The Celeron 300A (the chip I purchased) has 128 K of Level 2 cache sitting
directly on the chip itself.  The same is true with the 333 MHz version
which isn't as popular because of a lower chance of successful
overclocking.  This means that not only can you easily and directly cool
the cache, but even though it's only 1/4 of the size as that of a Pentium
II, it's running at the core processor speed, twice as fast as a Pentium II.

Here's Tom Pabst's take  - The on die cache makes the Celeron 300A
equivalent to it's Pentium II cousin. (See link)

http://www.tomshardware.com/releases/98q3/980824/indexa.html

He mentions that some applications will benefit from the larger cache and
some will benefit from the faster cache so it's application specific.  In
my case, the primary high end application where I need speed is gaming, and
it seems that the Celeron 300A does a great job in this area (a highly math
and floating point unit demanding application).  The key to the K6-2 in
games is support of 3D Now and from what I've heard it performs fabulously
for the price.  But in games where 3D Now is not implemented the K6-2 lags
behind its Intel competitors.  The K6-2 does hold up well, however, when
comparisons are made in business applications, often performing as well as
or better than the Pentium II 333 at the same clock speed.  I was
considering the K6-2 when I made my decision but the very poor performance
with my chosen video card (NVidia TNT based) along with rumors of
compatibility problems with the Super 7 chipsets pushed me toward the
Celeron.  As a very BIG bonus, I also have the 440 BX chipset on my
motherboard so in a year or two I can save up some cash and upgrade to the
new Katamai 500 MHz processor (According to Dec. issue of Maximum PC).

Below is actually a review of the Riva TNT but it offers a gaming
comparison between the PII 400 / Celeron 300A / and the K62 -300.  The
Celeron 300A is about equivalent to the K62 at really high frame rates but
is significantly faster at lower (i.e. 800 x 600) resolutions. The low
performance at the high end could also be a limitation of the video card
because the PII 400 falters to nearly the same level.  In all fairness I
doubt that he used the 3D Now  optimization that exists for the Quake II
install.

http://www.tomshardware.com/releases/98q4/981007/index5b.html

Below is a favorable review from Anandtech along with an explanation of the
Celeron history.

http://www.anandtech.com/reviews/processors/intel-celeron-300a/index.html

Or jump to his comparison.  Note that the Celeron 300A outperforms the
Pentium II 300 a little in business applications all else being equal.
(Price comparison, 300A about $120, PII 300 about $230).  Also note that
when the 300A is overclocked to 450 MHz it runs as well as the Pentium II
450 MHz and from many reports just as stable.  (The price of a 300 A, about
$120.  The price of a Pentium 450, about $500)  WOW!!!!!

http://www.anandtech.com/reviews/processors/intel-celeron-300a/index4.html

Here's his assessment of the K6-2 - it's very long.  The K6-2 does very
well against the Pentium II.

http://www.anandtech.com/reviews/processors/amdk6-2/index.html

So all in all as consumers we seem to have a very good selection of chips
from which to choose.  But it seems that some research and a knowledge of
your applications is a must before you can make the right decision.
Because of that I think it's unfair and inaccurate to make such sweeping
generalizations about one chip or the other.

Regards,

Bill Nussbaumer



At 07:44 PM 12/14/98 +0500, you wrote:
>
>A Celleron CPU?  Yep, you made a mistake.  You got a chip that performs
>worse than Intel's regular Pentium 233 with no cache, or less cache, and a
>worse math unit than a regular Pentium II that wouldn't have cost you much
>if any more.  You would have done far better to have bought the even cheaper
>AMD K6 CPU in a clock speed equal to or faster than 300MHz.  Lose that
>Celleron and get a real CPU.  Intel ought to be ashamed for pushing that
>garbage on people and get them to believe how great it is based on their
>overblown reputation.  Check out all the PC magazines from about March of
>1998 and later to see all the nasty things they have to saya about the
>Celleron.
>
>Reply to: [log in to unmask]
>Brent Reynolds, Atlanta, GA  USA
>
>All computers wait at the same speed.
>
>Net-Tamer V 1.11.2 - Registered
>

            PCBUILD maintains many useful files for download
              on our web site - visit our download page at:
                     http://nospin.com/pc/files.html