1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Intel Ships First Dual Core Celeron

Discussion in 'News' started by Jimmy 2004, Jan 22, 2008.

  1. Jimmy 2004

    Jimmy 2004 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2005
    Messages:
    5,491 (1.50/day)
    Thanks Received:
    267
    Location:
    England
    Intel has now begun shipping the first of its low-end dual core processors: the 1.6GHz Celeron E1200. The processor is based on Intel’s Core architecture and is manufactured using a 65nm process, with an 800MHz FSB and 512KB L2 cache. Intel’s price (when sold in 1,000 unit quantities) is $53, with these CPUs coming into the market just below the 1.6GHz Pentium E2140 CPUs. Newegg.com has given the processor a price tag of $65.99 for the retail version, which is exactly $9 below that of the E2140.

    Source: PC World
     
  2. niko084

    niko084

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    7,636 (2.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    729
    Heh sounds good, should be a nice upgrade for my brothers little 478 P4 3.0 HT....

    Doesn't have a ton of money, but I think that might be a good go for a boost.
    But may go for the e2140 or even a e4**** anyways.
     
  3. Richieb0y

    Richieb0y New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    471 (0.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Location:
    The Netherlands Almere
    this chip is good for basic stuff atleast all the celerons i owend but duel core cellys i want to know how they perform in games lol
     
  4. Jimmy 2004

    Jimmy 2004 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2005
    Messages:
    5,491 (1.50/day)
    Thanks Received:
    267
    Location:
    England
    Yeah, I'd say spend the extra $9 and get much more L2 cache at least.
     
  5. niko084

    niko084

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    7,636 (2.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    729
    Thats what I was pushing on him, but being he doesn't play many games anymore he isn't too up on spending money... I was thinking about buying him a e4400 just so I knew he had decent power.
     
  6. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    20,397 (6.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,417
    I don't think this chip is worth the price. With the E2140 only being $9 more, and double the cache, this chips isn't really competitive. I could see if people absolutely wanted to spend as little money as possible on a chip, and still get a decent chip, because they plan to upgrade quickly to a better processor, but other than that, I don't see many people saving that $9.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  7. niko084

    niko084

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    7,636 (2.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    729
    Your probably right but at the OEM chip level for companies like HP, Acer, Compaq, E-Machine this is going to be huge.
     
  8. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    20,397 (6.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,417
    Definitely.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  9. suraswami

    suraswami

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2005
    Messages:
    6,265 (1.75/day)
    Thanks Received:
    851
    Location:
    Republic of Asia (a.k.a Irvine), CA
    Best pricing would be if it is around $45 shipped. Since this thing has less cache may overclock well too. 6GHZ?
     
  10. niko084

    niko084

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    7,636 (2.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    729
    Wont see it, the single core is about that.
     
  11. suraswami

    suraswami

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2005
    Messages:
    6,265 (1.75/day)
    Thanks Received:
    851
    Location:
    Republic of Asia (a.k.a Irvine), CA
    Thats true. You know Single cores should be reduced to 20's or even better Buy one dual Core and get a Single core cpu free:D

    You can use the single core for Bios updates or paper weight:laugh:

    I bought my AM2 Single Core A64 3200 brand new for $20 at Frys:D. I use this as spare CPU.
     
  12. niko084

    niko084

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    7,636 (2.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    729
    Well I can agree with you.... Single cores are dated... Almost everything will use 2 cores now, and its taking over. By the next major release of chips we shouldn't see single cores anymore.
     
  13. Scrizz

    Scrizz

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,987 (1.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    416
    Location:
    Florida, US
    ehhh too expensive
     
  14. Kasparz New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    287 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Come on! It has been available for sale in Latvia for about a month, and i tested it week ago.
    Your news is older than my grandma.
     
  15. breakfromyou New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    Messages:
    298 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Location:
    virginia, usa
    +1

    old news!
     
  16. evil bill New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    370 (0.11/day)
    Thanks Received:
    14
    Location:
    Scotland
    really? Core, not Core 2?
     
  17. Ketxxx

    Ketxxx Heedless Psychic

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    Messages:
    11,510 (3.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    570
    Location:
    Kingdom of gods
    Single cores have a very practical purpose still - for the business looking to replace the office systems but want to spend an absolute minimum, in which case a single core chip could cost what? £20 each?
     
  18. jothy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2007
    Messages:
    37 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1
    I agree, too pricey. Things look way better on the AMD side at that price.
     
  19. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    20,397 (6.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,417
    The Core 2s are based on the Core architecture. That is just the generic Intel marketting.

    Agreed, if you aren't overclocking(most low end users don't) AMD has this price range down. A 4200+ can be had for this price.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  20. eidairaman1

    eidairaman1

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    13,805 (4.99/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,929
    yup and a Core 2 2 line can be had for what that celeron is, such a waste of money when the core 2 2 line and higher are going to be way faster than the celerons anyway.
     
  21. Crazyhorse New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    46 (0.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Location:
    Chattanooga, TN
    Ok guys.

    A little addon to this topic since i own a Dual Core Celeron E1200.

    Let me tell you something about CPU-Z and this CPU.

    Intel Celeron E1200 @ 1.6ghz
    Revision M0
    Codename: Conroe
    L2 Cache 512kb

    This CPU is a bottleneck for any good Videocard at stock speed.

    I benched my HD 2900 Pro 256bit 750/1000 at 1.6ghz


    3DMark03 = 29.650
    3DMark05 = 8.994
    3DMark06 = 6.549

    Now since we know its a Conroe Core I did a little bid overclocking. I set the Voltage to about 1.45V with a vdroop to 1.29V use a 400mhz FSB and there we go.

    3.2ghz 100% overclock.

    Abit QuadGT P965 Chipset
    2x1gb Geil Esoteria
    HD 2900 Pro
    Cooling Coolermaster Aquagate S1

    So it was pretty easy, the CPU is not hot at all and i did another 3DMark06 and the score went up like 10.287.

    So if you overclock the holy crap out of that CPU you can game just fine with it. Actually i think at 3.2ghz this Celeron kills about any AMD X2 Dual Core.

    Highst i got so far was 3.3ghz but i m afraid with my board there is not much more to gain.
     
  22. eidairaman1

    eidairaman1

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    13,805 (4.99/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,929
  23. JrRacinFan

    JrRacinFan Served 5k and counting ...

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    19,412 (6.75/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4,484
    Location:
    Youngstown, OH
    Yes but crazyhorse, what resolution were those 3dmark runs ran at?
     
  24. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    20,397 (6.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,417
    I'm going to guess default resolutions.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  25. JrRacinFan

    JrRacinFan Served 5k and counting ...

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    19,412 (6.75/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4,484
    Location:
    Youngstown, OH
    Which is what? 1024x768?

    How could he state then at that low of a resolution it was holding back the graphics card? I mean most graphics based cpu benches were done at that res or lower.

    Now I could see if he ran 1440x900 or higher on all tests and then gave us a difference but I beleive those results are based more towards the cpu in itself. Just my .02.
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page