How does an 800Mhz celeron compare to lower speed Pentium II etc ?

[Ian Roberts]

Hi

I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask but didnt know where else to
try...

Just wanted to find out where an 800Mhz Celeron would be placed in a
hirearchical chart compared to early Pentiums, Pentium II etc etc.

I'm not entirely clear what distinguished the Celerons from Pentiums (no on
chip cache?).

But once the speed of the celerons rocketed, I got confused as to which
would be a faster processor in everyday use - how do they rank when compared
to a lower speed Pentium II, III?

Thanks for any info

Ian

 

[BruceM]

You get a bit of an idea if you download SiSoft & do a CPU benchmark test on
your computer & then by clicking the other little down arrows, you can
compare yours to other types.
http://www.sisoftware.net/index.html?dir=dload&location=sware_dl_3264&langx=en&a=

 

[Ian Roberts]

You get a bit of an idea if you download SiSoft & do a CPU benchmark test
on your computer & then by clicking the other little down arrows, you can
compare yours to other types.
http://www.sisoftware.net/index.html?dir=dload&location=sware_dl_3264&langx=en&a=

Thanks a lot for the link Bruce.

Only problem with this is its not my PC. I'm not looking to compare my PC's
performance with other PCs. I'm just after a hierachical graphic placing
each Intel processor in a list or chart so that the relative performance of
each CPU can be seen at a glance.

Cheers

Ian

 

[Ian Roberts]

Hi

I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask but didnt know where else to
try...

Just wanted to find out where an 800Mhz Celeron would be placed in a
hirearchical chart compared to early Pentiums, Pentium II etc etc.

I'm not entirely clear what distinguished the Celerons from Pentiums (no
on chip cache?).

But once the speed of the celerons rocketed, I got confused as to which
would be a faster processor in everyday use - how do they rank when
compared to a lower speed Pentium II, III?

Thanks for any info

Ian

Ahh - just in case anyone else is interested I found one here:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041221/cpu_charts-10.html#overview_of_all_intel_cpus

Cheers

 

[David Maynard]

Ahh - just in case anyone else is interested I found one here:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041221/cpu_charts-10.html#overview_of_all_intel_cpus

Cheers

Sorry I missed the original post but to answer your question, the celeron
800 is significantly faster than anything in the P-II line, which you know
from the chart you've found.

As for the difference, the desktop P-II has 512K of 'slot' cache (the
entire reason for the slot cartridge to begin with) running at half the
speed of the processor whereas the celeron has 128K of on-die cache running
at the full speed of the processor (post 300, 300A first with cache).
They're the same core.

The full speed cache compensates for the smaller amount and the first
'magic' overclocker was the Celeron 300A/66Mhz FSB which would easily do
450 overclocked to the standard 100MHz FSB and bench equal to the 'top of
the line' P-II 450. A stock celeron 466, however, is not quite as fast due
to the lower 66MHz FSB starving the full speed cache.

Your 800, however, is already running 100MHz FSB so it would compare well
with an equivalent P-II if such a thing as an 800MHz P-II existed.

The celeron looses it's 'equivalency' with the coppermine P-IIIs as they
use twice as much, 256K, of the same on-die full speed cache and are about
20%, or so, faster clock for clock.

 

[Captin]

Hi

I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask but didnt know
where else to
try...

Just wanted to find out where an 800Mhz Celeron would be
placed in a
hirearchical chart compared to early Pentiums, Pentium II etc
etc.

I'm not entirely clear what distinguished the Celerons from
Pentiums (no on
chip cache?).

But once the speed of the celerons rocketed, I got confused as
to which
would be a faster processor in everyday use - how do they rank
when compared
to a lower speed Pentium II, III?

Thanks for any info

Ian

The celeron 800mhz is a 370 socket chip and from memory had 128Kb of
L2 cache . No speed demon
The 370 socket Pentium 3’s had twice the cache and for it’s time was
the frontline while the celeron was the budget chip.

You did ask about Pentium 2 and they used the slot one platform and
actually had 512Mb of L2 cache. The fastest P2 chip was 450mhz.
Early Pentium 3 also used the slot one platform and I honestly thought
that if you had an early slot one Pentium 3 say approx 600mhz it would
eat for dinner a similar speed 370 socket Pentium 3 chip.
Of course it wasn’t long before it was irrelevant because the 370
socket processors started appearing with the faster clock speeds and
leave the rest behind.
If I had an old system I would try and grab a 370 socket Pentium 3
chip preferably 800mhz and up.
PS I don’t think the value difference is much different at all?

 

[David Maynard]

The celeron 800mhz is a 370 socket chip and from memory had 128Kb of
L2 cache . No speed demon
The 370 socket Pentium 3’s had twice the cache and for it’s time was
the frontline while the celeron was the budget chip.

You did ask about Pentium 2 and they used the slot one platform and
actually had 512Mb of L2 cache. The fastest P2 chip was 450mhz.
Early Pentium 3 also used the slot one platform and I honestly thought
that if you had an early slot one Pentium 3 say approx 600mhz it would
eat for dinner a similar speed 370 socket Pentium 3 chip.

You may have thought so but you were incorrect.

There were two basic versions of the Slot-1 600 (both also came in 100Mhz
and 133MHz FSB). The first had the same 512K, half speed, cache as a P-II
and the second had on-die 256k full speed cache, exactly the same as the
s370 and, in fact, nothing but the s370 processor 'on a cart' so it could
plug into a slot-1 motherboard.

The on-die 256k, full speed, cache is significantly faster than the 512k
half speed cache so either your 'slot-1' 600 P-III would be identical to an
s370 P-III 600 or significantly slower if it was the earlier 512k cache job.

 

[Captin]

You may have thought so but you were incorrect.

There were two basic versions of the Slot-1 600 (both also
came in 100Mhz
and 133MHz FSB). The first had the same 512K, half speed,
cache as a P-II
and the second had on-die 256k full speed cache, exactly the
same as the
s370 and, in fact, nothing but the s370 processor 'on a cart'
so it could
plug into a slot-1 motherboard.

The on-die 256k, full speed, cache is significantly faster
than the 512k
half speed cache so either your 'slot-1' 600 P-III would be
identical to an
s370 P-III 600 or significantly slower if it was the earlier
512k cache job.


The celeron 800mhz is a 370 socket chip and from memory had 128Kb of
L2 cache . No speed demon
The 370 socket Pentium 3’s had twice the cache and for it’s time was
the frontline while the celeron was the budget chip.

You did ask about Pentium 2 and they used the slot one platform and
actually had 512Mb of L2 cache. The fastest P2 chip was 450mhz.
Early Pentium 3 also used the slot one platform and I honestly thought
that if you had an early slot one Pentium 3 say approx 600mhz it would
eat for dinner a similar speed 370 socket Pentium 3 chip.

You may have thought so but you were incorrect.

There were two basic versions of the Slot-1 600 (both also came in
100Mhz
and 133MHz FSB). The first had the same 512K, half speed, cache as a
P-II
and the second had on-die 256k full speed cache, exactly the same as
the
s370 and, in fact, nothing but the s370 processor ’on a cart’ so it
could
plug into a slot-1 motherboard.

The on-die 256k, full speed, cache is significantly faster than the
512k
half speed cache so either your ’slot-1’ 600 P-III would be identical
to an
s370 P-III 600 or significantly slower if it was the earlier 512k
cache job.

Point taken with the different versions, I recall we had some 550mhz
slot
one systems that had a 133mhz FSB and 4X AGP slots. Specifications do
not always ring true to performance though. Some early 370 socket
systems were not as good as the computers I’ve just mentioned . Not in
the real world anyway

 

[David Maynard]

You may have thought so but you were incorrect.

There were two basic versions of the Slot-1 600 (both also came in
100Mhz
and 133MHz FSB). The first had the same 512K, half speed, cache as a
P-II
and the second had on-die 256k full speed cache, exactly the same as
the
s370 and, in fact, nothing but the s370 processor ’on a cart’ so it
could
plug into a slot-1 motherboard.

The on-die 256k, full speed, cache is significantly faster than the
512k
half speed cache so either your ’slot-1’ 600 P-III would be identical
to an
s370 P-III 600 or significantly slower if it was the earlier 512k
cache job.

Point taken with the different versions, I recall we had some 550mhz
slot
one systems that had a 133mhz FSB and 4X AGP slots.

They could have been 533 MHz (4x133) but it's impossible to have 550 on a
133 MHz FSB with the available multipliers. 550Mhz is a 100MHz FSB speed
(5.5x100).

Specifications do
not always ring true to performance though.

Actually, they do. It's just that people often misinterpret specifications
and think then mean things they don't, such as thinking 8x AGP will be
'twice as fast' as 4x simply because the number is twice as big or that
512K of cache will be faster than 256K (I.E. not realizing the other
important factors).

To be fair, quantizing it isn't always so 'obvious' to even those 'expert'
in it either.

Some early 370 socket
systems were not as good as the computers I’ve just mentioned . Not in
the real world anyway

Well, an s370 socket "system" is a whole different thing than speaking of
the processor as many other factors affect performance and, just off hand,
I'd venture a guess that your recollection is comparing an AGP slot-1
system to an s370 with on-board shared memory video because the sharing on
those system gobbles up tons of memory bandwidth limiting the amount left
for the processor, and so it's performance. That's not the processor's
fault, though, nor does it mean one **processor** is 'faster' than the
other and I assure you that given a fair fight, meaning all else equal, the
256k full speed cache s370 processors are significantly faster than the
512K half speed cache slot-1s of the same 'MHz'.

 

[thumper]

They could have been 533 MHz (4x133) but it's impossible to
have 550 on a
133 MHz FSB with the available multipliers. 550Mhz is a 100MHz
FSB speed
(5.5x100).


Actually, they do. It's just that people often misinterpret
specifications
and think then mean things they don't, such as thinking 8x AGP
will be
'twice as fast' as 4x simply because the number is twice as
big or that
512K of cache will be faster than 256K (I.E. not realizing the
other
important factors).

To be fair, quantizing it isn't always so 'obvious' to even
those 'expert'
in it either.


Well, an s370 socket "system" is a whole different thing than
speaking of
the processor as many other factors affect performance and,
just off hand,
I'd venture a guess that your recollection is comparing an AGP
slot-1
system to an s370 with on-board shared memory video because
the sharing on
those system gobbles up tons of memory bandwidth limiting the
amount left
for the processor, and so it's performance. That's not the
processor's
fault, though, nor does it mean one **processor** is 'faster'
than the
other and I assure you that given a fair fight, meaning all
else equal, the
256k full speed cache s370 processors are significantly faster
than the
512K half speed cache slot-1s of the same 'MHz'.

They were 533mhz, it’s good to run into a person that remembers.
The systems used ASUS boards with PC 133 ram and a joke these days
but everyone of them in the place was , ( wait for it), overclocked to
600mhz. That’s why I forgot what speed they really were. Just old
VooDoo AGP cards from memory. I ended up with a few of them years ago
and installed a few Ge Force 4 64 Mb’s, (wow)and they matched up OK
to early 370 socket systems with similar cards, don’t look for that
excuse. Maybe the particular boards were good?