Imagine trying to use the G440 at 1.6GHz and without HyperThreading. You'd probably have a better computing expierience with a Pentium 4 at that point (which is rather sad considering these chip came out in 2011). Then again I could see these chips being useful for something like a simple file server or similar applications. Anyway great video as always 👍
@@nikolakarovic5964 ...that was needed to keep up with Pentium M. It's hard to understate just how bad Netburst was compared to anything derived from P6.
@@dabombinablemi6188 PentiumD 900 and 800 dualcores are power hogs but they could run win 10 and youtube, Core2Solo (PentiumM) couldnt run RUclips last time I checked. Personaly I dont know for PentiumHt 478 socket and ddr1 didnt have touch with them for 7 years.
These Celeron G's were typically used in Cash ATM machines and shop POS systems. For that task they were just fine. Low wattage and heat output are a requirement for ATM machines are they are typically in sealed boxes which are also normally in a sealed room with no ventilation.
@@arduinoguru7233 The E2180 isn't quite the best for embedded systems. The Celeron has a TDP of 35 watts, but the Pentium has a TDP of 65 watts. Keep in mind that back then when the Pentium E2180 was released, it was Intel's mid range CPU and it's basically a cut down Core 2 Duo.
@@dragogos yes true, the 65nm "Allendale" series which the e2180 be in is significantly hot, I bet the real TDP of them is much higher than 65W. The simple example here is that I can actually run E5700 (45nm, 3GHz, 65W TDP) WITHOUT any coolers on it, barely exposed to the air while the E2140 without coolers will immediately shutdown 10 seconds later after bootup or even shorter because of overheating, the same goes with pentium 4 like 515, 630,...
There is something oddly sayisfying about torturing these chips with things they were never meant to do, nice vid! The slowest chip i ever had to deal with was an old amd dual core, never had the displesure of running a single core :p
This is the last single core desktop chip but Intel still made a few single core mobile chips after this. There's an Ivybridge Celeron 947UE for example.
Oof! Even at that cheap price, I don't think they were cheap enough considering they were almost useless even in 2011/2012. But it does make for entertaining video fodder!
@@virtualtools_3021 sorta these chips had like 1 to 2 mb cache like a 90nm cpu When higher end chips had 6-12mb so windows immediately overwhelmed it And bad pipeline was badly designed
Nice video man 🙂, maybe this CPU was the answer to the Sempron 140/145/150 from AMD. Curious if these celerons are failed/bad Pentium or i3 chips salvage. This Celeron is probably good for a basic file server could potentially run it passive and also get quite a good undervolt
Actually yes, Intel has a binning style where they take silicon and see if it performs enough to classify as an i7 for example, if not it’s an i5, and then i3, then Pentium, then Celeron, then Atom. If it can’t qualify for atom, it’s thrown out. This is a rough example so take it with a grain of salt.
Please explore it for retro gaming. Can probably boot win 98, and it should slay anything that runs on that. The challenge would be finding a PCIe or PCI graphics card that is a) cheap and b) supported under 9x.
Grew up on a Socket 478 single core Celeron on a Windows XP Machine. you could move the mouse cursor around the desktop and watch the CPU usage go up 6%. But oddly enough there was also a time when THAT was able to play a 480p youtube video.
That Celeron G440 is definitely the most unlovable cursed CPU of all the 2010s. A single core without hyperthreading??? Fucking yikes!!! Even AMD (which at the time was really struggling) didn't make anything that pitiful back then.
It would be really tempting to grab the base spec sandy bridge celeron and put it head to heat against my socket 754 semperon at the same clock speed, see how much IPC "improvement" there would be compared to a chip 6 years older
@@evandrochaves9596 You can easily check CPU benchmarks from PassMark... -Intel G440 1.6GHz overall score: 425 and Single Thread Rating: 743; -AMD Sempron 2600+ 1.8GHz overall score: 253 and Single Thread Rating: 325; So off course is much better than such old CPU however none have any performance at all not even for 2011 at least not for a normal desktop use, only good for other crap, embedded stuff... EDIT: Forgot to add for fun that currently at this moment in time the top tested CPU there has a general score of 96999 points (threadripper Pro 5995WX) and the highest tested single thread is 4405 (I9 12900KS), so far from that miserable score (the threadripper technically would be around 228x more powerful than the G440 on that benchmark on overall score)😁 For last the Threadripper now also cost even more than 228 times the price of the G440 back then so it's actually not even a good deal 🥳🧐
when doing stuff like that I would recommend testing period accurate OS, like win 7 or win XP Also low wattage CPU like this probably would do OK in file server with some 4-8 HDDs, backup NAS or something similar, running Linux probably.
My first cpu was a p3 733. I gotta say the software of the time was quite happy with what they had. I got a 3900X now, I am around 70% even when streaming...
That is why I am disappointed when maintenance section in where I work as IT, without any consultation, they installed some electricity meters for the production lanes, with a 2 cores 2 threads Celeron powered Intel NUC for displaying the electric usage as real time generated chart in a web page... The Celeron run 50% just for running the Edge browser, and when we push windows update on it, it freezes it for few minutes. Windows 10 needs at least 4 threads to make it usable.
I found similar with that CPU likewise, Intel Celeron G460 found at POS machine. I worked as part-time job of repairing and dealing broken machines as well as POS. Mostly Pentium and Celeron G series comes with single core that is good enough to run basic kiosk programs.
Interesting that these Celeron can work with DDR3-2133, I always hate the Sandy Bridge DDR3-1066 capability, at least it should be DDR3-1333 and I'm pleased when Ivy Bridge came out with DDR3-1600 capability
I picked up a 440 and 460 from ebay a few years ago just to add to the collection. The 460 ended up going into a Nas box with Truenas and it seems to serve ok there, though performance is limited, its good enough for its task, and it is undervolted with a - offset of nearly 2 tenths, which allows it to be passive cooled. So its just great for this alone.. The 440 served well as a terminal for a bit and proved upto that task just fine. So these are some use cases
I still run a 1C2T CPU for 1 to 2 hours/week. It is a Pentium 4 HT at 3.0GHz and it is used in my backup server. The system uses the remains of a 2003 HP d530 SFF. It has 1.5GB DDR (400MHz); 4 HDDs together 1.21TB (2x IDE 3.5" 250+320GB; 2x SATA-1 2.5" 320+320GB). It runs the newest FreeBSD 13.1 on OpenZFS. The Tower is a Compaq Evo with a Windows 98SE activation sticker. It has 2 external cables: Power & 1 Gbps Ethernet. It runs the backup at ~200 Mbps limited by a ~95% load on one CPU thread. The system is in use since June 2019. On top of FreeBSD I run the XFCE desktop with the latest Firefox 104 :) The response is comparable to Internet Explorer on Windows XP Home on the same Pentium 4 HT 20 years ago :) :)
I don't know how you kept a straight face during this video. This made me curios about the Intel Atom CPUs and it turns out that they made a few single cores that were released later than these Celeron chips. They are: Z2420 (January 2013) and Z2480 (Q4 2012).
3:24 that is not a testimony of how slow that CPU is, but how inefficient and sluggish software has become. A simple website should not max out any CPU core. It's bad programming on so many levels.
Tangentially related, I love reading and learning about techniques that developers of older games would employ to make the most out of the limited hardware they were working with. Anybody who wanted a game to stand out and run halfway decent would have to put a lot of work into optimization and clever programming; it was almost an art form unto itself. Modern hardware has thrown that aspect of game development out the window, if you want a game to run well as a consumer, you just have to brute force it by throwing better hardware at it.
@@uglybad4 totally gree! Back in the day you had to master code optimization to make software run well on the old hardware. Prime example is the legendary fast inverse square root algorithm.
Awesome video! 👌 Way more interesting than seeing what a 4090 does with a 7800x3d ngl! This sort of niche stuff just seems to be more entertaining for me
A chip made for professional applications, where buying used (and better) hardware wasn't an option. I can imagine it running a room reservation schedule in a hotel or a surveillance camera system.
at 3:51 you can see that RUclips uses the VP9 video codec which that Radeon is too old to decode in hardware, so you're not using the GPU at all for video acceleration which is why your CPU was at 100%.
Wonder how meny NAS drives had that chip? Mine runs on a quad core Atom cpu wonder if the Celeron is slower or faster? Good chip for a Point of sale or cash machine system or similar industrial or single use PC where low power / price and reliability is king
What in the world...the core clock gave it away. Embedded systems might find a use for that along with those micro PCs the size of a brick that are usually seen as mass deployment units at schools and other places that benefit such deployment. For the era it would be at least decent enough with Win7 for that purpose...even with the dreaded "Intel HD Graphics" at 1366 x 768 which is a common screen resolution for the time.
The fastest pc i ever had was equipped with a 3.06ghz pentium 4 LGA775 intel cpu. It was faster than my 3ghz celeron(in the same motherboard), 2.6ghz dual core(also same mobo), and my 1.8ghz twin celeron cpu server. It had 768mb DDR 400mhz ram and three 80gb IDE hard drives. it booted win7 in seconds and i remember booting san andreas multiplayer so fast i thought the game crashed because the black screen only came on for 1 or 2 seconds before it was open(in 2010!). I still use the twin cpu server today because my other stuff has died and i cant afford a new pc. I didnt know there were newer, slower single core cpus made after those ones
Just found out today that my amd Kaveri APU dual core is actually a single core, I ran cinebench and was very confused about it showing 1 core 2 threads and after looking into it I guess the bulldozer core lie applies to my APU as well. AMD should be ashamed of themselves for how they marketed that CPU, 6 cores it says... 2 cpu cores and 4 graphics, Yet... Even thats a lie. I never thought it was a six core, but can only imagine how many people did.
Such CPU could also be used in routers, I remember Pentium III 450 easily distributing 100Mbit Internet to 200+ users under m0n0wall with maximum 30% load. Its 10W consumption allows fitting it in 1U switch case with 40mm fan or just passive heatsink.
The 2.6 Ghz Pentium 4 C was my first gaming rig CPU, and i overclocked it to 3 Ghz. Did it help with fps ? I found out what fps were when i discovered fraps - years after the overclock.
When you look at the single core performance of each chip, and normalise the clock speed differences, the comparative performance wasn't really that bad. Windows 10 is "optimised" for multicore CPUs, but a lot of businesses and industrial applications would still use legacy versions of Windows (or another OS entirely). Many companies value low cost and reliability more than outright performance. I'm guessing that Intel were just getting their money's worth from a particular 'Fab' before the very costly process of upgrading it to a newer process.
I remember having a G550 as a temporary solution back in 2013 when I moved from AM3 (965BE) to LGA1155 until I got a 2500K. At least G550 was somewhat okay as it was a dual-core. :D
something that might be fun to look in to would be installing optifine and setting render distance to 8 instead of defualt 10 or 12. You could also take a lot of strain out of the entire endever by creating a world on a better system, increasing the render distance to maybe 12 and loading in all the chunks that you intend to use. Keeping the game mode setting to Easy, the mob spawn rate will remain low and then you can adjust the graphics settings in minecraft to "Fast" and disabling clouds. The fewer assets to process and send to the GPU, the better. Disabling particles may seem like a waste, but will indeed make a difference and further your FPS. Now, if you are running Bedrock Edition of Minecraft, then you will find it a tad easier to work with as all you would need to do would be lower the settings as Bedrock is optimized for lower powered systems such as mobile chips. Doing this would enable you to have a more playable experience.
I forgot to mention that after you had pre-rendered all the chucks on the better pc, you could take the save and move it into the Celeron system and then you would be able to play the game a lot more freely. As now, it would be accessing already created files rather than having to create new chunks.
I like what you've presented. However I think it would be much more fair to run more period accurate software. For example, I would at the very most run Windows 7 and some popular but slightly older games from the time period like Left 4 Dead 2 or Team Fortress 2. Not only that, I would also see if it could run Windows XP (assuming there are drivers for it) and more importantly FreeDOS. In DOS, everything is single-core and single-threaded. You don't need any fancy instructions either like SSE or AVX. A clockspeed of 1.8 GHz would be amazing if you were planning to run a bunch of DOS applications or games without buying period accurate hardware. The only problem is that you probably wouldn't be able to find a compatible soundcard, especially for MIDI playback.
these cpu's were also used for mining, all it had to do was running the mining software and the integrated gpu just for display and nothing else, the PCIE gpu's did all the heavy lifting even if they ran in 1x mode.
I've been working with an older couple to troubleshoot their computer from 2016, it was a single core AMD processor with........16GB of RAM. It said it had SMT (1 core 2 locical processors) but maybe it was a dual core and windows saw it as single with HT It actually ran surprizingly well for a single/dual core AMD processor of this era and i just figured it was like an A4-6300 4 core 4 thread Darn, i thought i took a screen shot of the task manager but it seems i just used my phone to take a picture of the CPU pegged at 100% and it only using 3.5 out of 16GB
Well, in my teenage, goverment gift us Laptops like this processor, it was an intel celeron with one core and two threadrs, that was my pc gaming for 7 years, now i have my amd A10-9700 and my Nvidia Palit GeForce Gtx 1050 ti StormX
It would interest to see how it performs in some GNU/Linux distribution with the same/equivalent benchmarks. 6:27 I, indeed, use a cpu with nearly the same performance in multi core in cinebench r15. An amd turion 64 x2 tl 60. It runs smoothly enough for basic use: Some videos in 720p, reading PDFs, geogebra, doing some programming (nothing 3D) , and runing cs 1.6 I use Ubuntu mate 20.04 by the way, but play cs 1.6 in windows 7
The slowest CPUs I have ever used were some core duo my brother-in-law gave me and then an FX 4350 PC when the core duo one died. Now running a Ryzen 9 5900X with an RTX 3080. lol
TBF though Windows 10 is full of bloat, this CPU was probably much more bearable back in the Windws 7-8 days. My first laptop ever with a Core 2 Duo was blazing in all of my time using Windows 8.1 on it AND with just 4GB of RAM. Granted all I did was run a few games and browsed. But I did use some software that didn't feel too sluggish, it was all fine. Of course the problem came when it was to play heavier games. But overall it was very usable. Come Windows 10, and it can barely browse without being at full utilization, and now 8GB of RAM is barely doable on W10. It's very more at fault, than the CPU is. Yes of course, it's better to have at least a regular i3, but just saying due to your points saying why intel released such a cpu in that time, it was just more useable on Windows 7 and 8.
Well not surprising to see a low spec cpu like that it was probably used ins embeded stuff and maybe in a sbc if they existed back then celerons are still used in those kinds of things now
I never had cause to buy a Sandy Bridge Celeron, but a few years prior I built and sold a couple of mini ITX systems with Atom 230s running at a blazing 1.6ghz single core and 4w tdp. I think even at that time I still shipped them out with Windows XP, lol. But, as I recall, they were surprisingly okay. Would you have any interest in reviewing one of these in a similar theme to this video? Just what can a 1st gen Atom actually do in 2022?
if i had to guess, these chips probably where an attempt to salvage a bad yield of chips. you see it from time to time, like AMDs dual/tri core phenoms originally where bad yield quad cores, but had 2 or 3 working cores, so AMD just disabled the bad core and sold them as dual and tricores.
Interesting question indeed: why did Intel produce and sell a single core chip at a time when they were already obsolete? Looking at some specs, it seems these Celerons use the same die as the larger chips. So perhaps the yields for Sandy Bridge - being the first of a new architecture - were quite poor and Intel figured they could still ship the ones with just a single functional core. Also telling is the G470 is the last Sandy Bridge to be released.
pop filter, pop filter, pop filter. AND high pass filter on your mic. When you scuff the table, my subwoofers goes bananas. WHY CAN'T RUclipsRS DO AUDIO RIGHT?!?!???!?!?!
3:45 I think Win10Pro its overkill for this single-egg CPU. In my opinion with Win10 LTSC this stone start feeling themself more normaly and painless, without all useless service
I think the only people that bought these things were corporations needing a cheap throw away office computer these CPUs are only decent enough for doing web browsing, emails, and office apps. (even that's still iffy lol)
There is Ye Olde Lore around these chips, you could cool one with a potato (tried and tested!), and even with no cooler they would get to desktop before crashing. A tiny breeze or a joke of a cooler stolen from a early 2000's grfx card would have been enough to keep them running And I'm sure the last ones had a fairly advanced instruction set, and it could offload something to do with media to a grfx card or Intel on board graphics, so it made it into a few super quiet media PCs, back when shuttle PCs were considered "quiet" 🤣
And you can do some kind of wire mod to the chip to boost it to 2.1ghz, look to the TPU forums archive for instructions if you ever dig it out again for laughs.
Those chips were never to land on anything with GUI, they were for media storage/NAS and stuff like parkometers and alike. I am happy they are gone, but similarly bad ARM chips took over, that are ~10$ each with board already. Without royalties, tripping the cost they offer enough power to not timeout while getting you printed confirmation you paid for parking space. Be glad you will not have to touch them.
I copied your video sorry., but I did give ya a lil shout out :)
Thanks man! :D
Yep I was there and NONE went and checked out his channel :( I subbed to him tho
Imagine trying to use the G440 at 1.6GHz and without HyperThreading. You'd probably have a better computing expierience with a Pentium 4 at that point (which is rather sad considering these chip came out in 2011). Then again I could see these chips being useful for something like a simple file server or similar applications. Anyway great video as always 👍
Thanks André! Yeah the G440 wasn't Intel's finest work, to say the least...
You'd be surprised. A Pentium M at 2.13GHz is as fast as a P4 at 3.2GHz, so a single Sandybridge core is still going to be far faster at 1.6GHz.
@@dabombinablemi6188 Yep but P4 had HT
@@nikolakarovic5964 ...that was needed to keep up with Pentium M. It's hard to understate just how bad Netburst was compared to anything derived from P6.
@@dabombinablemi6188 PentiumD 900 and 800 dualcores are power hogs but they could run win 10 and youtube, Core2Solo (PentiumM) couldnt run RUclips last time I checked. Personaly I dont know for PentiumHt 478 socket and ddr1 didnt have touch with them for 7 years.
These Celeron G's were typically used in Cash ATM machines and shop POS systems. For that task they were just fine. Low wattage and heat output are a requirement for ATM machines are they are typically in sealed boxes which are also normally in a sealed room with no ventilation.
Pentium E2180 are way better than this in terms of performances stability and good power consumption
And they’re still sitting in those systems and signage etc. to this day, in many cases with a blue screen error
@@arduinoguru7233 The E2180 isn't quite the best for embedded systems. The Celeron has a TDP of 35 watts, but the Pentium has a TDP of 65 watts. Keep in mind that back then when the Pentium E2180 was released, it was Intel's mid range CPU and it's basically a cut down Core 2 Duo.
Wow really? Man the world really loved intel and they still do!
@@dragogos yes true, the 65nm "Allendale" series which the e2180 be in is significantly hot, I bet the real TDP of them is much higher than 65W.
The simple example here is that I can actually run E5700 (45nm, 3GHz, 65W TDP) WITHOUT any coolers on it, barely exposed to the air while the E2140 without coolers will immediately shutdown 10 seconds later after bootup or even shorter because of overheating, the same goes with pentium 4 like 515, 630,...
There is something oddly sayisfying about torturing these chips with things they were never meant to do, nice vid! The slowest chip i ever had to deal with was an old amd dual core, never had the displesure of running a single core :p
Thank you!
Turion X2 , they were slow, all they did was convert cold air into hot air
Yessss
Maybe back in the day, these cpu's would have been fine in an inexpensive HTPC setup. Informative video, subscribed.
Thanks man!
Timmy Joe sent me. Subbed as well!
This is the last single core desktop chip but Intel still made a few single core mobile chips after this. There's an Ivybridge Celeron 947UE for example.
Oof! Even at that cheap price, I don't think they were cheap enough considering they were almost useless even in 2011/2012. But it does make for entertaining video fodder!
Issues were no cache on cpu
@@1NIGHTMAREGAMER and no core on cpus
@@virtualtools_3021 sorta these chips had like 1 to 2 mb cache like a 90nm cpu
When higher end chips had 6-12mb so windows immediately overwhelmed it
And bad pipeline was badly designed
Nice video man 🙂, maybe this CPU was the answer to the Sempron 140/145/150 from AMD. Curious if these celerons are failed/bad Pentium or i3 chips salvage. This Celeron is probably good for a basic file server could potentially run it passive and also get quite a good undervolt
Thank you!
Actually yes, Intel has a binning style where they take silicon and see if it performs enough to classify as an i7 for example, if not it’s an i5, and then i3, then Pentium, then Celeron, then Atom. If it can’t qualify for atom, it’s thrown out. This is a rough example so take it with a grain of salt.
Please explore it for retro gaming. Can probably boot win 98, and it should slay anything that runs on that. The challenge would be finding a PCIe or PCI graphics card that is a) cheap and b) supported under 9x.
Grew up on a Socket 478 single core Celeron on a Windows XP Machine. you could move the mouse cursor around the desktop and watch the CPU usage go up 6%. But oddly enough there was also a time when THAT was able to play a 480p youtube video.
Back in 2006 I was able to play RUclips videos (honestly can't remember the resolution) on a P2 266, lol
That Celeron G440 is definitely the most unlovable cursed CPU of all the 2010s. A single core without hyperthreading???
Fucking yikes!!! Even AMD (which at the time was really struggling) didn't make anything that pitiful back then.
It would be really tempting to grab the base spec sandy bridge celeron and put it head to heat against my socket 754 semperon at the same clock speed, see how much IPC "improvement" there would be compared to a chip 6 years older
Socket 754 sempron 2600+, processor of my first pc from 2006 haha, fond memories
@@evandrochaves9596 You can easily check CPU benchmarks from PassMark...
-Intel G440 1.6GHz overall score: 425 and Single Thread Rating: 743;
-AMD Sempron 2600+ 1.8GHz overall score: 253 and Single Thread Rating: 325;
So off course is much better than such old CPU however none have any performance at all not even for 2011 at least not for a normal desktop use, only good for other crap, embedded stuff...
EDIT: Forgot to add for fun that currently at this moment in time the top tested CPU there has a general score of 96999 points (threadripper Pro 5995WX) and the highest tested single thread is 4405 (I9 12900KS), so far from that miserable score (the threadripper technically would be around 228x more powerful than the G440 on that benchmark on overall score)😁
For last the Threadripper now also cost even more than 228 times the price of the G440 back then so it's actually not even a good deal 🥳🧐
Why is no one talking about the most obvious use for a single core CPU? Minesweeper and pinball ☺️
That Celeron G440 would probably still lag while playing 3D pinball though. Such a cursed piece of silicon.
@@DJdoppIer But... Can it run DOOM?
@@itsmijail Can it run it? Yes.
Can it run it *well?* No.
@@DJdoppIer doom was developed for 486
I was surprised how you have only 2k subs, i am pretty sure if you keep uploading you will reach 100k at the end of the year :#
Thank you!
I guess there’s a reason I had no idea these CPU existed... great video man!
Thanks Mike!
Miss you man ;)
when doing stuff like that I would recommend testing period accurate OS, like win 7 or win XP
Also low wattage CPU like this probably would do OK in file server with some 4-8 HDDs, backup NAS or something similar, running Linux probably.
Yea modern Minecraft has some crazy requirements. Gone are the days of running Minecraft on onboard graphics from 2004.
My first cpu was a p3 733. I gotta say the software of the time was quite happy with what they had. I got a 3900X now, I am around 70% even when streaming...
These cpus would have been great for making high end versions of 90's pcs and running 90's pc games.
Intel bulldozer: netburst/prescott
Intel zen: conroe
Amd bulldozer: bulldozer and all architecture based on it
Amd zen: zen
That is why I am disappointed when maintenance section in where I work as IT, without any consultation, they installed some electricity meters for the production lanes, with a 2 cores 2 threads Celeron powered Intel NUC for displaying the electric usage as real time generated chart in a web page... The Celeron run 50% just for running the Edge browser, and when we push windows update on it, it freezes it for few minutes. Windows 10 needs at least 4 threads to make it usable.
I just found this channel and I like these videos, good job!
I found similar with that CPU likewise, Intel Celeron G460 found at POS machine. I worked as part-time job of repairing and dealing broken machines as well as POS. Mostly Pentium and Celeron G series comes with single core that is good enough to run basic kiosk programs.
great video!
Thank you! :)
Interesting that these Celeron can work with DDR3-2133, I always hate the Sandy Bridge DDR3-1066 capability, at least it should be DDR3-1333 and I'm pleased when Ivy Bridge came out with DDR3-1600 capability
I picked up a 440 and 460 from ebay a few years ago just to add to the collection. The 460 ended up going into a Nas box with Truenas and it seems to serve ok there, though performance is limited, its good enough for its task, and it is undervolted with a - offset of nearly 2 tenths, which allows it to be passive cooled. So its just great for this alone.. The 440 served well as a terminal for a bit and proved upto that task just fine. So these are some use cases
Awesome video
Thanks!
I still run a 1C2T CPU for 1 to 2 hours/week. It is a Pentium 4 HT at 3.0GHz and it is used in my backup server. The system uses the remains of a 2003 HP d530 SFF. It has 1.5GB DDR (400MHz); 4 HDDs together 1.21TB (2x IDE 3.5" 250+320GB; 2x SATA-1 2.5" 320+320GB). It runs the newest FreeBSD 13.1 on OpenZFS. The Tower is a Compaq Evo with a Windows 98SE activation sticker. It has 2 external cables: Power & 1 Gbps Ethernet.
It runs the backup at ~200 Mbps limited by a ~95% load on one CPU thread. The system is in use since June 2019.
On top of FreeBSD I run the XFCE desktop with the latest Firefox 104 :) The response is comparable to Internet Explorer on Windows XP Home on the same Pentium 4 HT 20 years ago :) :)
@fully buffered I found your channel via Timmy Joe PC Tech's video. I subscribed!
I don't know how you kept a straight face during this video. This made me curios about the Intel Atom CPUs and it turns out that they made a few single cores that were released later than these Celeron chips.
They are: Z2420 (January 2013) and Z2480 (Q4 2012).
3:24 that is not a testimony of how slow that CPU is, but how inefficient and sluggish software has become. A simple website should not max out any CPU core. It's bad programming on so many levels.
Tangentially related, I love reading and learning about techniques that developers of older games would employ to make the most out of the limited hardware they were working with. Anybody who wanted a game to stand out and run halfway decent would have to put a lot of work into optimization and clever programming; it was almost an art form unto itself.
Modern hardware has thrown that aspect of game development out the window, if you want a game to run well as a consumer, you just have to brute force it by throwing better hardware at it.
@@uglybad4 totally gree! Back in the day you had to master code optimization to make software run well on the old hardware. Prime example is the legendary fast inverse square root algorithm.
Awesome video! 👌
Way more interesting than seeing what a 4090 does with a 7800x3d ngl!
This sort of niche stuff just seems to be more entertaining for me
A chip made for professional applications, where buying used (and better) hardware wasn't an option. I can imagine it running a room reservation schedule in a hotel or a surveillance camera system.
I could indeed see chips like this have found their way into stuff like surveillance systems or a simple HTPC.
I think installing win 10 on this thing was a mistake, 7 or 8 would have been less bloated.
But its funny
Interesting.
Thanks for the video!
You should do multicore benchmark on it :P
cool video :D
Is this guy related to Rod Serling from The Twilight Zone ? On a serious note, great videos; good, solid information, at a comprehensible pace ...
i had a celeron 420, with 1 gb ddr2 ram about 15 years ago, this thing give me horror even today
at 3:51 you can see that RUclips uses the VP9 video codec which that Radeon is too old to decode in hardware, so you're not using the GPU at all for video acceleration which is why your CPU was at 100%.
its weird to think that for $35 I can get a whole ass raspberry pi that can whoop this thing's ass.
This is still faster than my school computer
Wonder how meny NAS drives had that chip? Mine runs on a quad core Atom cpu wonder if the Celeron is slower or faster? Good chip for a Point of sale or cash machine system or similar industrial or single use PC where low power / price and reliability is king
I recomended the next video enable frametime setting in the MSI afterburner
I always wondered what happened to Choda Boy
What in the world...the core clock gave it away. Embedded systems might find a use for that along with those micro PCs the size of a brick that are usually seen as mass deployment units at schools and other places that benefit such deployment. For the era it would be at least decent enough with Win7 for that purpose...even with the dreaded "Intel HD Graphics" at 1366 x 768 which is a common screen resolution for the time.
The fastest pc i ever had was equipped with a 3.06ghz pentium 4 LGA775 intel cpu. It was faster than my 3ghz celeron(in the same motherboard), 2.6ghz dual core(also same mobo), and my 1.8ghz twin celeron cpu server. It had 768mb DDR 400mhz ram and three 80gb IDE hard drives. it booted win7 in seconds and i remember booting san andreas multiplayer so fast i thought the game crashed because the black screen only came on for 1 or 2 seconds before it was open(in 2010!). I still use the twin cpu server today because my other stuff has died and i cant afford a new pc. I didnt know there were newer, slower single core cpus made after those ones
Just found out today that my amd Kaveri APU dual core is actually a single core, I ran cinebench and was very confused about it showing 1 core 2 threads and after looking into it I guess the bulldozer core lie applies to my APU as well. AMD should be ashamed of themselves for how they marketed that CPU, 6 cores it says... 2 cpu cores and 4 graphics, Yet... Even thats a lie. I never thought it was a six core, but can only imagine how many people did.
Such CPU could also be used in routers, I remember Pentium III 450 easily distributing 100Mbit Internet to 200+ users under m0n0wall with maximum 30% load.
Its 10W consumption allows fitting it in 1U switch case with 40mm fan or just passive heatsink.
The 2.6 Ghz Pentium 4 C was my first gaming rig CPU, and i overclocked it to 3 Ghz. Did it help with fps ?
I found out what fps were when i discovered fraps - years after the overclock.
When you look at the single core performance of each chip, and normalise the clock speed differences, the comparative performance wasn't really that bad. Windows 10 is "optimised" for multicore CPUs, but a lot of businesses and industrial applications would still use legacy versions of Windows (or another OS entirely). Many companies value low cost and reliability more than outright performance. I'm guessing that Intel were just getting their money's worth from a particular 'Fab' before the very costly process of upgrading it to a newer process.
Very Interesting, I never thought they made single core processors past around 2009.
I remember having a G550 as a temporary solution back in 2013 when I moved from AM3 (965BE) to LGA1155 until I got a 2500K. At least G550 was somewhat okay as it was a dual-core. :D
Sat on G550 for almost 10 years. It was an... Experience
Cool: the Celeron G465 (35 Watts) has an average passmark score of 525, my Celeron 3350 (6 Watts, dualcore) 1128 :)
I have an Atom Netbook, similar specs. Atom N475. For the low power, it does what it has to just fine. Computers are not just for games, boys. :)
something that might be fun to look in to would be installing optifine and setting render distance to 8 instead of defualt 10 or 12. You could also take a lot of strain out of the entire endever by creating a world on a better system, increasing the render distance to maybe 12 and loading in all the chunks that you intend to use. Keeping the game mode setting to Easy, the mob spawn rate will remain low and then you can adjust the graphics settings in minecraft to "Fast" and disabling clouds. The fewer assets to process and send to the GPU, the better. Disabling particles may seem like a waste, but will indeed make a difference and further your FPS. Now, if you are running Bedrock Edition of Minecraft, then you will find it a tad easier to work with as all you would need to do would be lower the settings as Bedrock is optimized for lower powered systems such as mobile chips. Doing this would enable you to have a more playable experience.
I forgot to mention that after you had pre-rendered all the chucks on the better pc, you could take the save and move it into the Celeron system and then you would be able to play the game a lot more freely. As now, it would be accessing already created files rather than having to create new chunks.
I like what you've presented. However I think it would be much more fair to run more period accurate software. For example, I would at the very most run Windows 7 and some popular but slightly older games from the time period like Left 4 Dead 2 or Team Fortress 2. Not only that, I would also see if it could run Windows XP (assuming there are drivers for it) and more importantly FreeDOS. In DOS, everything is single-core and single-threaded. You don't need any fancy instructions either like SSE or AVX. A clockspeed of 1.8 GHz would be amazing if you were planning to run a bunch of DOS applications or games without buying period accurate hardware. The only problem is that you probably wouldn't be able to find a compatible soundcard, especially for MIDI playback.
these cpu's were also used for mining, all it had to do was running the mining software and the integrated gpu just for display and nothing else, the PCIE gpu's did all the heavy lifting even if they ran in 1x mode.
I'd do some early to mid 2000s gaming with these
Still better than my computer until 2014 :P
I've been working with an older couple to troubleshoot their computer from 2016, it was a single core AMD processor with........16GB of RAM.
It said it had SMT (1 core 2 locical processors) but maybe it was a dual core and windows saw it as single with HT
It actually ran surprizingly well for a single/dual core AMD processor of this era and i just figured it was like an A4-6300 4 core 4 thread
Darn, i thought i took a screen shot of the task manager but it seems i just used my phone to take a picture of the CPU pegged at 100% and it only using 3.5 out of 16GB
Well, in my teenage, goverment gift us Laptops like this processor, it was an intel celeron with one core and two threadrs, that was my pc gaming for 7 years, now i have my amd A10-9700 and my Nvidia Palit GeForce Gtx 1050 ti StormX
I still have a G640 2/2t in my retro XP gaming rig with HD3870
Celeron 🚀 to the moon
🚀🚀🚀
It would interest to see how it performs in some GNU/Linux distribution with the same/equivalent benchmarks.
6:27 I, indeed, use a cpu with nearly the same performance in multi core in cinebench r15. An amd turion 64 x2 tl 60. It runs smoothly enough for basic use:
Some videos in 720p, reading PDFs, geogebra, doing some programming (nothing 3D) , and runing cs 1.6
I use Ubuntu mate 20.04 by the way, but play cs 1.6 in windows 7
You have to make a video with the Celeron g3258
The slowest CPUs I have ever used were some core duo my brother-in-law gave me and then an FX 4350 PC when the core duo one died. Now running a Ryzen 9 5900X with an RTX 3080. lol
TBF though Windows 10 is full of bloat, this CPU was probably much more bearable back in the Windws 7-8 days. My first laptop ever with a Core 2 Duo was blazing in all of my time using Windows 8.1 on it AND with just 4GB of RAM. Granted all I did was run a few games and browsed. But I did use some software that didn't feel too sluggish, it was all fine. Of course the problem came when it was to play heavier games. But overall it was very usable. Come Windows 10, and it can barely browse without being at full utilization, and now 8GB of RAM is barely doable on W10. It's very more at fault, than the CPU is. Yes of course, it's better to have at least a regular i3, but just saying due to your points saying why intel released such a cpu in that time, it was just more useable on Windows 7 and 8.
Imagine a core 2 duo destroying a far newer CPU. I know c2d has twice the cores but the single core comparisons show the c2d is still faster.
CPU for Office work/home media/public use devices for information
Its a good cpu for retro gaming , try using it on win xp i bet it will be pretty good
I would have used Windows 8.1 since it's designed and optimised for 2012-era tablets with awful Atoms and 1GB RAM
timmy joe sent me here.
greets from the netherlands.
It's like prime hardware for low-power NAS.
Maybe they were trying to get low TDP desktop chips.
Could be a viable option for a very cheap Windows XP retro gaming rig
Yeah true, such a shame for the LGA1155 socket released in 2011
This make the original Celeron 266 look extremely good.
Well not surprising to see a low spec cpu like that it was probably used ins embeded stuff and maybe in a sbc if they existed back then celerons are still used in those kinds of things now
This board has more pcie x16 slots than my current newest generation motherboard.
I never had cause to buy a Sandy Bridge Celeron, but a few years prior I built and sold a couple of mini ITX systems with Atom 230s running at a blazing 1.6ghz single core and 4w tdp. I think even at that time I still shipped them out with Windows XP, lol. But, as I recall, they were surprisingly okay. Would you have any interest in reviewing one of these in a similar theme to this video? Just what can a 1st gen Atom actually do in 2022?
if i had to guess, these chips probably where an attempt to salvage a bad yield of chips.
you see it from time to time, like AMDs dual/tri core phenoms originally where bad yield quad cores, but had 2 or 3 working cores, so AMD just disabled the bad core and sold them as dual and tricores.
Interesting question indeed: why did Intel produce and sell a single core chip at a time when they were already obsolete? Looking at some specs, it seems these Celerons use the same die as the larger chips. So perhaps the yields for Sandy Bridge - being the first of a new architecture - were quite poor and Intel figured they could still ship the ones with just a single functional core. Also telling is the G470 is the last Sandy Bridge to be released.
Did the speedometer 2.0 with my 12700kf and got 301 runs per min
I'm thinking of getting cpu for retro pc gaming seem good for some classics
This genuinely seems a lot slower than it should be even for a single core of that generation.
pop filter, pop filter, pop filter. AND high pass filter on your mic. When you scuff the table, my subwoofers goes bananas. WHY CAN'T RUclipsRS DO AUDIO RIGHT?!?!???!?!?!
3:45 I think Win10Pro its overkill for this single-egg CPU. In my opinion with Win10 LTSC this stone start feeling themself more normaly and painless, without all useless service
Still better than a lot of the low end AMD mobile APUs even some of the quad core ones
could potentialy work in a diy router or nas but i would probably buy something more recent that uses less power i think
funny how EVERY YOU TUBER forgets the core solo's... you know the one's before the core 2 duos.
I think the only people that bought these things were corporations needing a cheap throw away office computer these CPUs are only decent enough for doing web browsing, emails, and office apps. (even that's still iffy lol)
There is Ye Olde Lore around these chips, you could cool one with a potato (tried and tested!), and even with no cooler they would get to desktop before crashing. A tiny breeze or a joke of a cooler stolen from a early 2000's grfx card would have been enough to keep them running
And I'm sure the last ones had a fairly advanced instruction set, and it could offload something to do with media to a grfx card or Intel on board graphics, so it made it into a few super quiet media PCs, back when shuttle PCs were considered "quiet" 🤣
And you can do some kind of wire mod to the chip to boost it to 2.1ghz, look to the TPU forums archive for instructions if you ever dig it out again for laughs.
Well a cpu is a cpu if this cpu was able to clock up to 4ghz or 5ghz it would like to have an dual core cpu
Should have used Windows 7. That was your critical mistake here.
It really isn't a mistake. Even on a much older single core Pentium M machine I got identical results with W10 (albeit an older version 1607) and W7.
Wth....it got higher cinebench score than my dual core laptop
Those chips were never to land on anything with GUI, they were for media storage/NAS and stuff like parkometers and alike. I am happy they are gone, but similarly bad ARM chips took over, that are ~10$ each with board already. Without royalties, tripping the cost they offer enough power to not timeout while getting you printed confirmation you paid for parking space. Be glad you will not have to touch them.
It's very slower than my old Pentium D 925 beast!
intel core i5 760 intel core i7 875k intel core i7 980X intel core i7 5960X amd phenom 9850 black edition best multi core cpus
well no wonder minecraft had problems. look at that singel threading speed.