Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Celeron 500 vs. Pentium II 350

Last response: in Systems
Share
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
October 14, 2004 5:19:48 PM

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
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
October 14, 2004 10:43:34 PM

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.
October 14, 2004 11:22:07 PM

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...
Related resources
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
October 15, 2004 4:10:22 AM

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
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
October 16, 2004 2:24:29 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
October 16, 2004 9:38:38 PM

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
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
October 16, 2004 11:19:27 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
October 17, 2004 3:18:37 AM

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".
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
November 3, 2004 4:27:18 AM

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
!