piece of computer hardware released is targetted at enthusiasts.
Posted on Reply
#18
Spectrobozo
1.6ghz single core :laugh:

the worst part is that it's impossible to overclock these things, I'm sure it would be possible to work at 4ghz+ without to much effort and it would perform quite well,

in the old days you could run a Celeron e3300 at 4ghz on a VERY cheap MB, now...

even if you buy an unlocked CPU you still need to buy an expensive p67+ MB, while in the past you could try to overclock with anything, I'm running a cheap G31 mb with some OC, now the H61 doesn't even let you adjust the multiplier on unlocked CPUs...
Posted on Reply
#19
HossHuge
by: newtekie1

Believe it or not, not every piece of computer hardware released is targetted at enthusiasts.
People tend to forget that around here.

Just a guess but I'd say 90% of the computers in the world are used for word proccessing, web browsing, e-mail, Facebook, Youtube, a messenger service and entertainment (music - video). All these things can be done with a very inexpensive computer these days.
Posted on Reply
#20
Dippyskoodlez
mmm 35w tdp makes for some very very very potentially small office computers, along with some major power savings.

Definitely a great upgrade for a company running around with prescotts juicing up the electricity bill. (One of the most popular corporate optiplex models were loaded with these)
Posted on Reply
#21
Fourstaff
by: Dippyskoodlez
mmm 35w tdp makes for some very very very potentially small office computers, along with some major power savings.
Or you can get the 2100T which also have 35w TDP, and has 2c4t.
Posted on Reply
#22
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: Fourstaff
Or you can get the 2100T which also have 35w TDP, and has 2c4t.
Yep, and a price tag of $135...:shadedshu

Look people, price is a factor, no matter how much you want to pretent it isn't, it is. I'll try to explain it for you. If you're running a company with workstations that are on the 5 year old range, they are running old power hungry Prescott processors or maybe Cedar Mills. They aren't powerful, but they are still way more than what your workers need because all they do is office work. The cheapest Dell with a 2100T in it is $550, the cheapest Dell with a Celeron is $280, the cheapest AMD is also $280. Now your company is looking to replace 100 old Prescott workstation. Performance, as far as they are concerned, will be exactly the same between the 2100T and the G440 because you won't notice the difference in office apps between the two. Which are they going to go with? $55,000 or $28,000?

With these new Celeron processors, the 1155 package can finally be used in these cheaper computers, and Intel can finally stop making 775 packages to fill that market segment.
Posted on Reply
#23
TheLaughingMan
Wait. Bta you said it has no turbo boost, but listed a 1 Ghz turbo mode in the specs for the G440. Which one is right?
Posted on Reply
#24
DanishDevil
I think the CPU has no turbo, but the GPU does?
Posted on Reply
#25
THRiLL KiLL
damn there is alot of amd bashing in here :)

i just cant justify dropping 400 to 500 right now, as for now my computer can handle anything i throw at it.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment