Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : AMD:News, Press Releases and Information Only! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elmer who wrote (6018)	5/7/1998 1:17:00 AM
From: Brian Hutcheson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6843

Re. Dream on Elmer what you are trying to tell me is that the benchmarks for Celeron are equal to a pentium MMX 233 but the Celeron is a 266mhz . The Celeron is supposed to be a true 6th generation CPU so why is slower than a modified 5th generation (Pentium mmx)? By your own admission you have merely agreed with all the bad press that Celeron has received . BTW I had no intention of wasting my time trying to prove/disprove the bad press that Celeron has received , that is up to defenders of the faith (Intel) like you . Brian PS don't bother replying I find the whole discussion a waste of time

To: Elmer who wrote (6018)	5/7/1998 2:03:00 AM
From: Ed Sammons	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 6843

re: <Brian ... You claimed a Celeron performed worse than a 200mhz Pentium.> <You haven't been able to find 1 single benchmark backing up your claim,> A quick search on Alta Vista of "celeron benchmark" returns on the first 3 pages: Graph showing Celeron266 Win95 Bus. Winstone performance is 91% of PMMX233 (e.g. ~= PMMX200). zdnet.de "In fact, the Celeron could barely keep pace with PCs running on Intel's PMMX-200, which is used in systems that cost as little as $799." pcworld.com My comment: The Celeron is a stopgap processor with anemic integer performance, good FPU performance compared to the K6. It is an attempt to slow market share loss until the follow-on CPU with L2 cache on chip. The market battle in Q4 '98 between the Celeron follow-on, PII, and the K6-3D+ will be interesting because all three will run w/ the L2 cache at processor speed and 100MB/sec main memory bus, negating the primary advantage of the PII. If the Celeron and K6-3D+ will sell between $150-200 in volume, what will that do to Intel's margins when the PII offers no noticable speed benefit at the same megaherz. Will people buy the PII over a Celeron or K6-3D+? Will Intel be able to charge such a large premium for their top end cpus to make for the much lower margins of the Celeron. Will computer buyers pay a large premium for incremental performance gains?

To: Elmer who wrote (6018)	5/7/1998 11:01:00 AM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6843

Elmer, <There have now been 10 benchmarks posted showing a Celeron performing equal to or better than a Pentium 233MMX.> Elmer, your persistence in Celery advocacy become annoying. If you could take a close look at the benchmark count, you would uncover the following facts: 1. Winstone 98 is comprised of 9 actual applications. In ALL OF THEM the Celery fail against p5-233. How it compares to p5-200 is carefully hidden. Count - p5 leads 9:0. 2. The BAPCO Sysmark32 is a set of 8 ANOTHER real business applications (some apps are older releases of apps in Winstone98, but the coding/libraries are different). In all 8 applications the Celery lost, count - 17:0. 3. In the High-end WS98, the Celery wins 4 and lost 3 apps; total count is now 20:4; 4. All other 7 single-task benchmarks are synthetic workloads that may not represent the real-world performance, see for example sysdoc.pair.com Therefore, in the best case the total count is 20:11, P55-233 leads. Again, since the p200 numbers are intentionally hidden, it is hard to see how the Celery stands against P5-200MMX. Based on NINE REAL BUSINESS APPLICATIONS (as per Winstone98 collection), tomshardware.com the Celery falls behind the vanilla K6-200. 5. There are apparent signs of tweaking in system configurations in order to make the Celery look better. For example, intel.com the P55-233 score are 15.7 (vs 14.7 for Celery), while intel.com the same benchmark scores at 18.2! What is the difference? Very simple: besides a slower hard drive, the Celery system was configured with ATI Rage Pro cards. Looking at ATI web site atitech.ca@work/xworkagp.html you may easily find out that ATI Rage Pro card "optimizes graphics performance of Pentium IIr systems" and therefore the regular Pentium-MMX will be at disadvantage in these tests. In conclusion, stop bragging about your super-Celery. Period.