Not to cause confrontation but the newer Celerons are based on the
PIII core not the PII. Anything described as FC-PGA is the newer core.
That doesn't necessarily make them better.
The PIII core may make the Celerons a little better and from most
of the reports I have read they will work with a 100 MHz bus. Since
they are clock locked, the 600 will run at 900. I don't remember
exactly who did the testing, it was probably Tom's Hardware or Sharky
Extreme.
Even after the overclocking they still didn't outperform a lower MHz
rated PIII in all tests. The set-associativity of the cache and the
size
play a big role there. With recent price drops (see Sharky's CPU
Price Guide) a PIII 667/133 isn't all that much more expensive... In
fact it is less than the Celeron 700!
Tom's Hardware:
http://www.tomshardware.com
Sharky Extreme
http://www.sharkyextreme.com
Sharky's CPU Price Guide.
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/weekly_cpu/
Benjamin Scott wrote:
>
> 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,
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|| || ||
|| Todd Littlefield || SPECTRUM Apps Group ||
|| Aprisma Mgmt. Tech. || - Tactical Division ||
|| [EMAIL PROTECTED] || - C, C++, Perl ||
|| (603) 337-5621 || - HTML, CGI, Java ||
|| || ||
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
**********************************************************
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
**********************************************************
