Celeron vs Celeron II

[SuperCyrix]

I guess the most accurate way to compare this would be to use the 533 mhz parts for bost processor. Unfortunately, I haven't found any review of this so if somebody can provide me with a link, that be great.

With both running at 533mhz, 66mhz fsb, not overclocked, and with no SSE optimization for the CII, is the Celeron II slower than the original celeron?

 

[Kingofcomputer]

How come you think that c2 will be slower than c1?

 

[bacillus]

the celeron2 has its L2 cache on die & its running at full speed!

 

[AndyHui]

Clock for clock, and without the SSE advantage, the Coppermine Celeron II will still outperform the original Mendocino Celeron. Why? The pathway to the L2 cache is 256 bits wide, whereas the Mendocino has only a 64-bit wide pathway. Latencies on the L1 and L2 cache are much reduced as well.

 

[lifeguard1999]

I did see a review of this when the C2 first came out. There was a noticable difference between the 533 Celeron and the 533 Celeron 2. Not much of a difference (<5% if I remember correctly), but a difference none the less.

 

[SuperCyrix]

Yeah, I know the L2 cache of the CII is 256bit wide, but I remeber that when the CII first came out, there were some buzz of how the L2 cache of the CII were crippled in some way that made it worse then a PIII with 1/2 it's cache, that's why I wanted to see if the CII was at least as good as the original Celeron.

Does anybody here know if it's possible to run the CII on a LX motherboard?

 

[Instigator]

SuperCyrix,
I tried to run a Celeron II 633 on an Abit LX6 motherboard without success. I made sure to have the latest bios, but it still would not power up.

 

[Kingofcomputer]

>there were some buzz of how the L2 cache of the CII were crippled in some way that made it >worse then a PIII with 1/2 it's cache, that's why I wanted to see if the CII was at least as >good as the original Celeron.

C1 is also crippled in some way that made it worse than a P2 with no cache or only 128k cache.
C2 is sure better than C1.

 

[arod324]

Actually, the CeleronI performed as well , if not slightly better in certain benchmarks when overclocked to a 100mhz FSB (at equivilent clock speeds)..... for example... 300-450 or 366-500. This is because they had the lvl2 cache on die, and it ran at full speed, while the PII had MORE lvl2 cache, it ran at only 1/2 the cpu speed because it was on the cartridge.