Assuming the primary application of this computer is for home or general
business use.  Basically the main reason to get a Celeron would be cost.
The Celeron is quite a bit less expensive than it's PII counterpart.   If
price is not an issue, by all means, go for the Pentuium II.  However, from
what I've heard, for the most part the Celeron performs nearly equivalently
to a PII at the same clock speed but for less money.  Be sure to get a
Celeron 300A or above because the 266 and 300 did not have any cache.  I
have a Celeron 300A in my system and love the performance.  With my TNT
2D/3D video card and 128MB RAM I can play all the latest games with full
textures and good frame rates (hardly ever a glitch), and I have no issues
in terms of performance with any other application either.  The cache on
the Celeron is 128K, while on the PII its 512K, however the cache on the
Celeron is running twice as fast.  From what I understand, based on
information at www.tomshardware.com, the smaller but faster cache will
actually benefit some applications while others will do better with the
larger but slower variety.

Bill Nussbaumer


At 03:34 PM 1/15/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Is there any reason I should not get a Celeron-based PC instead of a Pentium
>II.  What do I lose (I know the cache is smaller -- but what does that mean
>practically speaking?)
>Thank you.
>Ira Wallin

        PCBUILD only works if you contribute. Send your messages
             to be posted to: [log in to unmask]