Intel Celeron 2.40

The Intel Celeron 2.40 is a single-core desktop processor from the NetBurst era, built on the Northwood architecture using Intel’s 130 nm process node. It operates with a base clock of 2.40 GHz, incorporates 55 million transistors on a 146 mm² die, and features 8 KB of L1 cache alongside 128 KB of L2 cache. The processor carries the part number SL6V2 and was released on March 30, 2003, with a production status of end-of-life. Its benchmark percentile places it at the 50th mark among all CPUs, though its average benchmark score is recorded as zero, indicating a lack of direct performance measurements in the current dataset. The absence of nearest rival data means the analysis must rely on architectural characteristics and the single percentile figure to contextualize its standing.

Benchmark Performance

The data presents a peculiar case for the Intel Celeron 2.40: its average benchmark score is exactly zero, and the nearestRivals array is empty. This means there are no direct numerical comparisons available from standardized testing. However, the percentileVsAllCpus field provides a single anchor point: the processor sits at the 50th percentile relative to all CPUs in the database. This is a neutral position, suggesting that this chip is neither a standout performer nor a complete outlier when viewed against the entire historical spectrum of processors. In practical terms, a 50th percentile placement indicates that half of all recorded CPUs score higher and half score lower, which for a single-core, single-thread part from 2003 is a plausible middle-ground standing.

Because there are no rival scores or deltaPct values to cite, the analysis cannot state specific percentage advantages or deficits. What can be inferred is that the Celeron 2.40’s single core and single thread limit its parallel processing capabilities; any workload that scales across multiple cores will inherently disadvantage this processor. The 2.40 GHz base clock is the sole frequency figure available, and with no boost clock, the chip operates at a fixed speed. The 128 KB L2 cache is small by modern standards, but it was suited to the simple instruction sequences of its era. The NetBurst architecture is known for deep pipelines, which favor high clock speeds but penalize branch mispredictions; at 2.40 GHz, this processor would have delivered modest integer performance in its day.

The zero benchmark score complicates any quantitative ranking. It likely reflects missing test data rather than a literal performance of zero. The 50th percentile, however, offers a qualitative anchor: this processor is positioned exactly at the median of the database’s CPU population. For a budget-oriented single-core part, that median placement suggests it was not entirely obsolete at its release, but it also held no performance crown. The data cannot confirm whether it beats or loses to specific rivals without named competitors.

How It Compares

The nearestRivals field is empty, so there are no direct competitor entries to analyze. This absence means the Celeron 2.40 cannot be positioned against specific Intel Pentium 4 or AMD Athlon models using the provided data. The analysis must instead rely on the processor’s own specifications to infer its competitive stance. With one core, one thread, and 128 KB of L2 cache, the Celeron 2.40 was positioned as an entry-level part, typically slotted below Intel’s mainstream Pentium 4 lineup. The NetBurst architecture was shared with the Pentium 4, but the Celeron’s reduced cache and lack of hyper-threading (implied by the single thread count) would have created a clear performance gap.

Without rival scores, the only comparative statement possible is the 50th percentile ranking. This implies that, across the entire database of CPUs from all eras, the Celeron 2.40 sits exactly in the middle. That is a broad statement, as the database likely includes modern multi-core processors that vastly outperform this chip. In a modern context, a 50th percentile placement would be surprisingly high for a 2003 single-core part, which hints that the database may weight historical CPUs differently or that the percentile is computed on a normalized scale. The data does not specify the composition of the comparison set, so the interpretation must remain cautious: the processor is median within the sample, but the sample’s characteristics are undefined.

Given the lack of rivals, the practical takeaway is that the Celeron 2.40 was designed for basic tasks—light office work, simple web browsing, and legacy software—where a single fast core could suffice. It would not have competed well against contemporary Pentium 4 models with larger caches or any dual-core offerings, but those comparisons are not quantified here.

Platform and Compatibility

The Intel Celeron 2.40 uses the Intel Socket 478 interface, a socket that was common for desktop processors in the early 2000s. The platform is built on the NetBurst microarchitecture with the Northwood codename, and the processor is part of the Celeron (Northwood) generation. The process node is 130 nm, fabricated by Intel, which was a mature manufacturing technology for that period. The processor supports DDR1 and DDR2 memory types, though the specific memory bus speed or bandwidth is not listed in the data. ECC memory is not supported, which aligns with its desktop market segment.

Integrated graphics are listed as "On certain motherboards (Chipset feature)," meaning the processor itself lacks a GPU, but some motherboards with compatible chipsets could provide display output. The PCIe field is null, so no information is available regarding PCIe lane support; Socket 478 platforms typically relied on AGP for graphics, but that detail is absent from the data. The processor is not multiplier unlocked, so overclocking via multiplier adjustment is not possible; any clock increase would have to come from raising the front-side bus, which is not specified. The part number SL6V2 is a specific stepping identifier, useful for compatibility checks with motherboards.

Upgrade path considerations are limited by the Socket 478 interface. This socket hosted a range of Pentium 4 and Celeron processors from the same era, but the data does not list which specific models are compatible. The memory support for both DDR1 and DDR2 suggests that motherboards could vary in their memory controller implementation, though the processor itself does not include an integrated memory controller—that was on the chipset. The end-of-life production status means new units are not available, and system builders would need to source used parts.

FAQ

Q: What is the base clock speed of the Intel Celeron 2.40?

A: The base clock is 2.40 GHz, and there is no boost clock listed, so the processor runs at a fixed frequency.

Q: How many cores and threads does this processor have?

A: It has 1 core and 1 thread, making it a single-threaded processor.

Q: What level of cache does the Celeron 2.40 include?

A: It includes 8 KB of L1 cache and 128 KB of L2 cache; there is no L3 cache listed.

Q: Which socket does this processor use?

A: It uses Intel Socket 478.

Q: Does the processor support ECC memory?

A: No, ECC memory is not supported.

Q: What is the production status of this processor?

A: The production status is end-of-life, and the release date was March 30, 2003.

Q: Is the multiplier unlocked for overclocking?

A: No, the multiplier is not unlocked, so overclocking via multiplier changes is not possible.

Power and Thermals

The Intel Celeron 2.40 has a thermal design power (TDP) of 73 watts. This figure is relatively high for a single-core processor by modern standards, but it was typical for the NetBurst architecture, which was known for elevated power consumption due to its high clock speeds and deep pipelines. The 130 nm process node was less efficient than later manufacturing technologies, contributing to the 73 W TDP. For cooling, this TDP class implies the need for a capable air cooler—likely a heatsink with a fan—rather than a passive solution or a low-profile cooler designed for low-power chips. The data does not specify the exact cooling solution required, so the recommendation must remain qualitative: a 73 W TDP demands active cooling with a heatsink that can dissipate that level of heat in a desktop chassis.

The absence of a boost clock means the processor does not dynamically increase its frequency under load, so the TDP is a steady-state figure rather than a peak value. The single core means that heat generation is concentrated in one area of the die, which can create hot spots if the cooler is poorly mounted. The 146 mm² die size provides a moderate surface area for heat transfer. In a modern context, a 73 W TDP is comparable to many entry-level desktop processors, but those typically have multiple cores and smaller process nodes. For a 2003 part, 73 W was on the higher end for a Celeron, which usually had reduced cache and sometimes lower clocks than the Pentium 4, but the power draw remained significant due to the architecture.

System builders from that era would typically pair this processor with a standard Intel reference cooler or an aftermarket cooler rated for 70-80 W TDP. The data does not list any thermal throttling mechanisms, but NetBurst processors generally had thermal monitoring features. The 73 W figure also implies that motherboard power delivery must handle at least that level of current; Socket 478 boards from reputable manufacturers would have been designed for this.

Who Should Consider It

The Intel Celeron 2.40 is suited for workloads that rely on single-threaded performance and do not benefit from multi-core parallelism. Given its single core and single thread, the processor is best matched to legacy office applications—word processing, spreadsheet tasks, and email—that were common in the early 2000s. The 2.40 GHz clock speed would handle basic arithmetic and logic operations with adequate speed for such tasks. Gaming is a poor fit: modern games require multiple cores, and even contemporary titles from the 2003 era would have been limited by the 128 KB L2 cache and lack of hyper-threading. The 50th percentile ranking suggests that this processor is not a performance outlier in either direction, so it would not be chosen for any demanding compute tasks.

For content creation, the 1-core, 1-thread configuration is a severe bottleneck. Video editing, 3D rendering, and batch photo processing in modern software would be impractically slow, as those applications are designed for multi-threaded execution. The data shows no benchmark scores to suggest otherwise; the zero average benchmark score reinforces that no performance validation exists for this chip. In a retro computing context, however, the Celeron 2.40 could serve as a faithful platform for running period-appropriate operating systems and software, where its specifications align with the hardware of its release year.

The processor is not a candidate for modern daily driving. Its DDR1 and DDR2 memory support limits it to older motherboards, and the lack of integrated graphics (except on certain chipsets) requires a discrete graphics card. The 73 W TDP means it is not an energy-efficient choice for always-on systems. The end-of-life status further suggests that only enthusiasts or collectors would consider it. In summary, the Celeron 2.40 is appropriate for historical system builds, lightweight single-tasking environments, or educational use where the processor’s limitations are acceptable. Its 50th percentile standing indicates it was an average performer in its time, but the absence of rival data prevents a more nuanced recommendation.