[aclug-L] Re: Celeron vs. PII?

[John Alexander <john.alexander@xxxxxxxx>]

One important difference between the PII and the Celeron is that the cache
on the PII is not on the processor, but on the processor daughter card that
goes into the slot, and only runs at about half the processor speed. Celeron
cache, if it exists, is on the chip, and runs at the chip's clock speed.
This means that for highly cache intensive operations, the Celeron running
at 450HMz is faster than a PII 400MHz, though it costs far less.

ja

> -----Original Message-----
> From: aclug-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:aclug-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On
> Behalf Of Jonathan Hall
> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 1:41 PM
> To: aclug-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [aclug-L] Re: Celeron vs. PII?
>
>
> The original Celerons had no onboard cache, which made them much
> slower than
> a Pentium II.  Now days the differences between Celeron and pII/pIII are
> not as great.  Pentium II will still generally be faster than Celeron
> "overall," but it depends a lot on what you'll be using the
> system for as to
> which type of chip will be better.
>
> If you're building a gaming system, I'd recommend a Celeron, as the speed
> improvement with a pII/pIII won't be nearly as noticable in
> games... and you
> can OC the Celeron a lot more than you can a Pentium II/III.
>
> I would suggest also looking at the AMD K6-2 or K6-III (K6-III being the
> better of the two).  I have a 450Mhz K6-III and as I recall it cost about
> the same amount as a Celeron 450 at the time I got it--maybe $10
> more or so,
> and it has about twice the on-board cache as a Pentium II (more, I think,
> even than a Pentium III).  The downside of the K6 series of chips is that
> they're not quite as fast at FPU--that's more true with the K6-2 than the
> K6-III, too, if I'm remembering what I've read. :-)
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 23, 1999 at 06:26:24AM -0600, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> > Hi All.
> >
> > I've been away from hardware just long enough so some of these things
> > have passed me by.  Anyway, I'm wanting to throw together a system
> > this winter, but am a bit unsure of the practical difference between
> > the Celeron and Pentium II processors, except for about $100.  I
> > assume both are 32 bit chips and both support the same amount of RAM
> > on board, etc.  Is there a major performance issue?  So any particulars
> > would be appreciated.
> >
> > On a related note.  I'm looking at main boards without such things
> > as integrated video and audio considering such features would be
> > less supported in the kernel and X (ie propretary/Win only interfaces).
> > Also, I'm looking at models that include an AGP slot, which I assume
> > is the current rage for video adapters much like VESA Local Bus was
> > 5 or 6 years ago.
> >
> > Any thoughts/experiences on this stuff would be appreciated as well.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > - Nate >>
> >
> > --
> >
> >  Packet   | N0NB @ WF0A.#SCKS.KS.USA.NOAM       | "None can love freedom
> >  Internet | ka0rny@xxxxxxxxxx                   | heartily, but good
> >  Location | Wichita, Kansas USA EM17hs          | men; the rest love not
> >    Wichita area exams; ham radio; Linux info @  | freedom, but license."
> >    http://homepage.netspaceonline.com/~ka0rny/  | -- John Milton
>
> --
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>   Jonathan Hall  *  jonhall@xxxxxxxxxxxx  *  PGP public key available
>  Systems Admin, Future Internet Services; Goessel, KS * (316) 367-2487
>          http://www.futureks.net  *  PGP Key ID: FE 00 FD 51
>                   -=  Running Debian GNU/Linux  =-
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>