[RESOLVED] performance diff between tualatin celeron & coppermine p3

[kababoom]

anyone has advise on the performance diff btw tualatin celeron compare to a 100fsb p3 of the same mhz speed?

[+Daemon+]

thought the celeron had less cahce making is slower, and doesnt perform the clock cycles as the copermine

[kababoom]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Trebuchet MS, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Trebuchet MS, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by All Mighty Daemon:
<strong>thought the celeron had less cahce making is slower, and doesnt perform the clock cycles as the copermine</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Trebuchet MS, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">But what abt celeron with tualatin core compared to p3 with 100mhz fsb (eg p3 800e)both having 100mhz fsb

[TrackMan]

the tualatin celerons have 256k l2 cache, making them in essense pentium 3's with a 100 mhz system bus. they are actually a little faster than a p3 of the same clock, assuming the p3 is on a 100mhz bus, because intel put a data prefetch controller into the die while they made the shrink to .13 microns.

[Lips2001Ad]

I would concure, as all my research and experimentation with celeroms and p3 of the newer types have proven.

[Draggar]

I don't know if this is true about the new ones, but I've had 2 celerons, one a 333 and the other a 500, when running basic aps, (Word, Outlook etc..) the 500 Cel would run about as well as my P2-450 (Cel had 96MB Ram, the P2 had 192).

But when running high end apps (hi-graphic games, desktop publishing, cad/cam etc..) the P2 would run ciurcles around the Celerons, even when my P2 only had 96MB Ram (same as the Celeron).

So, I would say for basic home usage, then Celeron would be fine, but if you're ruinning the high end stuff, the Pentiums may be a better choice, but don't forget, I'm not too sure about the new celerons.

[Guts3d]

The Pentium 3 is better for multi-tasking by far than any other chip I have ever used, including the Pentium 4.

[kato2274]

may as well try it out

[Budd]

LOL

damn kato, you beat me to it

[Radical Dreamer]

Originally posted by Draggar
I don't know if this is true about the new ones, but I've had 2 celerons, one a 333 and the other a 500, when running basic aps, (Word, Outlook etc..) the 500 Cel would run about as well as my P2-450 (Cel had 96MB Ram, the P2 had 192).

But when running high end apps (hi-graphic games, desktop publishing, cad/cam etc..) the P2 would run ciurcles around the Celerons, even when my P2 only had 96MB Ram (same as the Celeron).

So, I would say for basic home usage, then Celeron would be fine, but if you're ruinning the high end stuff, the Pentiums may be a better choice, but don't forget, I'm not too sure about the new celerons.

The reason for this is the damn near 0kb cache of the old celerys. The new ones have at least a little bit