what is a celeron?

[josemavicente]

is a celeron a slower PII?
sometimes when my software detects the computer, it either says PIII or PII or even sometimes jsut plain Celeron, depending on the program/game im running.

so i go back-- what exactly is a celeron? are ther edifferent types?
i have a celeron 633MHZ that has an "E" afterwards. and if it is slower/faster...exactly by how much? there seems to be no difference?

------------------
Jayvee Fernandez
"Structure is the function of logic."

[mjc]

Basically a Celeron is the PIII's little sister, smaller cache and slow FSB (front side bus locked to 66MHz, although the newer ones have a higher speed ---100MHz) speed...depending on when the program was written it may have difficulty proerly identifying the Celeron.

------------------
mjc
Links list:Computer Links (http://www.dreamwater.org/tech/mjc/index.htm)

Celts are the men that heaven made mad, For all their battles are merry and their songs are all sad.

[josemavicente]

i see....thus its better than a pentiumII......
whats this thing people say about a "celeron2" ?

------------------
Jayvee Fernandez
"Structure is the function of logic."

[hiredgoonz]

The celeron2 is what they called the celeron with l2 cache...when they first came out with the celeron, it had no l2 cache and performed for crap...then they added some cache so it was basically a P2 with less cache and it became the celeron2 (unofficially)

The celeron name has now been placed on what were Pentium2 and Pentium3 cores after the P2 and P3 were discontinued...Intel only keeps one Pentium line out at a time and they use the Celeron name for their "budget" chip, regardless of what is under the name...


------------------
When all else fails, read the instructions.

[cshajkur]

Celeron's are the cheap imitation of the more reliable Intel Pentium chips. You will sarafice speed,performance and reliabilty and buy the time you finish you will have spent more... If one considers a Celeron you might consider a AMD Athalon which many say is even better than the Pentium but will cost the price of a Celeron. I have a Celeron, Pentium and AMD Athalon based computers. The worst performer has been the Celeron and the best the AMD Athalon. Everyone appreciates a bargin but when you get right down to it, You pay now or later based on the choiuce you make today. For low use starter computers, Celeron's are the choice but then you have the more reliable AMD Athalon chips so.........Go figure!

[josemavicente]

okay i agree that its budget for money but from what i have now, my celeron functions ok enough. maybe its because im using windowsxp with 440MB of RAM... its a celeron 633E in any case. i dont plan to upgrade this computer in the next few months.

I plan to get a new intel PIII chip soon coz the other computer has everything except a new processor. sad i cant get AMD coz of the MB.

------------------
Jayvee Fernandez
"Structure is the function of logic."

[JadedC36]

At first the Celeron was a P II with no level 2 cache. Intel then realized they made a mistake, and added 128KB of level 2 cache. Then they made the P III by adding some new instructions to the P II core (instead of calling it a PII with MMX++++). So then the Celeron received the K.N.I. set and still only had 128KB of level 2 cache. The first Celeron's were released to run on a 66MHz FSB, so while the PII, and later the PIII, were running on a 100MHz FSB (the PIII was also released that runs on a 133MHZ FSB, but not at first), the Celeron remained at 66MHz. Only recently has the Celeron been released to run at 100MHz (I think somewhere around the 800MHz Celeron). Simply stated, yes the Celeron is a slower PII/PIII because the system is overall slower.

------------------
Mike

[ZoSo420G]

I have a new Celeron 1Ghz 100Mhz and in benchmark it beat out 1.2Ghz Pentium IV's I Think It's Great And love It for now!!! http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
ZoSo420G
ASUS TUV4X Motherboard
1Ghz Intel Celeron Processor
480Mg PC133Sdram dimms
10Gig Fujitsu Hard Drive
Nvidia Geforce2-200X AGP
Aopen SiS6326 PSI
Dual Azura Monitor System
32/8X/4X CDRW
40X CDRom Drive
100Mg Zip Drive
1.44Mg Floppy Drive

[saphalline]

The Celeron name has been used so much and for so long that it's one messed up nomenclature.

History of the Celeron (for anyone who gives a hoot)

The very first Celeron was a Slot1, 0.25 micron, Deschutes core, at 266MHz with no level 2 cache. The bus speed was 66MHz. A 300MHz version was also made.

The CeleronA was a Slot1, 0.25 micron, Deschutes core, at 300MHz with 128KB of full speed (speed of the processor) level 2 cache. Later, the core was upgraded to the Katmai core of the PentiumII, and speeds continued to around 500MHz/600MHz. Bus speed was 66MHz.

The Celeron2 was a Slot1 and Socket370, 0.18 micron, Coppermine core (same as PentiumIII) at ~500MHz to 733MHz (Slot1 version stopped at around 600MHz) with 128KB of full speed level 2 cache; bus speed was 66MHz. Then the Celeron2 was moved onto a 100MHz bus speed at 800MHz to 1.1GHz.

As if that weren't confusing enough, the Celeron3 (even unofficially the '3' is not fully recongnized) is a Socket370, 0.13 micron, Tualatin core at 1.1GHz to 1.3GHz with 256KB of full speed level 2 cache; bus speed is 100MHz.

Generally speaking, a Celeron needs to be 33MHz to 66MHz faster than a comparable Pentium class processor, ie matching its core, to 'catch up' to it. The Deschutes and Katmai Celerons were slower than PII's at similar speeds, the Coppermine Celerons were slower than PIII's at similar speeds, and the Tualatin Celerons are slower than Coppermine PIII's on a 133MHz bus and slower than any Tualatin PIII's.

Of course, the Celeron was able to keep ahead of such oldies as the Cyrix M/MII, the AMD K5/6/6-2/6-III, and the original Pentiums and PentiumMMX's. Back in the PII era, it was also favored by overclockers because of its higher overclockability and full speed level 2 cache (which gave higher returns than the PII's half speed level 2 cache). Today, however, even the Tualatin Celerons are slowing down.

What Intel really needs to do is make a P4-core based Celeron and call it the Celeron4. According to my above information, Intel would be totally justified in calling it that, as well. Mmmm... cheap P4 systems... http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gif *drooling uncontrollably*

[integral]

Since I have a system running a 400Mhz (@500Mhz) Celeron A PPGA the above history is missing some bits. The Celeron 300a maybe one of the most famous overclocking chips in existance, many hardcore overclockers ran that sweet chip at 500+MHz.

Do not talk down the Celeron line of processors they have been a very sucesfull and versitile chip.
Mine is running with a 86Mhz FSB and I have not made any voltage adjustments or am I even employing any agressive cooling.

My take on it is that the Celeron2 runs on a 100Mz FSB

[hiredgoonz]

Celeron 2 may now refer to a 100mhz fsb Celeron, but originally, celeron 2 was used to designate it as having l2 cache and same core as the P2...this was before the P3 even existed...

The Celeron (all of them except the one with no cache) is a great chip, but does not really compare to its current competitor, the Duron...

------------------
When all else fails, read the instructions.

Microsoft Knowledge Base (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;rid;kbinfo)

Drivers (http://www.driverguide.com)

Google (http://www.google.com)