>>Are you referring to the A version or the non A version of the
Celeron?
No.
>>Don't be afraid to ask if you don't know the difference.
Why would I be? If I recall correctly there are 4 Celerons
available at the moment, or at least the last time I looked,
two at (I think) 300 mhz, one with
128k cache, labeled A, and one without, not labeled A.
Then there's a slower one without cache and a faster with cache,
neither sporting A's. This is from memory, so I may have
it wrong in detail. I'm not a hardware weenie.
I was referring to the fact the Celeron was specifically
designed to be cheap for the low-end market with the trade-off
being performance for people who, in Intel's view, don't
require the performance. IMO, cache is a bad thing to
sacrifice, but if it works for a market segment, it works.
And its easier to overclock, but I seriously doubt that
Intel marketing had that in mind <g>. |
