Celeron fits into the budget category. Intel has always had these chips
and in the old days they were marked with sx (386sx, 486sx). Now
they're called Celerons, and there are several varieties. The only two
you should need to know about are P3 Celerons and P4 Celerons. These
are low-cache
Aaron Grewell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] typed thusly on Wednesday, January
08, 2003 10:46 AM:
Celeron fits into the budget category. Intel has always had these chips
and in the old days they were marked with sx (386sx, 486sx). Now
they're called Celerons, and there are several varieties.
Its also worth nothing that Celerons have a 128KB cache, while the
'normal' PIII PIV chips have a 256KB cache.
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Aaron Grewell wrote:
Celeron fits into the budget category. Intel has always had these chips
and in the old days they were marked with sx (386sx, 486sx). Now
And at that isn't it something like double the cache of the original Celeron?
Of course it's worth noting that whether they suck or not just about all
current processors are i686 (Pentium Pro). I think the AMD K6 series was
the last i586 put in many PCs, and though they would often outperform
The original Celeron had no L2 cache at all. Its performance was so
abysmal that Intel had to quickly come out with the Celeron A which
includes the 128KB L2 cache we know today. K-6-II and III chips
definitely gave better bang for the buck than the original Celerons, but
the Celeron A was the
Both are available, but it should be noted that it's on-chip L3 cache.
L2 is still 256K or 512K depending on what model you buy. The L3 isn't
as fast as the L1 or L2, and is only really useful in database and other
such apps where lots of very large data transfers need to be cached.
On Wed,
Aaron Grewell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] typed thusly on Wednesday, January
08, 2003 2:17 PM:
Both are available, but it should be noted that it's on-chip L3 cache.
L2 is still 256K or 512K depending on what model you buy. The L3 isn't
as fast as the L1 or L2, and is only really useful in
I think just a couple of things, and you've said this better than...
At 03:14 PM 1/8/03 -0800, Aaron Grewell wrote:
Well, let me see if I can get this right. L1 cache is always built into
the processor. It's very fast but there isn't much of it, used to keep
very frequently used information
On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 15:44, Stuart Biggerstaff wrote:
I think just a couple of things, and you've said this better than...
At 03:14 PM 1/8/03 -0800, Aaron Grewell wrote:
Well, let me see if I can get this right. L1 cache is always built into
the processor. It's very fast but there isn't
Feigning erudition, Net Llama! wrote:
% Also worth noting is that there are Xeons out there with 1MB cache (i
% think 2MB as well, but i'm not 100% sure).
And costing a king's ransom, I should think.
Kurt
--
The sooner all the animals are dead, the sooner we'll find their
money.
10 matches
Mail list logo
