Pentium II 450 vs. Celeron 500

[François]

While this may not be the best place to ask this question there are surely
more than enough experts here to give me an intelligent answer.
What are the essencial differences between these two chips apart from 50 Mhz
of speed? Is there any case where the Celeron could be faster? Is it
possible that despite the 50Mhz difference the 450 PII could be faster?

If we were to make speed equal, would a celeron 500 be very different from a
Pentium II 500.

Last of all, running Linux SuSE 9.3 which would be the better option if
apart from the processor all else was equal.

Thanks in Advance from Montreal

 

[Conor]

While this may not be the best place to ask this question there are surely
more than enough experts here to give me an intelligent answer.
What are the essencial differences between these two chips apart from 50 Mhz
of speed?

More L2 cache is the biggest difference.

Is there any case where the Celeron could be faster?
Nope.

Is it
possible that despite the 50Mhz difference the 450 PII could be faster?
Definitely.

If we were to make speed equal, would a celeron 500 be very different from a
Pentium II 500.

A celeron 500 would feel like a dog compared to a P2/500.

Last of all, running Linux SuSE 9.3 which would be the better option if
apart from the processor all else was equal.

P2.

 

[David Maynard]

While this may not be the best place to ask this question there are surely
more than enough experts here to give me an intelligent answer.
What are the essencial differences between these two chips apart from 50 Mhz
of speed?

The primary difference is the P-II has 512K of half speed cache while the
Celeron has 128K of full speed cache and the P-II FSB is 100MHz while it's
66Mhz for the Celeron.

Lower speed Celerons overclocked to 100Mhz FSB, the famous Celeron 300A
OC'd to 450, are about the same performance, depending on the application,
as the P-II 450 because the faster full speed of the on-die cache makes up
for the smaller size. But at 66Mhz FSB the memory bandwidth is limited and
that starves the cache, reducing it's effectiveness.

Is there any case where the Celeron could be faster?

Perhaps if overclocked but then the P-II could be overclocked, although
neither can go much faster than they already are.

Is it
possible that despite the 50Mhz difference the 450 PII could be faster?

The P-II is faster by maybe 10%.

If we were to make speed equal, would a celeron 500 be very different from a
Pentium II 500.

Just slower.

Last of all, running Linux SuSE 9.3 which would be the better option if
apart from the processor all else was equal.

Definitely the P-II.

 

[DaveW]

For most purposes the 450 PII is the better faster choice for your system.
The Celeron is a very crippled CPU internally. That's why it sold for so
little.

 

[Ralph W. Phillips]

Howdy!

More L2 cache is the biggest difference.


Nope.

*ahem* It's a close call, since the L2 cache on the Celeron runs at
500MHz, and the L2 cache on the P2 runs at 225MHz. But the L2 is SMALLER on
the Celeron.

So there's a few benchmarks that sit completely in the Celeron's
cache and will outrun the P2(and a few apps - when the Celeron came out, it
would ease right by a P2 of the same raw clock in AutoCAD).

Just for completeness. I'll add that I'd go for the P2 myself for
SuSE.

RwP

 

[sbb78247]

Howdy!



*ahem* It's a close call, since the L2 cache on the Celeron runs
at
500MHz, and the L2 cache on the P2 runs at 225MHz. But the L2 is SMALLER
on
the Celeron.

So there's a few benchmarks that sit completely in the Celeron's
cache and will outrun the P2(and a few apps - when the Celeron came out,
it
would ease right by a P2 of the same raw clock in AutoCAD).

Just for completeness. I'll add that I'd go for the P2 myself for
SuSE.

RwP

throw both of the ****ers in the trash and call it a day. neither is worth
a **** for anything other that email, word, and browsing the web
reeeeeeally slow.