Sender: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 15 Dec 1998 11:02:08 -0800 |
Reply-To: |
|
Content-type: |
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Content-transfer-encoding: |
7BIT |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Organization: |
General Magic |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On 14 Dec 98 at 19:44, Brent Reynolds 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.
The main difference between the Celeron 300 and 300a is that the
300a has onboard L2 cache. Not as much as a PII does, but on
the same wafer as the CPU and clocked at the speed of the CPU -- PII
has cache on separate chips at half CPU speed.
> 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.
Substantial numbers of people report that, when installed on a
board with adjustable CPU voltage, they can get about 450 MHz out of
most 300As, for less price than the K6-2/300; I believe the poster
expressed an intention to try this himself.
> 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.
The 300A wasn't released until about September.
David G
PCBUILD's List Owner's:
Bob Wright<[log in to unmask]>
Drew Dunn<[log in to unmask]>
|
|
|