Dreadfully CPU! It's basically a Pentium II (which doesn't sound to bad) without L2 cache. It has none, nothing. This impacts overall performance of the CPU and above all: it feels slow when running Windows '98. Surprisingly some benchmarks are nearly as fast as a Pentium II 233. I suspect those benchmarks don't need much L2 cache at all.

Luckily Intel decided to get rid of the 'Covington' processor fairly quick. After releasing the 266 and 300MHz models their started shipping the so called 'Mendocino', the same as Covington but with 128KB L2 full-speed on-die L2 cache. Technically speaking Intel used their best L2 method for their budget CPU because the Pentium II only has off-die L2 cache at half the clock frequency of the CPU. However, the L2 cache of the Pentium II was 512KB which seems to get things straight again. > Read more

The Celeron like it should be. The 300MHz Celeron was also available with the 'Covington' core which is slower because it lacks L2-cache. > Read more

The Celeron as it should be. The first Celeron ever released didn't have L2 cache at all making it cheap to produce but quite slow. Intel changed this by adding 128KB full-speed on-die L2 cache into it's playground. This time the cache ran at 100% of the core clockfrequency (333MHz in this case) and was integrated into the processor rather then installed besides the processor like the Pentium II had.

Because the L2 cache is integrated the transistor count increases greatly. The 'Covington' without L2 cache only has 7,5 million transistors where this 'Mendocino' goes up to 19 million transistors! > Read more

Same as this Celeron 333 but someone once removed the heatsink/fan (Shroud) solution. > Read more

Similar to this Celeron 333 but a tad faster. > Read more

Technically this Celeron 400 is just like the 366MHz slot 1 variant but then in socket form.

The Celeron 400 was a good performer and could still run in the older slot 1 boards using a slotket. > Read more

Just as the Celeron 400 but 33MHz faster. > Read more

Just running at 500MHz; nothing less, nothing more. > Read more

The fastest black PPGA Celeron available but unfortunatly still with a slow 66MHz front side bus (FSB). When the 333MHz Celeron was new, the 66MHz FSB was adequate and the difference between clock frequency and FSB wasn't that big. The 533MHz model has a multiplier of 8x so the difference is a lot more (466MHz in fact). > Read more

Unlike the Celeron at 400MHz or 433MHz this one has been made with the so called 'Coppermine' core. It's made on a 180nm manufacturing process and because of this it can run at higher clock frequencies with less voltage. > Read more

The same as this 566 Celeron. Even the sSpec number is the same. I bought this CPU because I didn't have a working 566 model for the benchmarks. > Read more

I can't really say anything about this CPU. Just like the 566, 633 and 667 models they were probably sold in quite some quantities but in reality they got out-performed by AMD's Duron. > Read more

Like the 566 and 600 model but faster and still with the slow 66MHz bus. Luckily the Celeron was quite energy efficient so it was not bad for notebooks. > Read more

Both the Celeron 667 and the Pentium III 667 are made using a 180nm Coppermine core. The difference can be found in the front side bus and L2-cache size. Let's see how this affects the performance in the benchmarks. > Read more

An engineering sample Celeron with an 100MHz front side bus. Luckily Intel stopped increasing the multiplier of the older 66MHz bus versions because they will eventually reach a point that the front side bus is getting to slow. > Read more

No, this is not a 'Tualatin' as many would think because they see a heatspreader. This is a FC-PGA2 'Coppermine' CPU which is also known as the Coppermine-T. As since all FC-PGA2 CPU's have a heatspreader, this CPU has one too.

A little story on the PPGA, FC-PGA and FC-PGA2:
PPGA stands for Plastic Pin Grid Array. It means the CPU has a plastic packaging and some pins. Compare it with an old socket A AMD Athlon as they have CPGA, which is Ceramic. PPGA was the technique Intel used for their first generation Celeron's using a 'socket' instead of 'slot'.

FC-PGA stands for Flip-Chip Pin Grid Array. As the name says, it's flipped. A processor has a 'die' which is the packaging of the 'core'. The 'core' is the actual 'logic' or easily said: processor (For a better understanding see this image. The blue thing is the 'die'.). With FC-PGA the 'die' is flipped so it will face downwards on the packaging on which the back of the 'die' will be exposed. In the linked picture you are actually looking at the back of the 'die'. The advantage is that the heatsink can have a more direct contact.

FC-PGA2 is the second version of FC-PGA and all it does is including a heatspreader. In my opinion 'heatspreader' is not the correct word as it doesn't spread the heat. It merely blocks the heat as the heatspreader is just an extra layer between the 'die' and the heatsink. The less layers, the better the cooling. The actual job of the heatspreader is protection. The 'die' won't fry immediately when the PC is turned on without a heatsink installed on the CPU. Neither people can crush the fragile 'die' by installing the heatsink incorrectly.

The CPU works like a charm but is not as fast as an Intel Pentium III or AMD Athlon/Duron. Not surprising as the Celeron is Intel's budget-line CPU. Though times have been better in the past. The older Celeron 'Mendocino' was practically ahead at it's bigger brother, the Pentium II. The Pentium II had 512KB off-die L2 cache at 50% of the internal clockfrequency. The Celeron had 128KB on-die L2 cache at full speed. A bigger cache is usually faster but a faster, yet smaller cache, is often better. But, all this will turn out when the benchmarks of the 'Covington', 'Mendocino' and 'Deschutes' are up . > Read more

A qualification sample of Intel's Celeron 1100 with 'Tualatin'-core. It runs at 1100MHz and doesn't need as much voltage as the older Pentium III / Celeron CPU's because the Tualatin is made with the 130nm manufacturing process. > Read more

Like the Intel Celeron 1100A but 100MHz faster and about half a year newer. > Read more

> Read more

A very late Intel Celeron 1.8GHz engineering sample. The Willamette core was released in 2000 and this sample is from 2002! I wonder why this sample has been made . > Read more

> Read more

An engineering sample of a not-so-very-speedy Celeron. This Celeron is based on the same core as the Pentium 4 Willamette but only has 128KB L2-cache instead of 256KB L2-cache. Because the 'Netburst' architecture has a long pipeline a big L2-cache is useful and this CPU doesn't have a big L2-cache; you do the math.

Because my i865G platform doesn't recognise this CPU as a 1900MHz Celeron but 1700MHz I don't have benchmarks yet. > Read more

A 2GHz Celeron with a little L2-cache. Nothing spectacular and only suitable for light Office work.

For this CPU it's the same as with the Celeron 2.2 GHz; I can't really think of a reason to buy this kind of CPU halfway 2003. > Read more

This CPU was made during the 41th week of 2003. Consider that the 3,06GHz Pentium 4 was available at the end of 2002 and CPU's like 2,66 ~ 2,8GHz Pentium 4 or Athlon XP 2600+ were more than mainstream. Because the Celeron with Northwood core was never a good performer (in mainstream, some light office work that doesn't use L2-cache will go well enough) I wonder if anyone could think of one single good reason to buy this CPU at that timeframe . Unless you could get it for free I can't .

The benchmark scores with this Celeron are a bit higher then back in the old days because I used a i865 chipset with dual-channel RAM instead of i845 with single-channel (or even worse, with SDR-SDRAM!). Some applications (see Hexus Pifast! benchmark with Pentium 4 1.7 for example) benefit quite much from the extra bandwidth created by the dual-channel memory setup. > Read more

Just like this Celeron 2.2GHz but 200MHz faster. This 2400MHz part is also made in the end of 2003 when much faster parts were already available. > Read more

> Read more