|
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 02:35:11PM -0400, Joseph Mack wrote:
->
-> John Cronin wrote:
->
-> > -> for 3/4 the cost. I don't know how important the cost is, but you'd
-> > -> get better performance with a CPU with some cache on it.
-> >
-> > Sorry Joe, not to get argumentative, but I respectfully disagree.
->
-> I stand corrected, thanks. I thought the celeron was a regular CPU without
-> the cache. Did I get this completely wrong or was there such an
-> animal at some time?
Some of the early ones (Pentium II based) certainly were without cache.
This changed with the Celeron 300A, many years ago.
The biggest difference these days is that Celerons tend to have slower
memory bus (400 MHz versus 533 or 800 for a real P4), slower clock
speeds (ie a top of 2.6 GHz versus 3.2 GHz for the P4), and no
hyper-threading.
--
John Cronin
mailto: `echo NjsOc3@xxxxxxxxxxx | sed 's/[NOSPAM]//g'`
|
