Jim, Re: "Yes, the P4 did beat the Celeron(T)1.2 on a few benchmarks...a few of which were Sysmark...which means you can throw those out."
I'll not throw it out, since it is a valid benchmark, but I would post a warning about the use of WME in the background of the benchmark. Remember, we're testing all Intel CPUs here, so this benchmark still shows the Celeron's lack to keep up with Pentium 4 in Content Creation benchmarks with Virus Protection, Archiving, and WME running in the background.
Re: "What made me wonder is that a Coppermine P-III 1.0 beat the tualatin Celeron 1.2 on a few 3DMark benches. I don't see how this could be possible since they both have 256k Cache."
Yeah, but the Coppermine 1GHz has a 133MHz front side bus, which apparently makes a large difference in benchmarks like 3DMark2001.
Re: "The real winner is the P-III-S w/512 cache at 1.13 which in fact destroys any P4 at any speed."
I think it's safe to say that the Tualatin with full sized cache is a great and powerful product. It also has prefetching, don't forget. But even a 1.5GHz Pentium 4 with SDRAM can beat it in CC SysMark (which I won't throw out because you don't like it), Winzip 8.0, high resolution DroneZ, and the Nature test in 3DMark2001. Therefore, you exaggerate.
Of course, that doesn't mean the 1.5GHz Pentium 4 with SDRAM is better than the 1.13GHz fully featured Tualatin, but you are wrong when you say that Tualatin "destroys any P4 at any speed". I'm pretty sure that faster Pentium 4 chips, as well as Pentium 4 with RDRAM or DDR, will be quite a bit better than a 1.13GHz Tualatin. And also don't forget that the Pentium 4 will also receive an L2 cache upgrade very soon.
Re: "Personally I would consider a 1.2 Ghz Celeron for my own use now..."
Fantastic. Another win for Intel, and even by an AMDroid (or are you really just an anti-P4roid?). <G>
wanna_bmw |
