celeron d 331 @ 4ghz VS. e4300 @ 3.2ghz >> tons of benchmarks & pics

[troyquigley]

e4300 batch date (5-1-2007)
i was able to boot & run memtest with the e4300 @ 3.6ghz (9x400) @ 1.5375v
i was able to boot into xp & run 3dmark2001se with the e4300 @ 3.49ghz (9x387) @ 1.5375v

all benchmarks were run with the system in my sig & nvidia drivers v93.71
the ONLY difference was i replaced my celeron d 331 with the e4300
i use the arctic cooling freezer 7 pro fan/heatsink

here are pics of my system:
http://www.troyquigley.com/files/pic...2007)%2000.jpg
http://www.troyquigley.com/files/pic...2007)%2001.jpg
http://www.troyquigley.com/files/pic...2007)%2002.jpg
http://www.troyquigley.com/files/pic...2007)%2003.jpg
http://www.troyquigley.com/files/pic...2007)%2004.jpg
http://www.troyquigley.com/files/pic...2007)%2005.jpg
http://www.troyquigley.com/files/pic...2007)%2006.jpg

here are ALL my bios settings:
http://www.troyquigley.com/files/fil...5n-e%20sli.xls

ONTO THE BENCHMARKS !!!

CONFIG 1:
celeron d 331 @ 2.66ghz (20x133) (default volt) (default fsb 533)
mem timings 5 / 5 / 5 / 12 / 2t @ 667mhz (default)
video 500 / 690 (default)
3dmark2001se = 16156
3dmark2003 = 15059 / 56 / 48 / 41
3dmark2006 = 3563 / 1648 / 1925 / 664
pcmark2002 = 5518 / 8158 / 1565
sandra mem = 3383

CONFIG 2:
celeron d 331 @ 4.0ghz (20x200) (1.5375 volt) (fsb 800)
mem timings 5 / 5 / 5 / 12 / 1t @ 800mhz
video 600 / 790
3dmark2001se = 23684
3dmark2003 = 19122 / 87 / 75 / 66
3dmark2006 = 4550 / 2140 / 2130 / 1000
pcmark2002 = 8400 / 12452 / 1540
sandra mem = 5025

CONFIG 3:
celeron d 331 @ 4.0ghz (20x200) (1.5375 volt) (fsb 800)
mem timings 4 / 4 / 4 / 8 / 1t @ 800mhz
video 600 / 790
3dmark2001se = 23620
3dmark2003 = 19214 / 90 / 77 / 67
3dmark2006 = 4576 / 2142 / 2132 / 1009
pcmark2002 = 8400 / 12580 / 1540
sandra mem = 5033
counter strike source = 109
half life 2 lost coast = 72
company of heroes = 39 / 89 / 15

CONFIG 4:
e4300 @ 1.8ghz (9x200) (default volt) (default fsb 800)
mem timings 4 / 4 / 4 / 8 / 1t @ 800mhz
video 600 / 790
3dmark2001se = 29594
3dmark2003 = 20508 / 96 / 83 / 74
3dmark2006 = 5124 / 2188 / 2131 / 1590
pcmark2002 = 7145 / 16663 / 1538
sandra mem = 4565
counter strike source = 120
half life 2 lost coast = 105
company of heroes = 43 / 112 / 16

CONFIG 5:
e4300 @ 3.2ghz (8x400) (1.5375 volt) (fsb 1600)
mem timings 4 / 4 / 4 / 8 / 1t @ 800mhz
video 600 / 790
3dmark2001se = 42735
3dmark2003 = 23212 / 143 / 128 / 114
3dmark2006 = 5661 / 2220 / 2161 / 2798
pcmark2002 = 12703 / 27285 / 1487
sandra mem = 7879
counter strike source = 121
half life 2 lost coast = 85
company of heroes = 42 / 111 / 16


TEMPS:
config 3 (celeron @ 4ghz): cpu = 36c mobo = 35c (these temps were in the winter)
config 5 (e4300 @ 3.2ghz): cpu = 40c mobo = 40c (it is hot here in north carolina now)

price difference:
celeron d 331 = 35$
e4300 = 114$
% increase in price = 225%

it seems the celeron d 331 @ 4ghz did pretty good compared to the e4300 @ default (not bad for a 35$ cpu)

NOTE: mem timings from 5 / 5 / 5 / 12 / 2t to 4 / 4 / 4 / 8 / 1t did VERY little to improve any benchmarks at all.
mhz seems to be all that matters for these cpus (timings improvements didnt do much at all)

benchmark percent change via 3dmark2001se:
config 1 vs config 2: 47% increase (pretty good) (a 50% increase in cpu speed)
config 2 vs config 3: 0% increase (mem timings were a waste of time)
config 3 vs config 4: 25% increase (nice for a e4300 at default - i was very impressed)
config 4 vs config 5: 44% increase (wow - nice) (a 78% increase in cpu speed - nice overclock)
config 3 vs config 5: 81% increase (i am truely amazed at the power of this e4300)

i now have to replace my video card, since it is clear my video card is now a huge bottleneck.

i hopes you guys like !

[troyquigley]

all benchmarks were run 2-4 times each

[Lestat]

thats alot of work to show what you already knew, the conroe kills it,,

but its nice to see that you did this for those who are curious.

[TL1000S]

Nice. Good work.
It really shows how slow Netburst and in particular Celeron D is, ecpecially in "game-related" use/benches.
Overclocked it becomes "decent", but still no match for even the slowest Core 2 Duo at stock.
It would be interesting to see how the new Celeron L fares. Should be a completely different (better) result for the "celly".

Edit:
Assmaukr has already started a thread for Celeron L. Link to some benching.

[Daveb2012]

i love the comparisons, thanks for typing this up.