Intel Celeron

If you remember back to AnandTech's test of the Pentium MMX, Cyrix 6x86MX, AMD K6, and Pentium II with and without L2 cache (Evolution of Microprocessors Article) the results proved that without L2 cache, the Pentium II became nothing more than a oversized Pentium MMX in Business Applications.  This is because most Business Applications use the Level 2 Cache as their loading/work space, meaning they can load their most frequently accessed data into the L2 cache and retrieve it later at a much faster speed than normal.  This makes things like opening a document in Microsoft Word, surfing the net, sending print requests to the printer, copying and pasting, and more common tasks much faster.  This is also why such tasks are the last to experience a significant performance boost by a simple upgrade of your processor.   Going from a Pentium MMX-233 to a Pentium II - 333, for example, won't yield a highly noticeable difference in how fast Microsoft Excel loads.  With the Business Application performance of a Celeron 266 around that of a Pentium MMX 200/233 who really needs more than that?  How many times have you found yourself complaining about how slow your Pentium MMX performs under Microsoft Office, Corel WordPerfect, or Lotus SmartSuite?  Unless you happen to have a keen eye for performance, the answer is most likely never.  But what makes the Celeron better than a Pentium MMX 233?

As mentioned throughout this article, the Celeron is nothing more than a cacheless Pentium II, meaning as long as the application you're running isn't too dependent on the functionality of a high speed Level 2 cache, there is very little difference between a Pentium II - 266 and a Celeron 266.  One obvious example of this would have to be idSoftware's Quake 2.  Quake 2 is notorious for being a FPU dependent game, in fact it is one of the most popular in the gaming scene today.  Well, since very few people have the budget to purchase Pentium II - 400 systems for the sake of playing Quake 2, and the Socket-7 processors out today just don't cut it as far as performance goes, the Celeron fits quite nicely into this market.   Imagine a < $200 chip capable of producing frame rates comparable to a Pentium II under Quake 2, what you're imagining is the Celeron.  Games like Quake 2 and Turok which are FPU intensive yet don't benefit much from the presence of L2 cache simply fly on the Celeron, especially when your pair this low cost solution with a Voodoo2 card.

As far as High End applications are concerned (such as CAD, Application Development, Image Editing applications, etc...), the Celeron is a few percent faster than a equivalently clocked K6, which isn't too shabby at all when you consider the other benefits the Celeron provides you with.  This is definitely not a High End microprocessor solution, under Windows NT the Celeron falls behind considerably performance-wise due to NT's extreme dependency on L2 cache.  If you plan on getting some work done under Windows NT you may want to stay away from the Celeron and stick to a K6/266 or a Pentium II - 233. 

So who would really want a Celeron?   Someone who is looking for average performance under Business Applications, the ability to run a few (if any) High End Applications at a decent speed, and someone who is really into getting the maximum performance out of his/her FPU Intensive games without having to sell their soul to idSoftware - that is the type of person that would really benefit from a Celeron.

If given the choice between a Celeron 266 and a Pentium II - 233, which should you chose?  If you fit the above description, and also plan on overclocking, pick the Celeron since it can run at 333MHz (it has a better chance of making it to 333 than a Pentium II - 233).  If you either, don't fit the above description, or don't plan on overclocking too much (if at all), then pick the Pentium II - 233.  At 233MHz the Pentium II will be faster than the Celeron 266, and the addition of L2 cache makes the processor a much better deal if you don't plan on overclocking it.

As far as future expandability goes, if you purchase a Celeron + BX Motherboard combo now, you can always upgrade to a Pentium II - 400/450 later on when the prices drop to a more realistic level, whereas with a Socket-7 system, you have no guarantee as to which upgrade path you will be able to choose with your current motherboard.  One thing you must take into consideration is that the Celeron won't dominate all FPU intensive games, a few games slated for release later this year or early next year make heavy use of both a processor's FPU and a system's L2 cache.   In those cases (depending on the dependency of the game on the L2 cache), expect sub-Pentium II performance, more or less about the speed of a Pentium MMX.  This is of course, just a speculation, since there is no way at all that we can predict how future software will perform on the Celeron.  Just be aware of the fact that there are some games coming out that will make use of the Celeron's strength, its FPU,  while at the same time exploiting its major weakness, its lack of any L2 cache.  If motherboard manufacturers begin adding their own Level 2 cache onto their 440EX based motherboards, then the Celeron will truly become the death to a considerable portion of the low-end market.