Question on laptop processor, 0.13 micron technology

I was over at a friend's place trying to troubleshoot some problems with a computer. Couldn't fix the problem, but they showed me a laptop they had. The laptop, running XP, was running at a crawl due to an svchost taking up huge amounts of system resources, maxing out the processor and using anywhere between 30-80 megabytes of memory.

The thing that got me was how they mentioned they paid almost $400 for it, buying it from someone who paid $600 and had just bought it from Best Buy, and it was supposedly a 2006 model Hewlett-Packard. There's no way that this could be true, since the technology on the processor was 13 micron, and it barely broke 1ghz. It's a Celeron, 133 bus speed, 8x multiplier.

What I'm wondering is, how long ago would something like that would have been available at the retail level, brand new?
17 answers Last reply
More about question laptop processor micron technology
  1. 13mu .... only tualatin Celerons were 13micron and they're 7-year-old tech. Holy crap!!! 8O
  2. They that thing is ancient. Its almost old enough to be respected, like an ATI Rage 128, its so old its now cool.
  3. Yeah, didn't think it was all that recent. Thanks for the information.
  4. To the OP: I believe you mean .13 micron. 13 micron is huge.

    Quote:
    13mu .... only tualatin Celerons were 13micron and they're 7-year-old tech. Holy crap!!! 8O

    a Tualatin Celeron never ran at 133MHz though.

    If it wasn't for the 133MHz bus, a .13 micron Celeron could easily be a Banias core.
  5. Quote:
    They that thing is ancient. Its almost old enough to be respected, like an ATI Rage 128, its so old its now cool.


    The only Celeron that deserves much respecting was the second Pentium II (Mendocino) Celeron 300A with 128 KB L2 cache, which would generally overclock to 450 MHz or so. The other Mendocino Celerons were decent, but the 300A was the cheapest and thus the cheap-chip OCer's choice, like the Opteron 165 and the Core 2 Duo E4300. At best, the other Celerons have been decent, but many weren't that good.

    1. Original PII Covington Celeron (no L2, 266-300 MHz, 66 MHz FSB): sucked

    2. Pentium 2 Mendocino Celeron (128KB L2, 300-533 MHz, 66 MHz FSB): 300A, see above, 333-400 were very good, 433-533 were bus-choked.

    3. Pentium 3 Coppermine Celeron (128KB L2, 533-766 MHz, 66 MHz FSB): Overall, it sucked. Very FSB-choked but overclocked decently and performed okay with an FSB bump.

    4. Pentium 3 Coppermine Celeron (128KB L2, 800-1100 MHz, 100 MHz FSB): okay but generally inferior to the AMD Duron.

    5. Pentium 3 Tualatin Celeron (256KB L2, 1100-1400 MHz, 100 MHz FSB): Decent chip, this is what the OP has and it was known for its overclocking.

    6. Pentium 4 Williamette Celeron (128KB L2, 1.7 and 1.8 GHz, 400 MHz FSB): Poor performer overall.

    7. Pentium 4 Northwood Celeron (128KB L2, 1.8-2.8 GHz, 400 MHz FSB): Poor performer again, about as fast as the Willy Celeron.

    8. Pentium 4 Northwood Mobile Celeron (256KB L2, 1.4-2.5 GHz, 400 FSB): Better than the desktop 128KB L2 Celeron and ehh overall.

    9. Pentium M Banias Celeron-M (512KB L2, 1.2-1.5 GHz, 400 FSB): Decent chip, but it lacks SpeedStep.

    10. Pentium M Dothan Celeron-M (1MB L2, 1.3-1.7 GHz, 400 FSB): Decent chip, but it lacks SpeedStep.

    11. Pentium 4 Prescott Celeron D (256KB L2, 2.1-3.3 GHz, 533 FSB): Generally poor performance, but the later units were decent overclockers.

    12. Pentium 4 Cedar Mill Celeron D (512KB L2, 3.06-3.6 GHz, 533 FSB): Better performance than Prescott Celerons, also decent overclockers.

    13. Pentium M Yonah Celeron-M (1MB L2, 1.47-2.0 GHz, 533 FSB): Decent chips, but no SpeedStep.

    14. Pentium M Merom Celeron-M (1MB L2, 1.50 GHz, 533 FSB): Decent CPU, but again lacks SpeedStep.
  6. You forgot the Sheltons
  7. Tualatins rocked. A 1.4Ghz PIII-S would show a 1.4Ghz Willamette P4 the door in most benchies, and even higher clocked ones. I'm not sure offhand how well they OCed, though. Makes me wonder what they could have done on 90nm...
  8. Quote:
    If it wasn't for the 133MHz bus, a .13 micron Celeron could easily be a Banias core.


    .13 microns, that's it, thanks.
  9. We all have fond memories of chips of yesteryear. What's ironic though, is that the Celeron D 310 was more powerful than the 1.4GHz PIII-S. Amazing that in just 3 years time, the computional power of the PIII-s could be had in the lowest entry level chip in the lineup.
  10. Quote:
    5. Pentium 3 Tualatin Celeron (256KB L2, 1100-1400 MHz, 100 MHz FSB): Decent chip, this is what the OP has and it was known for its overclocking.


    The chip was running at 1066 mhz, and was at 133 mhz front side bus. Couldn't be this chip unless you had a typo.

    What they have is one of these:
    http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL643
    http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL64M

    I was mostly just wondering how long ago they would have been in low-end to mainstream laptops, preferably known when they were in Hewlett-Packard laptops.
  11. I did a litte digging, and I stand corrected. M25 was right. It is indeed a Tualatin-based Mobile Celeron . Mobile Celerons based on the tualatin core could be either 100fsb or 133fsb. I guess the only distinction between a Tualton Celeron and a Tualatin PIII in mobile terms would be the 256kb L2 cache vs 512kb, and the lack of speed step. For desktop processors, all Celeron Tualatins were 100fsb. Desktop PIII Tualatins could have either 256kb or 512kb of L2 cache (the 512kb versions were typically noted with an "S", for server) and were all 133MHz. Mobile Tualatin PIIIs were all 512kb L2 cache and 133MHz.
  12. I might have gotten a chance to see what the rest of the processor information was, but the thing was running just too slow for me to handle.
  13. Quote:
    You forgot the Sheltons


    From what I read, they were Pentium Ms with no L2 and were a package deal with a specific Intel motherboard. Intel didn't sell it here in the U.S., so I have heard nothing about it until I looked it up.

    My guess is with no L2, performance was poor.
  14. A 1066 MHz 133 FSB Tualatin Celeron with 256KB L2 should have been at least tolerable to use. I'd think it would perform not too much differently than the ~1GHz LV/ULV Pentium Ms and Core/Core Duo chips. Since it does not have SpeedStep, it's actually a fair bit faster than my notebook's 2.2 GHz P4-M when I run it on battery and lock the clock speed down to 1.2 GHz.

    Well, it would be very slow if it didn't have enough RAM or you were trying to run Vista on it. There could be a Core 2 Quad clocked at 3.33 GHz in that notebook but if it had 256MB RAM and Vista, it would be dog-slow.
  15. Quote:
    I did a litte digging, and I stand corrected. M25 was right. It is indeed a Tualatin-based Mobile Celeron . Mobile Celerons based on the tualatin core could be either 100fsb or 133fsb. I guess the only distinction between a Tualton Celeron and a Tualatin PIII in mobile terms would be the 256kb L2 cache vs 512kb, and the lack of speed step. For desktop processors, all Celeron Tualatins were 100fsb. Desktop PIII Tualatins could have either 256kb or 512kb of L2 cache (the 512kb versions were typically noted with an "S", for server) and were all 133MHz. Mobile Tualatin PIIIs were all 512kb L2 cache and 133MHz.

    Yes, Intel made these mobile Tualatins after the desktop CPUs had transited to P4; that's why they could afford to grant a Celeron with a 133MHz fsb. This was an intermediate step till the first Pentium Ms (Banias) came out.
  16. It's running XP, and this thread was to help me determine if the person who sold it to them was full of it, which I'm thinking they were.

    XP on 256 megs of RAM is tolerable, is a system executable doesn't decide to constantly go off on a tangent, absorbed half the RAM by itself and constantly used up to or nearly a 100% of CPU resources.
  17. It depends on what else other than XP is running. XP itself will do okay on 128 MB but you can't really run anything else. If all you did was surf the Net, then 256MB should be enough. I ran XP on 512MB RAM and it was enough when I first got the machine, but as the programs I used got more bloated with newer versions, the RAM demands slowly crept up there to the point that 512MB wasn't cutting it. 1GB is usually enough to run XP and modern (bloatware) apps decently, 2GB is suggested for people who want to run intensive applications.

    Other OSes differ a bit in their RAM usage habits. OS X really, really likes to have 1GB or so RAM (256MB is painful, 512MB tolerable) and 32-bit Linux will run fine with 256MB RAM and very nicely with 512MB RAM. There is really no boost in speed for having more than 512MB RAM unless you're doing certain RAM-intensive multithreaded applications like compiling a bunch of C++ code on a 2-core+ box. Most 64-bit Linux distributions run pretty poorly on 256MB RAM and do much better on 512MB, even better with 1GB. Vista 64-bit (haven't used 32-bit) needs 1GB to even squeak by. It does much better on 2GB and better yet on 4GB.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Laptops Processors