🚀 go-pugleaf

Hi Satan,

The Celeron is NOT better than a PII - just a different combination of
cache architecture. Dependant of the specific applications that *you*
run - one will be better (for what you do) than the other one.

>From what I can determine (which might be wrong) - very generally
speaking, based on the *same* FSB and multiplier speeds, the
Celeron is often slightly better for programs that make a large
number of small cache hits (eg: Games).

But the Celeron is *way behind* the speed of a PII when operated as
Intel markets them - at 66MHz FSB for the Celeron and 100MHz FSB for
the (later) PII's and above.

The Celeron only becomes a good proposition (compared to a PII) if you
are willing to overclock them to a 100MHz FSB. Whilst this is very
commonly done, it's not how Intel markets them.

I would have bought a PII450, but $$ were a problem. An overclocked
300A gave me the best bang-for-buck by a large margin. Nothing could
come close to it for the $$'s - but it is definitely not the ultimate
CPU available.
--
John ( To reply, remove 's' from 'bigfoots' )
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Satan wrote in message <7b9lbv$tfu$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>Why the fuck did intel make celerons better than PIIs.
>Isn't buying a processor confusing enough.
>
>