Celeron 500 vs. Pentium II 350

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Could anyone tell me which of the two , Celeron 500, and a Pentium II
350 is faster in real terms. Also was the Celeron 500 closer to a
Pentium I or II family.

Thanks in Advance
8 answers Last reply
More about celeron pentium
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:19:48 -0400, Franz
    <linux1959@netscape.net> wrote:

    >Could anyone tell me which of the two , Celeron 500, and a Pentium II
    >350 is faster in real terms. Also was the Celeron 500 closer to a
    >Pentium I or II family.
    >
    >Thanks in Advance


    Celeron 500 is closer to Pentium 2 or Pentium 3 family,
    depending on whether it's from the mendocino (brown w/nickel
    heat-spreader) or coppermine (green with small blue flipchip
    core) family. The coppermine had the advantage of SSE
    support which helps a lot on a chip that slow, when the app
    running also supports SSE.

    It is significantly faster than P2-350 in "most" uses but
    the P2-350 may be faster at things very dependant on larger
    L2 cache, like SETI, or better for a system relying on
    integrated video using a shared system memory frame buffer,
    due to the P2-350 allowing higher memory bus. Then again
    we may be splitting hairs... even though on average the
    Celeron might be closer to a theoretical 450MHz P2, either
    way they're both in the same ballpark.
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    Franz wrote:
    > Could anyone tell me which of the two , Celeron 500, and a Pentium II
    > 350 is faster in real terms. Also was the Celeron 500 closer to a
    > Pentium I or II family.
    >
    > Thanks in Advance

    I don't know that this site has a direct answer to your specific
    question, but it has lots of useful data.

    http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/cpu_charts-32.html#comparison_table
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    Franz wrote:

    > Could anyone tell me which of the two , Celeron 500, and a Pentium II
    > 350 is faster in real terms. Also was the Celeron 500 closer to a
    > Pentium I or II family.

    The Slot-1, PPGA, and FC-PGA Celerons, along with the Pentium Pro, Pentium
    II, and Pentium III, are in the P6 family, which began with the Pentium Pro
    (full speed cache on ceramic chip carrier in socket 8). The P-II was a less
    expensive Pentium Pro with half speed 512k cache chips mounted in a small
    PCB: the Slot-1 cartridge. SSE instructions were added with the P-III
    designation. 'Coppermine' designates when the process went to .18 micron,
    packaging went to 'flip-chip' FC-PGA, and the cache went to full speed 256K
    on-die, reminiscent of the Pentium Pro, for the P-IIIs. The Celeron also
    got SSE, and the FC-PGA package, at that time, but the cache remained 128k.

    Both P-II and Celeron began on the 66 Mhz FSB, like the Pentium Pro. P-II
    moved to 100 MHz FSB with the P-II 350 and Celeron moved to 100 Mhz FSB
    with the 800. P-II also moved into the 133 MHz FSB realm with the P-III 533
    but both 100 MHz and 133 Mhz FSB versions coexisted across the speed line.

    There was a brief .13 micron FCPGA2 'tualatin' flurry at the end of the P6
    life span pushing speeds to 1.4 GHz: P-IIIs, 'server' version with larger
    cache, on 133 Mhz FSB and Celerons with 256K cache and 100 MHz FSB ala the
    earlier coppermine P-III.

    So, the difference between a P-II and the PPGA Celerons is the P-II had
    half speed 512k cache chips vs the Celeron's full speed, on-die, 128K
    cache. And P-IIs from 350Mhz up were 100 Mhz FSB while the PPGA Celerons
    stayed at 66 Mhz (coppermine Celerons went to 100 Mhz FSB in the 800MHz,
    and up, models)

    A Celeron 500 'processor' is faster than the P-II 350 but memory intensive
    tasks would suffer from the 66 Mhz FSB vs the P-II 350's 100 MHz FSB. For
    'typical' apps, though, the FSB wouldn't make more than a 5 to 10% difference.

    >
    > Thanks in Advance
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    Franz wrote:

    > Could anyone tell me which of the two , Celeron 500, and a Pentium II
    > 350 is faster in real terms. Also was the Celeron 500 closer to a
    > Pentium I or II family.
    >
    > Thanks in Advance
    Both are junk and not worth messign with. Buy a 3 gig P4 or an Athlon
    64 processor.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    Howdy!

    "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
    news:ephtm0tf7uomc7pu3jps190gj032j16ud0@4ax.com...
    > On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:19:48 -0400, Franz
    > <linux1959@netscape.net> wrote:
    >
    > >Could anyone tell me which of the two , Celeron 500, and a Pentium II
    > >350 is faster in real terms. Also was the Celeron 500 closer to a
    > >Pentium I or II family.
    > >
    > >Thanks in Advance
    >
    >
    > Celeron 500 is closer to Pentium 2 or Pentium 3 family,
    > depending on whether it's from the mendocino (brown w/nickel
    > heat-spreader) or coppermine (green with small blue flipchip
    > core) family. The coppermine had the advantage of SSE
    > support which helps a lot on a chip that slow, when the app
    > running also supports SSE.

    Err - Coppermine Celerons weren't until the 533A - the 533 was
    Medocino.

    So a 500 won't be a Coppermine, they never made them.

    It MIGHT be a Katmai - or whatever the pre-coppermine P3s were.

    RwP
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    "Last Boy Scout" <eggbtr@charter.net> wrote in message
    news:10n14u46gudtk95@corp.supernews.com...
    > Franz wrote:
    >
    > > Could anyone tell me which of the two , Celeron 500, and a Pentium II
    > > 350 is faster in real terms. Also was the Celeron 500 closer to a
    > > Pentium I or II family.
    > >
    > > Thanks in Advance
    > Both are junk and not worth messign with. Buy a 3 gig P4 or an Athlon
    > 64 processor.

    I use a P3 450 for internet access, word processing, printing/scanning and
    etc. A P2 300 with tv card in the basement for entertainment, database
    lookup and viewing scanned manuals from the P3 sytem. Keeps from having to
    use non productive software like anti-virus on my P4 system that I use for
    video. Use the right tool for the job.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 17:38:38 -0500, "Ralph Wade Phillips"
    <ralphp@techie.com> wrote:

    >Howdy!
    >
    >"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
    >news:ephtm0tf7uomc7pu3jps190gj032j16ud0@4ax.com...
    >> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:19:48 -0400, Franz
    >> <linux1959@netscape.net> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Could anyone tell me which of the two , Celeron 500, and a Pentium II
    >> >350 is faster in real terms. Also was the Celeron 500 closer to a
    >> >Pentium I or II family.
    >> >
    >> >Thanks in Advance
    >>
    >>
    >> Celeron 500 is closer to Pentium 2 or Pentium 3 family,
    >> depending on whether it's from the mendocino (brown w/nickel
    >> heat-spreader) or coppermine (green with small blue flipchip
    >> core) family. The coppermine had the advantage of SSE
    >> support which helps a lot on a chip that slow, when the app
    >> running also supports SSE.
    >
    > Err - Coppermine Celerons weren't until the 533A - the 533 was
    >Medocino.
    >
    > So a 500 won't be a Coppermine, they never made them.
    >
    > It MIGHT be a Katmai - or whatever the pre-coppermine P3s were.
    >
    > RwP
    >

    No, Mendocine Celerons did go up to 533MHz but there was
    overlap, Coppermine Celerons started at 500MHz, "500A".
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    Last Boy Scout wrote:

    > Franz wrote:
    >
    >> Could anyone tell me which of the two , Celeron 500, and a Pentium II
    >> 350 is faster in real terms. Also was the Celeron 500 closer to a
    >> Pentium I or II family.
    >>
    >> Thanks in Advance
    >
    > Both are junk and not worth messign with. Buy a 3 gig P4 or an Athlon
    > 64 processor.

    I still use a PII 350 @ 466 MHz (FSB 133) with 512 MB RAM PC133. It's
    fine for googling for solutions to probs with my Athlon (XP, 64) and
    P4 machines...

    Roy
Ask a new question

Read More

Homebuilt Celeron Pentium Systems