Overclock intel celeron b800: Intel Celeron B800 Overclock Benchmarks

Intel Celeron Overclocking Guide — THG.RU

THG,  28 2000

Everybody let’s clock: More power by overclocking

The new AMD Duron has taken away the low-end performance crown from Intel’s Celeron. One important reason is of course the higher Front Side Bus speed of the Duron: It works at 200 MHz (100 MHz double pumped) and 133 MHz memory clock, while the Celeron is restricted to 66 MHz both.

Nevertheless, the Celeron has several advantages, which we explained in detail in the Performance Guide. Most important is of course the better price for both CPU and a decent motherboard. In addition, the Celeron is very interesting for upgrades, thanks to its 66 MHz bus. Of course we will also deal with this topic elaborately.

Freaks know that the Celeron is the perfect overclocking processor, as almost every specimen can be run far beyond its specs, while the whole processor family is usually very inexpensive. Overclocking to front side bus clocks of 75, 83, 92 or even 100 MHz do not cause problems, as today’s motherboards are designed to run at up to 133 MHz front side bus. Almost the only limiting factor is the CPU, which can be regarded as the optimum situation for processor overclocking.

The latest Celeron with the Coppermine-128 core seems to accept the inheritance of the Mendocino. Both models can be overclocked to up to 50% by rising the bus speed from 66 to 100 MHz max. This article will give you all the necessary information and useful hints to make your system running at the limit.

Which CPUs can be overclocked?

Talking about the Celeron, you have to distinguish between the three different cores: Covington, Mendocino and Coppermine. Some years ago, Intel needed a low cost processor in order to compete against AMD’s K6-2 family. The first chip came with the Covington core (Slot-1, 266 and 300 MHz), which was based on the Pentium II Deschutes. This initial Celeron came without any L2 cache, making it a poor performer and rather unattractive.

Only some months later, Intel released the 2nd generation of Celeron processors, coming with the Mendocino core. This one has 128 Kbytes L2 cache on die, running at full CPU clock speed. As most of us should know, this processor is inexpensive and fast. Thanks to the integrated cache memory, it almost reaches the performance of a Pentium II at the same clock speed, even though the PII has four times the cache size (but only running at 1/2 CPU clock). In addition, Celeron’s price tag was and still is much more attractive than Intel’s high-end processors Pentium II and Pentium III. Two years ago, Intel’s yields were already good enough to have most Celeron 300A CPUs running safely at 100 MHz FSB, raising the core clock to some amazing 450 MHz.

The latest Celeron model ist again based on a Pentium core. This time, the core name is ‘Coppermine’ and the differences between the ‘Coppermine-Pentium II’ and the ‘Coppermine-Celeron’ are rather small. Celeron is still officially limited to 66 MHz FSB and it comes with 128 Kbytes less L2 cache. The following table will show you the differences between all Celeron cores in more detail.

CPU core Covington Mendocino Coppermine
Clock speeds 266, 300 MHz 300A, 333, 366, 400, 433, 466, 500, 533 MHz 533A, 566, 600, 633, 667, 700 MHz
Slot/Socket SEP — Slot 1 PPGA-370 FCPGA-370
Core voltage 2. 0 V 2.0 V 1.5 V — 1.7 V
up to 600 MHz

1,65 V — 1,7 V
633+ MHz

L2 Cache none 128 KBytes 128 KBytes
L2 Cache clock Full CPU speed Full CPU speed
System clock speed 66 MHz 66 MHz 66 MHz
Multipliers * 4, 4. 5 4.5, 5, 5.5, 6, 6.5, 7, 7.5, 8 8, 8.5, 9, 9.5, 10, 10.5

* Just like the Pentium III, all Celeron CPUs are multiplier locked. So far nobody has found a way of changing it.

Thanks to its great overclocking abilities, the Celeron 300A used to be one of the most popular types. Something similar is might happen to the new Celeron 533A and 566, as both CPUs should be able to reach 100 MHz FSB absolutely stable, resulting in 800 or 850 MHz core clock. Merely the processor voltage will have to be increased from 1,65 to 1,7 or 1,75V. You may also try 1.8 Volts, but always keep an eye on the CPU temperature.

Celeron’s with Mendocino core can run up to 600 MHz at 2.2 Volts. We tried six different CPUs, but even at 2.3 or 2.4 V there was no way of getting those processors to run faster. One of those processors was an excellent example to show that there is no guarantee for overclocking success. One of our Celeron 400 samples did not even want to run stable at 500 MHz (83 MHz system speed). At the same time a Celeron 433 ran reliably at 600 MHz core speed (92 MHz FSB).

We have to face it. Some Celerons just cannot reach really high clock speeds. I hope you can live with the fact that you have to be a little bit lucky, as there is no way to distinguish a good overclocking processor from a bad one unless you try it out. Some processors can be speeded up extremely well; others will fail at 15% more clock speed.

Upgrading older systems with a Celeron

The first Pentium II CPUs (Slot-1, Klamath core) required 2.8 V core voltage. Nevertheless, most motherboards from this period should be able to provide down to 2.0V as well, because Intel introduced the specifications for their second generation Pentium II (Deschutes, 333+ MHz) quite early. Old 440LX or VIA Apollo Pro boards are certainly no valid platforms for the later Pentium II or today’s Pentium III processors, as those models require 100 or 133 MHz front side bus clock. However, most of those boards are able to work with a Celeron.

For upgraders, the locked multiplier of the Celeron is a benefit, as the CPU will work at its designated clock speed regardless if the motherboard would let you adjust the multiplier or not. Just make sure that there is an updated BIOS version available, as the CPU needs to be supported and the latest micro code update should be supplied by the BIOS of the motherboard. If that is not the case, the BIOS will either report something rather irregular (e.g. 486 at 500 MHz), or the system won’t work at all.

Ideally, the Mendocino Celeron is best suitable for upgrades, while only few of the older motherboards can supply the required 1.5 — 1.65V for the new Celerons with Coppermine-128 core. In other words, go for a Celeron between 400 and 533 MHz unless your motherboard supports the lower core voltages of the new Celeron processors. Celerons at less than 400 MHz are almost impossible to come by. Be careful with the 533, as the new Celeron with Coppermine-128 core (1.5 V core voltage!) is also available at this clock speed (Celeron 533A). You can recognize it by its green color:

The Celeron on the left uses the Mendocino core, on the right is a Celeron with Coppermine-128 core. Running at 2.0V, the Mendocino should work in almost every motherboard, thus it is perfectly suited for upgrades. Don’t forget the benefit of a Socket370-to-Slot1 adapter board in order to run the Socket 370 CPU in a Slot-1 motherboard.

Here you can see a typical Socket370-to-Slot1 adapter board. Don’t forget the CPU cooler/fan, as you cannot keep using Slot-1 components. Together, those two parts should cost between $25 and $35.

Which motherboards support the new Celeron?

I already mentioned it in the first part (Celeron Performance Guide): It’s very important to have a BIOS which supports the Coppermine-128 Celeron and you will need a motherboard which is capable of supplying 1. 5-1.65V core voltage. Actual models (one year or younger) should be able to do this, but the older your board is, the smaller is the probability that it will do it. If you are not sure, please check the website of your motherboard maker.

It doesn’t matter if you have a Slot-1 or a Socket 370 motherboard. As already mentioned, you will require an adapter board for Slot-1 motherboards. Usually, those adapters feature some jumpers, which let you change the CPU’s voltage requirement.

If your board supports 75 or 83 MHz system clock speeds, you get some overclocking options this way. Please note that most adapter boards just have the voltage definition jumpers, but no voltage regulation unit! That means that you will not get more voltage options than your motherboard’s voltage regulator supports.

Some older motherboards support down to 1.8 Volts core voltage and a few freaks are already running their Coppermine processors at this voltage. Generally this high voltage is not a problem, but the core will heat up much more. If you really want to use your processor like this in the long term, make sure you get the best CPU cooling solution you can get. Otherwise, you will certainly reduce the processor’s life span.

Overclocking Guide: That’s how it works

Today, overclocking is no secret any more, it has almost become some kind of sport. The definition for overclocking is simple: Overclocking means operating an IC beyond its specified clock speed. No more, no less.

The core speed is the multiplication of the front side bus clock and the multiplier. Most modern processors work at 100 or MHz FSB clock or more, but the Celeron was kept at 66 MHz FSB clock.

Few years ago, you could overclock processors by choosing a higher multiplier. This option was supposedly eliminated in order to fight CPU remarking. Counterfeit processors have regularly appeared in the market (e. g. a Pentium II 266 which was given a new cartridge, labeled at Pentium II 300), as the CPU speed was only defined by your setting. Nowadays, the restriction to only one multiplier is both some kind of overclocking prevention and counterfeit protection.

As you can see, the only way of overclocking today is choosing a higher front side bus clock. Intel specified 66, 100 and 133 MHz, but today’s motherboards offer some steps in between those large increments. 75 and 83 MHz are very widespread today. Celeron overclocking requires many small increments between 83 and 100 MHz, as most Celerons run perfectly at 83, but fail at 100 MHz FSB. We benchmarked at 92 MHz as well, as this clock speeds closes the logical gap between 83 and 100 MHz.

In case your board should offer 1 MHz-increments (Abit BE6-II, BF6, BX133-RAID, Epox BX7+ and others), you have the chance to find out the maximum clock speed by slowly closing in on the final limit MHz for MHz. Of course this cannot be done in an hour, but you will have to spend one or two days just playing with different clock speed settings. In the end you should have your Celeron running at the highest possible core speed.

Using higher voltages

Today, almost each processor can be run faster than the speed it was labeled for. This applies even more if you raise the core voltage a little bit. One problem is of course the increasing chip temperature, so cooling is very, very important. You should always raise the voltage step by step and never go higher than 15% beyond specs. This way it’s quite easy to get a faster system without risking the processor.

2.1 or 2.2 V have proved to be reliable for Mendocino CPUs. More can sometimes bring the desired success, but the risk for your CPU increases heavily. To have a Celeron 566 running at 850 MHz, you only have to raise the default voltage of 1.65V to 1.75V. Our Celeron 600 did not want to run stable at 900 MHz, so I recommend keeping below this clock speed. You can try at 1.8 or 1.9V, but the temperature at almost 1 GHz can only be fought successfully by a high end cooling solution (e.g. Kryotech devices)

What Do I need to overclock the Celeron?

  • Big cooler with a powerful fan
  • A motherboard which provides as many system speed settings as possible (particularly between 66 and 100 MHz)
  • A motherboard which lets you alter the core voltage

Overclocking speed

The following table includes all Celerons, clock speeds and useful voltage settings.

CPU Overclockable to Core voltage
Celeron 300A 100 MHz x4. 5 (450 MHz)
92 MHz x4.5 (414 MHz)
2,1V
2,0V
Celeron 333 100 MHz x5 (500 MHz) *
92 MHz x5 (460 MHz)
83 MHz x5 (416 MHz)
2,1V/2,2V
2,0V/2,1V
2,0V
Celeron 366 92 MHz x5.5 (506 MHz) *
83 MHz x5.5 (458 MHz)
2,2V/2,1V
2,1V
Celeron 400 92 MHz x6 (552 MHz) *
83 MHz x6 (500 MHz)
2,2V/2,1V
2,1V/2,0V
Celeron 433 92 MHz x6. 5 (598 MHz) *
83 MHz x6.5 (542 MHz)
75 MHz x6.5 (487 MHz)
2,3V/2,2V
2,2V/2,1V
2,1V/2,0V
Celeron 466 83 MHz x7 (583 MHz) *
75 MHz x7 (525 MHz)
2,2V
2,0V
Celeron 500 83 MHz x7.5 (625 MHz) **
75 MHz x7.5 (563 MHz)
2,3V
2,2V/2,1V
Celeron 533 75 MHz x8 (600 MHz) 2,3V/2,2V
Celeron 533A 105 MHz x8 (840 MHz) *
100 MHz x8 (800 MHz)
1,7V
1,65V
Celeron 566 100 MHz x8. 5 (850 MHz) 1,7V/1,65V
Celeron 600 100 MHz x9 (900 MHz) *
92 MHz x9 (828 MHz)
1,75V/1,7V
1,7V/1,65V
Celeron 633 100 MHz x9.5 (950 MHz) *
92 MHz x9.5 (874 MHz)
1,8V/1,75V
1,75V
Celeron 667 100 MHz x10 (1 GHz) *
92 MHz x10 (920 MHz) *
83 MHz x10 (830 MHz)
1,8V/1,75V
1,8V/1,75V
1,75V/1,7V
Celeron 700 92 MHz x10. 5 (966 MHz) *
83 MHz x10.5 (875 MHz)
1,8V/1,75V
1,8V/1,75V/1,7V

* this setting may fail sometimes
** this setting will most likely fail

Test configuration

Test System
CPU Intel Celeron, Intel Pentium III
Motherboard Asus CUBX, Intel 440BX chipset
Asus CUWE-RM, Intel 810 chipset
RAM 128 MB PC133 SDRAM, 7ns (Wichmann Workx or Memory Solution) CL2
Hard Drive Seagate Barracuda ATA ST320430A
20 GBytes, 7200 rpm
Graphics card Asus V6600, nVIDIA GeForce 256
32 MByte SDRAM
nVIDIA Drivers 5. 08 for Windows 98

Intel 810 Integrated Graphics
Driver Version 4.1

OS Windows 98 SE 4.10.2222 A
Benchmarks and Setup
Office Applications Benchmark BAPCo SYSmark2000
OpenGL Game Benchmark Quake III Arena
Retail Version
command line = +set cd_nocd 1 +set s_initsound 0
Graphics detail set to ‘Normal’, 640x480x16
Benchmark using ‘Q3DEMO1’
Direct3D Game Benchmark Expendable
Downloadable Demo Version
command line = -timedemo
640x480x16
Screen Resolution 1024x768x85, 16 Bit
DirectX Version 7. 0

BAPCo SYSmark 2000 — Windows 98 SE

This chart lines up all results I got during my many days of testing. In brackets you will find the basic Celeron model (multiplier-locked of course) and the clock settings we used. At the bottom are some settings, which did not work stably.

It was interesting to see that a Celeron 366, overclocked to 458 MHz (83 instead of 66 MHz system speed), is faster than a regular Celeron 500. Even more impressive is the Celeron 566, which ran reliably at 850 MHz (at 1.75V). That will give you the same performance as using a Pentium III 667 or 700 — at about half the price!

Direct 3D Benchmark — Expendable Timedemo

Expendable can benefit even more from overclocking. Our Celeron 366 at 458 MHz scores the same result than a brand new Celeron 600! A Celeron 433 at 92 MHz FSB and 600 MHz core speed is able to catch the Pentium III 500E. Again, the 566 at 850 MHz is as fast as a Pentium III 700.

OpenGL-Benchmark — Quake III Arena

Quake III benefits the same way.

Price/Performance Ratio

This chart gives you the actual price/performance ratio of Celeron and Pentium III CPUs. The green lines show the ratio using the regular clock speed, 66 MHz with the Celeron and 100 or 133 MHz with the Pentium III. Of course you get a greatly increased price/performance ratio after raising the FSB clock.

It’s important to know that Intel makes their chip prices according to the core clock speed. That’s why a Pentium III 600E (100 MHz) costs the same as the Pentium III 600EB (133 MHz). However, the 600/133 is as fast as a 700/100 or 750/100, depending on the application. I think this shows once again that running a Pentium III at only 100 MHz system speed is a huge waste of performance. Motherboards and RAM for 133 MHz are no more expensive than 100 MHz components; therefore it’s advisable for Pentium III buyers to choose a 133 MHz system today.

The story is different for users with a small budget. In this case, just the result counts. I think it’s not exaggerated to say that from the price point of view, there is little alternative to an overlocked Celeron with Coppermine-128 core right now. In addition, you can easily upgrade to a Pentium III later.

Again you can see some results missing because those setups did not want to run reliably. I already mentioned that we couldn’t get our Celeron 400 to run at 500 MHz or more. Please be aware that this is an unusually negative result, as most Celeron 400 CPUs should easily reach between 500 and 550 MHz, unless the CPU is already older than approx. 18 months.

The below results were achieved by dividing the Quake III frame rate score by the average price spotted at pricewatch. com.

Conclusion

The Celeron is inexpensive and a decent performer. Particularly the new models (533A to 600 MHz and more) are an excellent choice for performance freaks on a small budget, as they are around only $100-120 and just perfect for overclocking. All new Celeron CPUs (green FC-PGA package) should reach at least 800 MHz, as they do not differ from the Pentium III at all.

We know that the latest Celerons are Pentium III processors, which did not pass the L2 cache test. In order to reduce the number of defective Pentium III CPUs, Intel disables half of the L2 cache (the part where the error is situated), reduces the cache associativity from 8-way to 4-way, restricts them to 66 MHz at higher multipliers and labels those chips as Celeron.

If you are looking for a way to upgrade your Pentium II system, have an eye at the Mendocino Celeron. Older motherboards should easily be able to host this processor as long as you still get an updated BIOS. Celeron models at 500 and 533 MHz can be obtained for less than $100 today and will significantly speed up an old Pentium II 233-333 system.

All Celerons coming in the green FC-PGA package are equipped with the Coppermine-128 core (533 MHz or faster). I don’t recommend buying such a CPU without checking twice if your motherboard is able to provide 1.5 -1.65V. You are in good shape if your board can host one of the new Celerons, but even if the voltage requirements are not met, you can still take advantage of a Celeron 400-533 with Mendocino core.

 

Overclocking the Celeron II 566Mhz

Intel originally released the Celeron as a cheap and cheerful
processor for users on a budget, designed to compete with the K6-2
family from AMD. The first Celerons had no Level 2 cache though,
and were very slow as a result.

Introduction

To remedy this Intel added 128Kb of cache memory, but crucially it
was on-die and ran at the full speed of the CPU, as opposed to the
half-speed off-die cache of the (more expensive) Pentium II.

What made the Celeron so special was the ability to increase its
Front Side Bus (FSB) speed from the stock 66Mhz to the 100Mhz of a
Pentium II. It didn’t take long before hardcore users worldwide
were routinely overclocking the Celeron 300a to 450Mhz and beyond.
The results were impressive indeed, in some cases outperforming a
similarly clocked Pentium II thanks to the smaller but faster
cache.

So when it came to designing the Celeron II, Intel were obviously
keen to make sure that, while it gave good performance for its
budget pricetag, it should not compete with their more expensive
«Coppermine» Pentium III CPUs, even when overclocked.

And we are sad to report that they have succeeded — a Celeron II is
slower than a Pentium III at the same clock speed. The question is,
how far can they be overclocked, and how do they perform? To find
out, we took a Celeron II 566Mhz CPU, sold by
PowerComputing and
guaranteed by them to overclock to 850Mhz.

Test Rig

The Celeron II is a «Flip Chip» design, which means
it is just a naked core sticking up in the middle of the
cost-saving Socket370 form factor. In order to run the chip on our
Slot1 Abit BX6 rev 2.0 motherboard, a «Slocket» adapter is needed,
and PowerComputing provided the appropriate model from ASUS, with
on-board voltage control.

It’s simple physics that chips run hotter as they run faster, so a
suitable heatsink was required as well if we were to make the most
of the CPU. The
ThermalTake Orb came
highly recommended, and was fitted with the appropriate smattering
of heat transfer compound, known in the industry as «goop».

In order to stress the CPU’s influence over system performance, we
used the fastest 3D card we had to hand — the Creative Labs
Annihilator Pro GeForce DDR.

Overclocking

The Celeron 566 has an 8.5 times multiplier,
which not all motherboards support natively. But since it is
hard-coded into the CPU you should have no problems running it,
although amusingly the BX6-II was misreporting the chip as «806EB»
instead of 850Mhz.

A
revised
BIOS for the motherboard has now been released which fixes this
minor cosmetic issue, but either way it had no impact on the actual
speed the chip was running at, just the number you see as your
system boots up.

Although locked at 8.5x, the fact that this is such a high
multiplier helps by yielding large speed increases for small
adjustments of the FSB. It jumps 284Mhz to 850Mhz by simply
switching from 66 to 100Mhz FSB. The next setting on the
motherboard is 103Mhz, which yielded 875Mhz with no problems.
Unfortunately, the next jump is 112Mhz, which at 952Mhz is just too
much for this particular core to handle.

In many cases, you can coax a few extra Mhz from a chip by
increasing the core voltage. The Celeron-II runs at a default 1.5
volts at 566Mhz, and required 1.7 volts to reach 850Mhz — a likely
product of the extra circuitry of the Slocket. 875Mhz required 1.8
volts to be stable, but I could not last more than 10 seconds at
952Mhz even at a monstrous 1.9 volts.

The obvious culprit was heat — an overclocker’s worse enemy. The
Orb had performed admirably, but the temperature was now a little
warm for comfort. A quick call to PowerComputing yielded an Alpha
PEP66 — the flagship in Socket370 CPU cooling with its copper base
and high-speed fan. This slashed over 5 C off my operating
temperatures, but even at a moderate 29 C idle temperature I could
not reach 952Mhz.

If we had an ABIT BE6-II motherboard, we would have been able to
tweak the FSB in 1Mhz increments, so possibly the limit of this
chip lies above 875Mhz, but definitely below 952Mhz. For example,
using a 107Mhz FSB would produce 910Mhz, which may well have
worked.

So 875Mhz was the maximum — let’s see how it performed!

Raw Speed Ahead

Sisoft’s «Sandra»
benchmark is the accepted test for raw cpu speed. Measured in MIPS
(million instructions per second) and MFLOPS (million
floating-point operations per second), they show how fast the core
of a CPU is, ignoring real life limitations like cache size or main
memory bandwidth.

 

As we can see from the results, the Celeron II keeps up with the
Pentium III in terms of raw MIPS, which are a direct product of
pure clock-speed. Here we have the P3@840Mhz outperformed by the
C-II@850Mhz, and by a greater margin at 875Mhz, just as we would
expect.

So the core is sound, but we know that Intel has intentionally
crippled the Level 2 cache in order to avoid an overclocked Celeron
II competing with a Pentium III, so further testing is required.

Mad Onion’s 3DMark 2000 is an
all-round benchmarking suite, normally reserved for testing
graphics cards. But by lowering the resolution to 640×480 at 16bit
colour and disabling the GeForce’s on-board T&L acceleration,
we can make sure that the benchmark is limited by the CPU rather
than the graphics card.

 

We now have our first clear indication that, megahertz for
megahertz, the Celeron II is not as fast as the Pentium III
Coppermine. First of all, the reason why a P3-500 outperforms the
Celeron II at its native 566Mhz is due to the former running a
100Mhz frontside bus, where the latter runs just 66Mhz.

We will see later how this affects other results, but since the
sole purpose of buying this chip for hardcore users is to run it at
100Mhz FSB or higher, we can ignore that result. Bumping it up to
100Mhz FSB, we see that clocked at 850Mhz the Celeron II is a tiny
bit quicker than a P3-600. Tweak it to 875Mhz and the score creeps
up to that of a P3-650, but certainly falls short of a P3-700.

Quake 3 Arena

Synthetic benchmarks are all very well, but it is important to test
performance using real games that you play every day, and no doubt
many of you will base your decision on whether to buy a Celeron II
on its performance in games like Quake 3 Arena.

We ran Quake 3 at three different settings, designed to capture a
number of different users. The first was «Fastest», but at a more
sensible 640×480 resolution. The second was «Normal», which
represents a basic 640×480 16 bit colour setting. The last was
«High Quality» (32-bit colour and 32-bit textures) at 1024×768.

Since these settings stress the system in different ways, with
varying levels of graphics card limitation, let’s examine the
results at each stage.
Fastest:

In the most CPU-dependent of the three settings, it is not
surprising to see the P3-840 come out top, followed by the P3-800
and P3-700. Disappointingly the Celeron II, even clocked at 875Mhz,
cannot even match a P3-600. In fact, at 850Mhz, it is just 5.3
frames per second faster than a lowly P3-500. And with its 66Mhz
FSB, it’s not surprising to see the Celeron II at its normal speed
of 566Mhz lagging behind.
Normal:

Here the story is the same again. The Celeron II has to reach
875Mhz just to keep up with the P3-600. At 566Mhz, it is slower
than a P3-500, again due to the 66Mhz FSB. Even as we bring the
graphics card into play by running the game at 1024×768, the
Celeron II still lags behind the P3-600. Things are not looking
good…
High Quality:

What do we have here? The overclocked Celeron II outperforming a
Coppermine P3-840? Well technically yes, but it’s only by 0.2fps.
The fact that a P3-600 also falls within 2fps of this score
highlights the fact that we are now being limited by the graphics
card.

Pessimists may already have written off the Celeron II as a dud,
but it is clear from these results that if you intend to play games
with 32-bit colour at high resolution, you are so limited by the
speed of your graphics card that there is very little difference
between a «crippled» Celeron II and a more expensive Coppermine.

Should I Replace My Celeron 300a?

Resigned to the fact that the Celeron II is no Coppermine-killer
(just as Intel intended), the question many of you will be asking
is «should I upgrade from my overclocked Celeron 300a?» Strip away
the Coppermine scores and add in some numbers from the 300a, and we
get a picture that looks like this —

Ignore the fact that the Celeron 300a overclocked to 450Mhz beats
the Celeron II at 566Mhz — that’s just the 100Mhz FSB again. If you
concentrate on the «Normal» results, the upgrade is worth around 20
frames per second. At 32-bit the benefit is more limited, but still
a handy 10fps.

Many people have said that the Celeron II is not a spiritual
successor to the revered 300a, but I would argue otherwise. If you
analyse what was so great about the 300a, I think they are more
closely related than you would think.

First off, in the majority of cases, the 300a overclocked by 50% of
its original clock speed simply by changing the frontside bus from
66 to 100Mhz. The Celeron II can also perform this trick — 566 to
850Mhz is exactly a 50% increase. And in terms of the speed
increase gained, again the story is the same — a 300a at 450Mhz is
53% faster than at 300Mhz, while the Celeron II is 36% faster at
850Mhz than at 566Mhz. The percentage change might be less, but in
both cases it represents a healthy boost of about 20 fps —
something that no gamer would turn down.

Conclusion

Since in-game performance is dependent on a number of different
factors, it is always tricky to make a clear cut recommendation.
I’m sure advanced users will already know from the benchmark
results whether they want a Celeron II or not, but for everyday
gamers I will try to sum things up. ..

If you already run a Pentium III at 600Mhz or above, or indeed an
Athlon at similar speeds, then this is not the chip for you.

If you own a Voodoo3, RivaTNT2, or even a GeForce SDR, you are
probably going to be held back by your graphics card, particularly
at higher resolutions. And if you already have a processor running
at 500Mhz or above, it is likely that you will not see a boost in
your framerate until you upgrade your 3D card. If your CPU is
clocked at 450Mhz or slower though, then you will see some
increase, but again, only until you hit the ceiling of your 3D
card.

But if, like me, you upgraded to a DDR GeForce early, but were
still running at 450Mhz, then you can expect a healthy 20 fps
increase as you release the GeForce from it’s CPU-limited shackles.

If you are still in doubt, I’ll let the numbers do the talking :
when UK stock arrives this week,
PowerComputing will
sell you a Celeron II 566 guaranteed to overclock up to 850Mhz for
between £120-£130, depending on final pricing. If you
need a Slocket adapter and heatsink as well, PowerComputing will be
doing an all-inclusive bundle for around £150. So while it may
only perform the same as a P3-600 when overclocked to 850Mhz, that
Pentium III would cost in the region of £200.

The story does not stop there — Celeron II 600’s will appear soon,
and with a 9x multiplier they might do 900Mhz «out of the box», and
possibly overclock a little more. It may be that for just £20
or so more than a C-II 566, the 600Mhz model will give you the
performance of a P3-700, which costs over £300. Now that’s
what I call a bargain!

Just to prove that overclocking success relies heavily on invidiual
chips, check out
Zarathustra’s
effort at LightSpeed 2000 — his Celeron-II was sooo sweet, he
not only pulled 978Mhz out of it, but at only 1. 7 volts. A *very*
sweet chip indeed. -Geoff
Related Features

Spring 2000 Graphics Card Round-Up

Noddy’s Guide To Graphics Card Jargon

GeForce 2 GTS preview

Creative
Labs Annihilator Pro review

Celeron B800 processor [in 7 benchmarks]

Intel
Celeron B800

  • Interface
  • Core frequency
  • Video memory size
  • Memory type
  • Memory frequency
  • Maximum resolution

Description

Intel started Celeron B800 sales on June 19, 2011 at a suggested price of $80. This is a notebook processor based on the Sandy Bridge architecture, primarily designed for office systems. It has 2 cores and 2 threads and is manufactured using 32nm process technology, the maximum frequency is 1500MHz, the multiplier is locked.

In terms of compatibility, this is an FCPGA988 socket processor with a TDP of 35W. It supports DDR3 memory.

It provides poor benchmark performance at

0.53%

from the leader AMD EPYC 9654

Information about the type (desktop or laptop) and architecture of the Celeron B800, as well as when sales started and cost at that time.

900 54 Code architecture name
Performance ranking 2648
Type 90 040 For Notebooks
Series Intel Celeron
Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
Release date June 19, 2011 (12 years ago)
Release price $80 out of 305 (Core i7-870) 9005 5
Price now $85 (1.1x) of 14999 (Xeon Platinum 9282)

Features

Celeron B800 quantitative parameters such as number of cores and threads, clock speeds, manufacturing process, cache size and multiplier lock state. They indirectly speak about the performance of the processor, but for an accurate assessment it is necessary to consider the results of the tests.

0054 1.50 GHz

2
Flowers 2
Basic frequency of 4.7 (Ryzen 9 7900x)
Maximum frequency 1.5 GHz 4 × 5 GT/s
Level 1 cache 128 KB of 7475.2 (Apple M2 Pro 10-Core )
Level 2 cache 512 KB out of 36864 (Apple M2 Max)
L3 Cache 2MB (total) out of 768 (EPYC 7773X )
Process 32 nm 9Ryzen 9 7940HS
Maximum core temperature 100 °C x7-E3950)
Number of transistors 504M of 9

0 (Ryzen 5 7645HX)

900 55

64 bit support +
Windows 11 compatible

Free multiplier

Compatible

Information on Celeron B800 compatibility with other computer components. Useful, for example, when choosing the configuration of a future computer or to upgrade an existing one.

Please note that the power consumption of some processors can significantly exceed their nominal TDP even without overclocking. Some may even double their claims if the motherboard allows you to adjust the power settings of the processor.

Max. number of processors per configuration 1 of 8 (Xeon Platinum 8160M)
Socket FCPGA988
Power consumption (TDP) 35 W of 400 (Xeon Platinum 9282)

Technology and additional instructions

Here are the technologies supported by the Celeron B800 and additional instruction sets. This information is needed if the processor is required to support specific technologies.

9 0063

Extended instructions Intel® SSE4. 1, Intel® SSE4.2
AES-NI 9005 5

FMA +
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) + SpeedStep (EIST) +
Turbo Boost Technology
Hyper-Threading Technology — 90 +
Thermal Monitoring +
Flex Memory Access +
Demand Based Switching
FDI + 9006 1
Fast Memory Access +

Security Technologies

Technologies embedded in the Celeron B800 that enhance system security, such as those designed to protect against hacking.

TXT
3

Anti-Theft

Virtualization technologies

Technologies supported by Celeron B800 that accelerate the operation of virtual machines are listed.

VT-d
VT-x +

RAM support

Types, maximum size and channels of RAM supported by Celeron B800. Higher memory frequency may be supported depending on the motherboard. Ryzen 9 7940HS

Permissible memory size 16 GB of 786 (Xeon E5-2670 v3) Number of memory channels 2 9004 1 out of 12 (Xeon Platinum 9221) Memory bandwidth 21.3 Gb/s of 460. 8 (EPYC 9654) ECC support — 900 41

Built-in video — specifications

General parameters of the video card integrated into Celeron B800.

Video core Intel® HD Graphics for 2nd Generation Intel® Processors
Quick Sync Video
Clear Video HD
Maximum GPU clock 1.00 GHz
InTru 3D

Integrated new video — interfaces

Interfaces and connections supported by Celeron B800 integrated video card.

Maximum number of monitors 2
eDP 9004 0 +
DisplayPort 9HDMI +
SDVO +
CRT 061

Peripherals

Celeron B800 supported peripherals and how to connect them.

PCI Express revision 2.0 of 5 (EPYC 9654)
Number of PCI-Express lanes 16 out of 128 (EPYC 7401)

Benchmark tests

These are the results of Celeron B800 performance tests in non-gaming benchmarks. The overall score is set from 0 to 100, where 100 corresponds to the fastest processor at the moment.


Overall test performance

This is our overall performance rating. We regularly improve our algorithms, but if you find any inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in the comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Celeron B800
0.53

    Passmark

    Passmark CPU Mark is a widely used benchmark that consists of 8 different tests, including integer and floating point calculations, extended instruction tests, compression, encryption and game physics calculations. Also includes a separate single-threaded test.

    Benchmark coverage: 68%

    Celeron B800
    674

    GeekBench 5 Single-Core

    GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application designed as CPU benchmarks that independently recreate certain real world tasks that can accurately measure performance. This version uses only one processor core.

    Benchmark coverage: 37%

    Celeron B800
    270

    GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

    GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application designed as CPU benchmarks that independently recreate certain real world tasks that can accurately measure performance. This version uses all available processor cores.

    Benchmark coverage: 37%

    Celeron B800
    491

    Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

    Cinebench R10 is a very outdated ray tracing benchmark for processors developed by the authors of Cinema 4D, Maxon. The Single-Core version uses a single CPU thread to render a futuristic motorcycle model.

    Benchmark coverage: 20%

    Celeron B800
    1910

    Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

    Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 that uses all processor threads. The possible number of threads in this version is limited to 16.

    Benchmark coverage: 19%

    Celeron B800
    3779

    3DMark06 CPU

    3DMark06 is an outdated set of benchmarks based on DirectX 9 by Futuremark. Its processor part contains two tests, one of which calculates the pathfinding of game AI, the other emulates game physics using the PhysX package.

    Benchmark coverage: 19%

    Celeron B800
    1534


    Relative capacity

    Celeron B800 overall performance compared to its nearest competitor in notebook processors.


    AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-62
    100

    AMD Athlon II N330
    100

    AMD Turion X2 RM-75
    100

    Intel Celeron B800
    100

    AMD Athlon II M300
    100

    Intel Core 2 Duo T7300
    100

    AMD E2-3000M
    100

    Competitor from AMD

    We believe that the nearest equivalent to Celeron B800 from AMD is E2-3000M, which is approximately equal in speed and lower by 1 position in our rating.

    E2 3000M

    Compare

    Here are some of AMD’s Celeron B800 closest competitors:

    AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-62
    100

    AMD E2-3000M
    100

    AMD Athlon II M300
    100

    Intel Celeron B800
    100

    AMD Athlon II N330
    100

    AMD Turion X2 RM-75
    100

    AMD A4-3320M
    96.23

    Other processors

    Here we recommend several processors that are more or less similar in performance to the reviewed one.

    E2 3000M

    Compare

    Athlon II N330

    Compare

    Athlon II M300 9004 1

    Compare

    Turion X2 RM-75

    Compare

    Pentium 987

    Compare


    Turion II
    Neo K685

    Best graphics cards for Celeron B800

    We have 1081 configurations based on Celeron B800 in our database.

    According to statistics, these video cards are most often used with Celeron B800:


    HD
    Graphics

    15%


    UHD
    Graphics

    12%


    HD
    Graphics 2000

    8.1%


    HD
    Graphics 4000

    7.5%


    GeForce
    410M

    6.8%


    HD
    Graphics 3000

    5.7%


    HD
    Graphics 520

    3.5%


    UHD
    Graphics 630

    3.4%


    HD
    Graphics 620

    3.2%


    HD
    Graphics (Sandy Bridge)

    3.1%

    Here are the most powerful graphics cards used with the Celeron B800 according to user statistics:


    GeForce RTX
    4090

    0.5% (5/1081)


    GeForce RTX
    3090 Ti

    0. 2% (2/1081)


    TITAN
    XP

    0.09% (1/1081)


    GeForce RTX
    2060

    0.09% (1/1081)


    GeForce GTX
    1660 Super

    0.2% (2/1081)


    GeForce GTX
    1060 6GB

    0.3% (3/1081)


    GeForce RTX
    3050 Ti Mobile

    0.09% (1/1081)


    Radeon RX
    580

    0.3% (3/1081)


    Radeon RX
    480

    0.09% (1/1081)


    Radeon RX
    470

    0.09% (1/1081)

    User rating

    Here you can see the rating of the processor by users, as well as put your own rating.


    Tips and comments

    Here you can ask a question about the Celeron B800 processor, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.


    Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.