Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Pentium Celeron vs Pentium Processors (Read 4019 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Pentium Celeron vs Pentium Processors

Is this statement to the right, right? ---> Pentium Celeron Processors have smaller caches and, as a result, are equivalent to a Pentium Processor running ~100mhz less?

i.e. Celeron Pentium III @ 566mhz (here @ work) is roughly the same as my Pentium III @ 450mhz (@ home).


Cheers.

Pentium Celeron vs Pentium Processors

Reply #1 –
It's not only the cache, it's also the FSB speed. Even the P4 Celerons suffer from that limitation. Read this review, it explains why.

Pentium Celeron vs Pentium Processors

Reply #2 –
But when the Celeron 300A was overclocked from 300mhz / 66mhz FSB to 450mhz/100mhz, then it gave the PII 450 a damn good run for its money, virtually equaling it's performance. Guess that doesn't matter much now........

Pentium Celeron vs Pentium Processors

Reply #3 –
On one of my boxes, I have a 1Ghz Celeron (Tulatin)/256MB L2 cache overclocked to 1.32Ghz, achieved simply by increasing the FSB to from 100Mhz to 133Mhz. It still runs cool, even with the stock fan, and the performance is similar to a 1.3Ghz P3 (on most bechmarks, anyway). So, I have to wonder if Celerons aren't just regular chips that have crippled FSB's and L2 caches? The question is, why would Intel do that?

Pentium Celeron vs Pentium Processors

Reply #4 –
To make you think you are getting so much more when you pay for the same thing. It's good to be king.
 

Pentium Celeron vs Pentium Processors

Reply #5 –
Quote
But when the Celeron 300A was overclocked from 300mhz / 66mhz FSB to 450mhz/100mhz, then it gave the PII 450 a damn good run for its money, virtually equaling it's performance. Guess that doesn't matter much now........

it was faster, actually, since its cache was full speed. I still have one of these humming away at 464, solid rock since new

Pentium Celeron vs Pentium Processors

Reply #6 –
Ahh yes, the old C300A -> 450 overclock. I had one running on the BH6 for years, but it finally bit the dust last month; it couldn't stop crashing, and wasn't worth the time to troubleshoot; I just bought a new one .

Before making the purchase, I must have read a dozen reviews comparing the Celeron's 1/2-size, full-speed cache to the PII's full-size, 1/2-speed cache. Now, I can't even remember which one was better for playing Quake.

Pentium Celeron vs Pentium Processors

Reply #7 –
Quote
Before making the purchase, I must have read a dozen reviews comparing the Celeron's 1/2-size, full-speed cache to the PII's full-size, 1/2-speed cache. Now, I can't even remember which one was better for playing Quake.

the overclocked celeron was faster than the p2 at the same clock speed

<edit> half the cache was apparently still big enough, but being at full speed obviously gave it much more bandwidth and Quake ate it up

Pentium Celeron vs Pentium Processors

Reply #8 –
Citay's link was interesting, and exactly the right level of detail, and made me go on a long spree of reading up.  Thanks

Pentium Celeron vs Pentium Processors

Reply #9 –
Quote
On one of my boxes, I have a 1Ghz Celeron (Tulatin)/256MB L2 cache overclocked to 1.32Ghz, achieved simply by increasing the FSB to from 100Mhz to 133Mhz. It still runs cool, even with the stock fan, and the performance is similar to a 1.3Ghz P3 (on most bechmarks, anyway). So, I have to wonder if Celerons aren't just regular chips that have crippled FSB's and L2 caches? The question is, why would Intel do that?

I've been doing some reading on this topic.  The Tualatin Celeron 512s are basically a Tualatin Pentium III 512 with a lowered bus from 133 to 100.  They have all the same extensions and functions, both are full speed cache, etc.  Whats cool about the Tualatin Celerons is that they are only crippled in bus speed, not cache or functions.  (BTW, do they have the Heat Spreader (IHS) technology?  I assume they do.)  Something that is fairly big right now is purchasing a really cheap 1.0GHz or 1.1GHz Tualatin Celeron which is at 100MHz bus and placing it in a 133 MHz board with a FC-PGA2 to SLOT-1 adapter that allows bus overclocking and manual voltage adjusting.  From what I hear, you can run these things pretty cool with even standard cooling, though I'd probably purchase something better just to be sure.  I just emailed the author of this review http://www.overclockers.com/tips965/ the other day with questions about overclocking these really cheaply priced Tualatin Celeron's.  He said that you will probably get the 1.0 and 1.1 GHz to 133MHz bus almost 100% of the time, but that anything higher has had difficulties without major cooling (and even then...).  For instance, taking the 1.2-1.4 GHz to 133MHz bus is a lot tougher.

BTW, aren't the 256 L2 Cache Tualatin procs primarily for notebooks, or am I mistaken?

To answer your question about crippling, it is done so that they can sell their higher end processors at higher prices and keep more control of the market for longer periods of time, at least that is from what I have read...

Does anybody have experience OC'ing these Tualatin Celeys, 'cause they're dirt cheap!
WARNING:  Changing of advanced parameters might degrade sound quality.  Modify them only if you are expirienced in audio compression!

Pentium Celeron vs Pentium Processors

Reply #10 –
A Celeron II CPU performs almost exactly as a Pentium II at the same clock speed (if such chips existed).

I own the spiritual successor to the 300A, a 533 Celeron II. I overclocked the FSB from 66 to 100 and have a 800MHz processor (it's been running this way for years, literally). I have to remind myself that my PC is technically very crappy performance-wise compared to the latest models but it goes to show you that once you reach a certain point additional power is a luxury rather than a necessity...unless you like to play the latest 3D games, of course.

Pentium Celeron vs Pentium Processors

Reply #11 –
I have a P4 2.4 which I bought with the mobo for $159.
I also have a P4 Celeron 1.8 which I bought with the mobo for $69.
Threw in $98 for a pair of Kingston 512 DDR pc2700 chips.
I like them both. They make me very happy!