Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Does it surprise you that P2 300Mhz is very good?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 27, 2002 3:21:27 AM

I have used 4 years Pentium II 300Mhz from DELL since 1998.
I upgraded RAM to 292MB.

I run Windows 2000 Advanced Server, IIS, SQL Server 2000, Visual Studio 6, Norton Antivirus, and so on.

The system runs fast and reliable and I have no problem using it.

Does it surprise you that Pentium II 300Mhz is this good?


The only concern is Visual Studio.NET requires P3 450Mhz and recommend P3 600Mhz. I haven't run it yet.

More about : surprise 300mhz good

January 27, 2002 3:44:41 AM

i am writting this post on a P3 Mobile 300 Mhz dell laptop... from 98... it was a damn expensive laptop too... i have not had any CPU speed problems, in fact i have never seen the CPU at 100% for more than a couple seconds save with UD Agent and SETI... only the hard drive and (96 MB) some low memory problems.. run win2k... lots of MS office apps... so no, not surprised... i wonder how much a memory upgrade for this thing would cost (inspiron 7000, if anyone knows such a thing)

:wink: Engineering is the science of making life simple, by making it more complicated.
January 27, 2002 4:07:01 AM

i was surprised how well it did in benchmarks compared to the Pentium3

the P2 366 is about the same speed as a P3 500mhz and a Celeron 700mhz

Windows has started.
Would you like to play another game?
Related resources
January 27, 2002 4:14:21 AM

WTF? please give me a link to this benchmark you are talking about.

<font color=purple><b>Let us respect each other, so we can all be friends.</b> :wink: </font color=purple>
January 27, 2002 4:17:15 AM

i'll look for that link. it showed that P2 366 was about the same speed as P3 500, a second benchmark showed that P3 500 was almost as good as Celeron 700

from that i deducted that P3 366 ~ Celeron 700
brb with that link...

Windows has started.
Would you like to play another game?
January 27, 2002 4:27:49 AM

i can't find that link for the P2 vs P3 but i found a few other which say the P3 is way better. that benchmark i based my statement on is now deemed retarded so i withdraw my statement that P2 ~ P3 speed.
as a side note i found this interesting benchmark showing the difference that cache makes on the celeron:
<A HREF="http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/p3vc2/page2.asp" target="_new">P3 vs Celeron cache with and without cache</A>
notice how they are identical if they both have no cache memory


Windows has started.
Would you like to play another game?<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Chooco on 01/27/02 01:31 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 27, 2002 4:47:28 AM

My P2-266@300 runs with Advanced Server and serves all my house and dev needs very well, nice rig, heh, never even thought about upgrading it to something faster.

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
January 27, 2002 5:00:23 AM

i thiiiiink so...
one of the very last p2's with the 66mhz bus speed... round the time the p2 100mhz fsb 250,400 & 450 came out

and yes, i can believe a 300 is good. i had one... slow, but with 256mb of ram it was reasomably reliable, good for cruizing the net, playin moozic and writin stuff. just dont try anything excessive

The lack of thermal protection on Athlon's is cunning way to stop morons from using AMD. :) 
January 27, 2002 5:09:51 AM

I'm wondering the same damn thing. I have seen the PII 333, PII 350, PII 400, but PII 366? Never heard of it, and pricewatch sure doesn't sell them.

There's a Celeron 366 though...

<font color=red>God</font color=red> <font color=blue>Bless</font color=blue> <font color=red>America!</font color=red>
January 27, 2002 5:11:23 AM

never mind, they sold it with laptops, my bad...

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
January 27, 2002 5:14:31 AM

Woh, this thread got really weird with everyone changing their posts.

<font color=red>God</font color=red> <font color=blue>Bless</font color=blue> <font color=red>America!</font color=red>
January 27, 2002 5:50:57 AM

not me!

The lack of thermal protection on Athlon's is cunning way to stop morons from using AMD. :) 
January 27, 2002 7:34:09 AM

not me...(anymore at least;)

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
January 27, 2002 7:55:22 AM

I have a PII 300 with an SE440BX motherboard laying around ... anyone want it? I mean, since it's so great and all ...

<i>There are two theories on arguing with women. Neither one works.</i>
January 27, 2002 9:56:57 AM

could you send it to me, please? i have poor kids asking for something to play kids' games with, would be a good find...

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
January 27, 2002 10:40:39 AM

Sure, it's not doing me any good here. Send me a PM and we can arrange it.

<i>I made you look. But I can't make you see.</i>
January 27, 2002 11:10:48 AM

my friend has a Hewlett Packard P2 366, it WAY faster than my Celeron 500.
his has integrated 8mb video card and 64mb ram, my Celeron has 32mb Radeon video card with 384mb ram, same operating system but his gets 5 more FPS in Half-Life than mine does at the same resolution and video setup (OpenGL)

Windows has started.
Would you like to play another game?
January 27, 2002 1:03:20 PM

I too agree, P2s were the best.
Somehow the added cache of 512 really helps. I notice many times my comp had some damn fast times compared to others, even my AXP 1600 sometimes wouldn't open faster than it!!
It also had the great i440BX chipset (jealous?). It's now gone to scrap sold at a PC shop... but I'll never forget the moments it brought me...

--
The other day I heard an explosion from the other side of town.... It was a 486 booting up...
January 27, 2002 3:43:27 PM

Yep. My last system was a PII 300 Klamath. It beat my Dad's AMD 800 Athlon in some apps.

When caching especially, it was awesome.

Its about time PIIIs had 512k of cache in them. They really make a difference.

:cool: <b><font color=blue>The Cisco Kid</font color=blue></b> :cool:
January 27, 2002 6:10:44 PM

haaaaaaaaaaah faster than a athlon xp1600+ huh?

<font color=purple><b>Let us respect each other, so we can all be friends.</b> :wink: </font color=purple>
January 27, 2002 6:13:20 PM

well sure, but thats no way to compare them. you have to give them both the same stuff. well other than the mobo.

<font color=purple><b>Let us respect each other, so we can all be friends.</b> :wink: </font color=purple>
January 28, 2002 10:32:04 AM

Still, there was something in them that made them do wonders at odd times. But in most new apps the new generation beats them hands down, in games included....
But I will never forget this P2 350...

--
The other day I heard an explosion from the other side of town.... It was a 486 booting up...
January 28, 2002 4:44:33 PM

No, we have two Pentium 133Mhz running here at work and they run W98SE and Word97 pretty okay. Don't try to launch powerpoint though :) 

The funny thing about THG is that you kinda forget what it is you need to do and concern yourself more with the hardware. "Heck, I don't actually _use_ my AMD setup, I just tinker and run 3D Mark."

Then when I want to run real aps I use my dual PIII setup. Who cares about MPEG4 encoding anyway? Try running Photoshop6, Coreldraw10, and 3+ Office aps with 30Mb .TIFF images and you realise why you need PIII +RAM
January 28, 2002 6:08:03 PM

reliability and speed with general apps isnt the problem, people wanting fast gaming machines and rendering etc... its what we use 'em for nowadays, you dont need speed for mp3s or a server :) 

if in doubt blame microsoft...
January 30, 2002 2:46:06 AM

Hi,
Can I run my P2 300 at 333?
Theoretically it's possible I believe.
But I don't how to do.
I also heard from some time Intel prevented P2 from being Overclocked.
I wonder if My P2 can be overclocked.
and I'd like to try OC. This is my only machine and cant afford new machine, I hope it doesn't crash my machine.

Do I need a new stronger fan if I Overclock P2 300 to 333?

If it crashes in the procedure of OC, will it damage only CPU or does it damage motherboard too?


Thank you very much.
January 30, 2002 4:40:29 AM

If its a 66MHz FSB x 4.5 multiplyer you can set it to 4.5 x 75MHz giving you 337MHz. It will work or it won't. I found it worked for me. I also tried it at 4.5 x 83.3MHz = 375MHz, but things started going a bit haywire.

I don't think the heat will be a problem, in so much as the mobo and cards ability to handle it.

:cool: <b><font color=blue>The Cisco Kid</font color=blue></b> :cool:
!