How does an 800Mhz celeron compare to lower speed Pentium ..

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

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
9 answers Last reply
More about 800mhz celeron compare lower speed pentium
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Ian Roberts" <sorry@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
    news:df2hdo$rfo$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
    > 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
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Ian Roberts wrote:
    > "Ian Roberts" <sorry@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
    > news:df2hdo$rfo$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
    >
    >>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
    >
    >

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

    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" <sorry@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
    news:df2hdo$rfo$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
    > 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
    >
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "BruceM" <bruce@@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:4314ec9f$1@duster.adelaide.on.net...
    > You get a bit of an idea if you download SiSoft & do a CPU benchmark test
    > on your computer & then by clicking the other little down arrows, you can
    > compare yours to other types.
    > http://www.sisoftware.net/index.html?dir=dload&location=sware_dl_3264&langx=en&a=
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "Ian Roberts" <sorry@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
    > news:df2hdo$rfo$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
    >> 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
    >>
    >

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

    "" wrote:
    > 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?

    --
    Posted using the http://www.hardwareforumz.com interface, at author's request
    Articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards
    Topic URL: http://www.hardwareforumz.com/Home-Built-800Mhz-celeron-compare-lower-speed-Pentium-II-ftopict61351.html
    Visit Topic URL to contact author (reg. req'd). Report abuse: http://www.hardwareforumz.com/eform.php?p=310473
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Captin wrote:

    > "" wrote:
    > > 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.

    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.

    > 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?
    >
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "" wrote:
    > Captin wrote:
    >
    > > "" wrote:
    > > > 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.
    >
    > 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.
    >
    > > 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?
    > >

    > 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

    > 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?
    >

    --
    Posted using the http://www.hardwareforumz.com interface, at author's request
    Articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards
    Topic URL: http://www.hardwareforumz.com/Home-Built-800Mhz-celeron-compare-lower-speed-Pentium-II-ftopict61351.html
    Visit Topic URL to contact author (reg. req'd). Report abuse: http://www.hardwareforumz.com/eform.php?p=311017
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Captin wrote:
    > "" wrote:
    > > Captin wrote:


    >>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.

    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'.


    >>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?
    >>
    >
    >
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "" wrote:
    > Captin wrote:
    > > "" wrote:
    > > > Captin wrote:
    >
    >
    > >>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.
    >
    > 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'.
    >
    >
    > >>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?
    > >>
    > >
    > >

    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?

    --
    Posted using the http://www.hardwareforumz.com interface, at author's request
    Articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards
    Topic URL: http://www.hardwareforumz.com/Home-Built-800Mhz-celeron-compare-lower-speed-Pentium-II-ftopict61351.html
    Visit Topic URL to contact author (reg. req'd). Report abuse: http://www.hardwareforumz.com/eform.php?p=311089
Ask a new question

Read More

Homebuilt Pentium Celeron Systems