Dual Tualatin Celerons

[egeekial]

I have tried googling and have not come up with much of anything, so I'm asking here...
Do the Tualatin Celerons work in SMP?

 

[Mik3y]

no it wouldnt. first off, y would u want to run celerons in smp? they are the worst processors money can buy, and its always been like that. running duel celerons at 2.8Ghz (if possible) would be the equivalent of probably an xp 2500. my athlon xp 1800+ multi-tasks FAR better hten even my uncle's 2.4GHz celeron. even an obsolete duron 1.8 matches up wtih the celeron 2.8GHz.

 

[Illissius]

Dude. Read. Tualatin. Meaning, Pentium 3. Meaning, nearly as fast as an Athlon.

 

[TStep]

As far as I can remember for the tuallies:

Celerons = 256k L2 / 100fsb = no SMP
PIII tuallies = 512k L2 / 133fsb = yes SMP

Though I skipped this generation and never tried.

 

[LTC8K6]

The Celerons of the Pentium 3 variety were good chips, and the Tualatin variety were excellent. You really can't just say a blanket "Celeron's suck and always have!". You can't even generalize about the P4 celerons now that the Prescott version is out.

The Williamette Celeron and the Northwood Celeron were the true dogs.

All that aside, Celeron = no SMP.

 

[Canterwood]

I got a Celeron Tualatin 1100mhz running @ 1466mhz 133fsb in a machine at home.

Got it free from the scrap at work with 1 pin missing.

Being going strong for over a year!!

The Tualatin's were the best P3 core there was. Outclassing the early P4's as I remember.

 

[CKTurbo128]

I remember hearing that the Tualatin Celerons do not have SMP capabilities; only their Pentium III counterparts do.

Originally posted by: Mik3y
no it wouldnt. first off, y would u want to run celerons in smp? they are the worst processors money can buy, and its always been like that. running duel celerons at 2.8Ghz (if possible) would be the equivalent of probably an xp 2500. my athlon xp 1800+ multi-tasks FAR better hten even my uncle's 2.4GHz celeron. even an obsolete duron 1.8 matches up wtih the celeron 2.8GHz.

Only the Pentium 4, Willamette/Northwood-based Celerons sucked. The Pentium III, Tualatin-based Celerons were awesome. They performed very close to their PIII counterparts. The Tualatin Celeron even beat out some of the early P4s. Here is a small review that compares the performance between a Tualatin Celeron 1.4 GHz and a Willamette Pentium 4 1.3 GHz:

http://www.duhvoodooman.com/powrleap/iP3TvsP4/iP3TvsP4.htm

What I find funny about this small review is that a PC with PC100 SDRAM (manufactured in '98) upgraded to a Tualatin Celeron manages to edge out a PC with PC800 RDRAM (manufactured in '01).

 

[Zap]

I love those Tualatin Celerons. They rocked!!! The history of the Celeron CPU has had high and low points.

LOW
Original Celeron 266/300MHz with no L2 cache - decent overclocker but weak performance.

HIGH
Celeron 300a-533 with 128k full speed L2 cache - lower speed grades had some awesome overclockers and full speed cache meant great performance versus P2/P3 SECC/SECC2 with ½ speed 512k cache.

MEDIUM
Celeron 533a-1.1 - Coppermine version had some awesome overclockers. I've had a 533a that did 800 at default voltage. Few friends had 566@850. I had a few 800@1066. One friend had a 900@1200. Sure, a bit weak versus P3, but a good bang for the buck (like the slut down the street).

HIGH
Celeron 1.0a-1.4 with 256k cache - Tualatins were awesome. The slower ones, again, were the better overclockers. They had the same amount of cache as the regular P3 chips, only bested by the "server" P3 chips with 512k cache. Basically, if the P4 wasn't around at so much higher clock speeds (let alone AMD chips), the Tualatin Celeron would have almost been the chip of choice.

LOW
Celeron 1.7-1.8 - These Willamette chips could overclock a bit, but were considered pretty weak in performance. Kinda like the original no-cache chips.

MEDIUM-LOW
Celeron 2.0-2.8 - The Northwood version is considered pretty weak, but the lower clock ones could overclock like champs. This made the "not as bad as" the Willamette chips.

MEDIUM ???
Celeron D - What will the Prescott version bring us? I've already heard that it doesn't suffer as much performance deficit versus P4 Prescott as the Northwood Celeron suffered against the P4 Northwood. It has already been shown to overclock decent. Kinda remeniscent of the Coppermine Celeron versus P3. It is slower enough that it doesn't cut into the sales of the higher end chip, yet it has just enough oomph to not be totally outclassed.

 

[dheffer]

the tualatin celes are definitely decent - better than the willamette p4s and other random crap

 

[gwag]

I believe the answer is no too.

 

[Yanagi]

I had a coppermine celeron a few years back. I ran that baby 600@1040 something stable. God I miss it.. Oh well, in January my next upgrade is coming. so I'll just have to see if I'm as lucky as i was then

 

[hytek369]

return of the celery

 

[Alkaline5]

Thanks for the recap, Zap. I enjoyed reading that.