You comparison is a little bit confusing.  If you are trying to decide
between the two, and money is not the determining factor, then of course the
PII 400 would be your choice over a Celeron 333.

A better comparison would probably be between the Pentium II 350 and the
Celeron 400, where the Celeron actually out-performs the Pentium II and at a
lower cost.  Note: this is a non-overclocked Celeron, so you don't have to
worry about any problems some people associate with overclocking - in fact
it would take an awful lot of work to successfully overclock a Celeron 400,
if it can even be done.  Also, the Celeron has excellent gaming performance.

A good article with plenty of nice graphs and benchmark results can be found
on Tom's Hardware Page (http://www.tomshardware.com).  The article, "CPU
Overview 1999," starts at
http://www5.tomshardware.com/releases/99q1/990114/index.html.

I personally have a Celeron 300A overclocked to 464MHz, and love it!  But, I
accept the risks I am taking by overclocking, and you should definitely do
your homework before attempting it.

Jeff McConnell

> -----Original Message-----
> From: PCBUILD - Personal Computer Hardware discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Wayne Ramlogan
> Sent: Monday, January 18, 1999 3:35 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [PCBUILD] Celeron or Ture PII
>
>
> Hello
>           I need some opinions should I go for a Celeron
> 333MHz or go for
> the PII 400MHZ? I  will be using this system mostly web
> design and some
> light graphics or games.

                         PCBUILD's List Owner's:
                      Bob Wright<[log in to unmask]>
                        Drew Dunn<[log in to unmask]>