Which is faster? Celeron 266 @ 400 (100fsb) or Celeron 400@400 (66fsb)

[Herkulese]

I am building a utility system from parts that I have laying about.
MoBo - Abit BH6
Sound - Ensonic
Video - TNT(1) 16mb
Hard Drive - Samsung 6.4gb

I have a Celeron 266 that has been running on another BH6 at 400 for 2 years.
I also have a Celeron 400 that the previous owner says he never was able to OC.
I do not know if he ever upped the voltage or not.

If I can run the 400 at 600, I will. But if it will only run at 400 (6x66), would I be better off using the 266 at 400 (4x100) given the lack of L2 cache?

 

[smp]

I'm not too familiar with the Celerons.. is there a difference then, in the L2 cache between the two? Does the 400 have more?
If they are the same though, the 266 @ 400 for sure, just because of the bandwidth..
but again.. I'm not the authority on Celerons..

 

[Killrose]

The lack of L2 cache is the killer. Easy enough to swap them and check benchmarks, and that's what i'd do. Maybe the 400 will do 75MHz?

 

[Netopia]

Because of the lack of L2 cache on the original Celerons, I'd pick the 400 @ about 450 on a 75MHz bus. What you will lose in memory speed you will more than make up for by the fact that you will be accessing main memory much, much less often.

Joe

 

[Rand]

Again, the lack of L2 on the 266 is the killer. That crushed the original Celeries performance. I'd take the 400/66 w/128K L2 over the 400/100 w/no L2.

 

[Herkulese]

Thanks guys,

I will stick with the 400 with L2 cache @ 66fsb.

 

[RickH]

Go with the C400, even at 66MHz it's much better. The 266@400 is about the same as a C300A@300 in most apps. The 266 started all the Celeron overclocking craze, but it's very dated now. I have a few 266s if you are need another. Ha Ha. R.