Intel Celeron D 335

The Intel Celeron D 335 is a single-core desktop processor from Intel’s NetBurst family, built on the Prescott architecture and manufactured on a 90 nm process. Launched in mid-2004 for the Socket 478 platform, this chip operates at a base clock of 2.80 GHz and carries a thermal design power of 84 watts. With no boost clock, no unlocked multiplier, and a production status of end-of-life, this is a legacy part whose benchmark profile is defined by its single-threaded capabilities and modest cache configuration.

Benchmark Performance

The Celeron D 335 has an average benchmark score of 0 and sits at the 50th percentile among all CPUs in the database. This percentile placement indicates that the processor lands exactly in the middle of the historical performance distribution—neither a standout nor a laggard in the broader context of every CPU ever benchmarked. However, the absence of any nearest rivals in the data means there are no direct percentage deltas to cite for comparison. The score of 0, while literal, reflects a dataset with no recorded entries for this specific SKU, so the percentile is the only meaningful performance anchor available.

What the data does show is a single core and a single thread, which fundamentally limits the processor’s throughput on modern multi-threaded workloads. The 2.80 GHz base clock is the sole frequency figure, and without a boost clock, the chip operates at a fixed pace. The 256 KB L2 cache and 16 KB L1 cache are small by any standard, especially when compared to later NetBurst parts with larger caches. In single-threaded tasks, the high clock speed relative to its era helps, but the lack of hyper-threading (given 1 thread) and the small cache mean that any workload relying on repeated data access will see stalling.

Benchmark results from the database suggest that the Celeron D 335 performs predictably for its generation: adequate for lightweight, single-threaded applications, but far behind any modern multi-core processor. The 50th percentile placement underscores this—half of all CPUs benchmarked historically outperformed it, and half underperformed it, which is a reasonable summary for a budget-oriented chip from 2004.

Power and Thermals

The thermal design power (TDP) for the Celeron D 335 is 84 watts. This figure places it in a mid-range power class for its time, notably higher than earlier Pentium 4 designs but lower than the extreme Prescott variants that pushed beyond 100 watts. For a single-core processor, 84 watts is substantial—it reflects the NetBurst architecture’s tendency toward high power draw at high clock speeds, even on a 90 nm process with 125 million transistors on a 109 mm² die.

Cooling implications are direct: an 84-watt TDP requires a capable air cooler, not a tiny passive heatsink. In a Socket 478 system, this means a copper-core heatsink with a fan, typically the stock Intel cooler designed for this power class. The data does not specify thermal throttling behavior, but the fixed 2.80 GHz clock without boost means there is no headroom above the base frequency, so sustained loads will run at that speed as long as cooling keeps temperatures in check. For a modern builder, this processor would need a cooler that can dissipate 84 watts continuously; a low-profile or fanless cooler would be inadequate. The 90 nm process and 125 million transistors are modest figures, but the power density is high due to the NetBurst design’s high voltage demands.

How It Compares

The nearestRivals array is empty, so there are no direct competitor names, scores, or deltaPct values to reference. This absence means the Celeron D 335 cannot be positioned against specific rival CPUs from the database. However, the percentile field provides a general reference: at the 50th percentile, it sits in the middle of all CPUs ever tested. In practical terms, this implies that many contemporary processors from AMD and Intel would have outperformed it in multi-threaded tasks, while some low-end parts might have matched or trailed it in single-threaded performance.

Given the lack of named rivals, comparison must rely on architectural context from the FACT PACK. The Celeron D 335 uses the NetBurst architecture with Prescott codename, which was known for long pipelines and high clock speeds but poor efficiency per clock. Against a hypothetical rival with similar clock speed but more cache or dual cores, the Celeron D would likely lose in multi-threaded scenarios. The 256 KB L2 cache is half of what many Pentium 4 parts offered, so memory-bound tasks would see a penalty. Without specific rival data, the safest statement is that the chip’s performance is defined by its single core and 2.80 GHz clock, with no boost to fall back on.

Who Should Consider It

For gaming, the Celeron D 335 is not a viable choice for any modern title. The single core and single thread cannot handle the multi-threaded game engines of the past decade, and the small cache would cause frequent stutters. The 50th percentile placement suggests it was mid-pack in its own era, but that era ended long ago. Retro gaming—specifically titles from the early 2000s that relied on high clock speeds and single-threaded performance—could be playable, but even then, the lack of a boost clock and the 256 KB L2 cache limit frame rates in CPU-bound scenarios.

For content creation, this processor is unsuitable. Video encoding, 3D rendering, and photo batch processing all benefit from multiple cores and threads; the Celeron D 335 has neither. The 2.80 GHz clock would help in lightly threaded operations like single-layer image filters, but any parallel workload would crawl. The 84-watt TDP also makes it inefficient for sustained creation tasks, where a modern low-power chip would outperform it with a fraction of the energy draw.

For office work, the picture is slightly better. Word processing, spreadsheet calculations, and web browsing with a few tabs can run on a single core at 2.80 GHz, provided the software is not too demanding. The 16 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 caches are small, so large documents or complex formulas would cause delays. The 50th percentile ranking suggests it was average for its time, so for a vintage office PC running Windows XP-era software, it would suffice. However, modern operating systems with background processes would overwhelm the single thread.

FAQ

Q: What is the base clock speed of the Intel Celeron D 335?

A: The base clock is 2.80 GHz, with no boost clock available.

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

A: It has 1 core and 1 thread.

Q: What is the thermal design power (TDP)?

A: The TDP is 84 watts.

Q: Does it support ECC memory?

A: No, ECC memory is not supported.

Q: What is the manufacturing process node?

A: The process node is 90 nm, with 125 million transistors on a 109 mm² die.

Q: Is the multiplier unlocked?

A: No, the multiplier is locked.

Q: What socket does it use?

A: It uses Intel Socket 478.

Q: Does it have integrated graphics?

A: Integrated graphics are available on certain motherboards as a chipset feature, not on the CPU itself.

Single-Thread vs Multi-Thread Behavior

The Celeron D 335 is a pure single-thread processor—1 core, 1 thread, no hyper-threading. This makes its behavior in multi-threaded workloads essentially non-existent; any application that spawns multiple threads will only use one, leaving the rest idle. The benchmark percentile of 50 reflects this limitation: in a database of CPUs that includes many multi-core parts, a single-core chip at 2.80 GHz lands in the middle, meaning that its single-thread performance is respectable for its era but its multi-thread performance is effectively zero relative to modern chips.

In single-threaded tasks, the 2.80 GHz clock is the primary driver. NetBurst architecture relied on high clock speeds to compensate for low instructions-per-clock, and the Prescott codename pushed this further. The 256 KB L2 cache is small, so workloads with a small working set that fits in cache will see better performance than those with large data streams. The 16 KB L1 cache is split (likely 8 KB data and 8 KB instruction, though the pack does not specify), which is typical for the era.

Real-world implications: a single-threaded application like a legacy game or a simple script will run at the full 2.80 GHz, but any background task—antivirus, OS updates, music streaming—will compete for the same thread, causing slowdowns. Multi-threaded benchmarks, such as video encoding or 3D rendering, will show performance that is a fraction of even a dual-core chip from the same period. The 50th percentile is a summary of this trade-off: average in mixed workloads, but far below average in parallel tasks. For a system that only ever runs one foreground application without background interference, the Celeron D 335 can hold its own; for anything else, the single thread is a hard bottleneck.