At 10:33 AM 5/4/00 -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>Wait, correct me if I'm wrong, but the more powerful CPU is in your
>development server?
>
>My understanding is that a Celeron is a chop'd up PII ... my first
>recommendation here is that if you are running a *server*, get rid of that
>Celeron ... from what I've been told about the difference, Celeron is a
>great, cheap chip for using in a desktop environment (its what I use at
>home), but shy away from it in a server environment, as the speed
>reduction of the reduced cache alone will hurt things ...
Celerons have a smaller L2 cache (128K) than PIIs (512K), but it runs
full-speed rather than 1/2 speed like the PII cache. Current models
aren't "chopped up" in any sense, they're the same core with a smaller
but faster cache.
So, applications that have a high cache hit rate can actually run faster
on the Celeron.
New Coppermine PIII's (those that end in E or are > 600 MHz) have
256K full-speed cache, the Coppermine-based Celeron II's 128K
full-speed. Yes, they cut the cache size in half compared to
PII's and non-E PIII's (Katmai cores) but it's full-speed, which
turns out to be a win for nearly all applications. Other than
cache size and FSB/memory bus speed the new Celerons and PIII's
are identical.
All Celerons run with 66 MHz FSB and RAM, current Coppermines with
100 MHz RAM (even those with a 133MHz front-side bus) or spendy
RDRAM which almost no one is buying.
So, what's the bottom line? The numbers don't tell us much,
though I still think Tom's right that the PG7.0 one is really
slower. You just can't say if how MUCH slower.
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com> Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert
Serviceand other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.
