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
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram