SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC)
INTC 35.15+2.4%3:23 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Gary Ng who wrote (63470)8/27/1998 11:27:00 AM
From: Gerald Walls  Read Replies (2) of 186894
 
Yes I know that. But a Celeron 266 can also be overclocked to perform like a PII 300 or K6-2 300. Why didn't Celeron sell like hot cakes ?

No L2 cache on the pre-A Celerons resulting in bad reviews due to the poor Winstone 98/office software performance.

Seems that Celeron 333 if running as it is supposed to be, is slower than PII 350.

Of course. But, as I said, "A Celeron-A (with 128k on-die full-speed cache) is supposed to perform at roughly the same speed as a P-II at the same clock speed (300 vs. 300, etc)." 333 vs. 333, not 333 vs. 350. The C-333-A gets 26.3 Winstone 98s vs the P-II-333's 26.8 (<2% slower). On the Quake 2 test, C-300-A: 55 fps, P-II-333: 56 fps (<2% slower). On the FPU/3D rendering test, C-300-A: 32.1 pictures/h, P-II-333: 31.9 pictures/h (<1% faster). I'd call this roughly the same.

The motherboards that tomshardware reviewed separately had a range of slowest to fastest of 5% so there's more of a variance there.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News