Dude...the Celerons would be tromped in every single test. You might as well not even attempt this one. Celerons have no bandwidth compared to the XP class....it isn't even a contest. Take a look at <A HREF="http://www.overclockers.com/articles494/" target="_new">this article</A> on a Celeron at 1.6Ghz and a XP1600 (1.4Ghz). Now if that is to antiquated for you, try <A HREF="http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20021016/celeron-09.html" target="_new">Tom's review of a Celeron</A> and subsequent comparison of it and some XP's.
As far as the XP being 'geared toward' competing with the Celerons...that has never been. It never will be. It never had the potential to be. If you search the web, you will find many Celeron VS Athlon XP benchmarks out there and the XP hand's the Celeron it's own arse in every single one.
Bottom line is that with the price comparison between the two (currently Celeron 2.0 is 77 bucks, XP2000 is 55 bucks) why would anyone go for something that is outperformed hands down? You'd have to be nuts.
You say you already know the results...but from your post it looks as if you feel the Celerons will clean house. I guarantee you that this isn't the case...just look at those two url's I posted. Most of the reviews are older (as in a few years) mainly because no one cares to compare the two because the XP wipes the floor with the Celeron. But there you go. Don't compare apples and oranges...you'll only confuse yourself and mislead others. The Duron's or maybe the Cyrix III's could be compared to the Celeron...but not the XP's.
If you don't trust those two urls I posted...try Anands <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1622&p=1" target="_new">here</A>.
----------
<b>I'm not normally a religious man, but if you're up there, save me, Superman! </b> <i>Homer Simpson</i>