On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, Tom Rauschenbach wrote:
> Anybody got experience with Celeron processors?
Yup. They are more-or-less a Pentium II with smaller cache and slower FSB
[1]. They work pretty well. (Where I work, we've been deploying Linux
"servers" using Celrey CPUs for several months now.)
> I understand that they are crippled in some way, but I have no details.
See above. Also: The *original* Celeron ran at 300 MHz, with *NO* cache in
the CPU at all. This led to abysmal performance in most situations. A lot of
overclockers took to it, though, because with no in-CPU cache, you can really
crank the CPU clock without frying it.
The 300 was the only Celeron with no cache. Soon after, Intel realized they
dropped the ball, and introduced the 300A.
> They're cheap even at 500 Mhz. How crippled could a 500 Mhz machine be?
[...]
> What I'm trying to do is get my wife a decent machine that she can dual boot
> Linux and Win9X.
I might recommend a system based on the AMD K6 chips. They're significantly
cheaper then anything Intel, and generally offer the same or better
performance for most things. The K6 also runs the FSB faster then your
average Celeron.
The only thing the K6 doesn't do so well at is heavy-duty floating-point
math -- i.e., 3D rendering. So if you're playing a lot of Quake III, doing
CAD work, or animating Toy Story, then get a PIII or an Athlon.
HTH,
Footnotes
---------
[1] FSB = Front Side Bus. The bus connecting the CPU to main memory and the
PCI bridge chip. As opposed to the Back Side, which connects to the
in-CPU cache.
--
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Brooks's Law: "Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later." |
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
