Intel officially launches Celeron 2!!!

[CHHAS]

If those benchmarks are real, my Katmai 500 will be replaced as soon as I can get my hands on a Spitfire



------------------
P3 500, 224 MB ram, G400 16SH,
Maxtor DM 40+ 30GB, IBM Deskstar 16GP 10GB, Maxtor 4320 13 GB
SB Live Value

[Dyre]

Greebe: Well i DONT have supper spifft 7ns Ram! I have 320megs of 8n Ram and 80gigs of Maxtor(O'c unfriendly) HD's. i DONT WANT the headache or cost associated with running a system at 150FSB. By the time i got hardware that could run that fast i would have just been better off buying a chip that runs at 800mHz stock...

So you see my point now?
for less than $200 bucks i can go from 500 mHz to a speedy 800mHz + with out having to replace much in my system

SpitFire. Im VERY interested in these. If Athlon mb's materialize that are high quality i would love to have one. Athlon core w/ on-die L2 cache. mmmmmmm mmmm good!

[paulcs]

Dyre, whether you get an Athlon or a new Coppermine, a motherboard upgrade would be in order. Like your current motherboard, you can keep a motherboard with true 133 MHz support for a while and it becomes more cost effective. Of course, with an Athlon board, you absolutely have to upgrade your motherboard (and maybe your RAM and power supply).

The PIII 600E on a 133 MHz FSB makes for an easy jump (in most cases) from 600 to 800 MHz -- and all your peripherals run at spec. And the FC-PGA version is really cheap now.

Of course, the most prudent action may be to wait a month and see what happens with the 650 and 700 MHz PIII. If yields continue to improve, they could be a real bargain.

The Thunderbird and Spitfire look like the wildcards here (although they have goofy names ). It's a potentially expensive upgrade, but the early numbers seem more than encouraging.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[This message has been edited by paulcs (edited 08 April 2000).]

[Plmr]

Would intel make a 666 or would that be too satanic.. a 633 should do 950 my cumine is topping out at 882 but i think its the fsb and not the cpu that stops me from stable 900. It feels like 950 or a gig should be doable..if so the celeron looks good for us high end tight wads..
Matt

------------------
Abit BF6, P3 600E AT 882,vantec 5030 cooler,256 megs Micron 7.5ns pc133 ram, G400 32meg Dh ,Promise fasttrack striping 2 Quantum ka 18gig's + 2 10gig IBM's ,Sb-live platinum ,Cambridge Fps2000 speakers ,Onstream 30gig tape ,Sony cdrw ,toshiba dvd, Lotsa fans,cables ,noise....

[paulcs]

Intel was asked about this a long time ago. They have already opted to round up to 667.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[Dyre]

You are very right Paul. What im worried about is running in the 133+ FSB range, where RAM is going to be a factor. My RAM is pc133, but its not THAT great. Plus the price on the Celeries is looking soo nice.

I havent rulled out the PIII 600's yet, its just now i have a choice. On a side note, i saw a 566CeleronIIi system on QVC today. Monitor, 128ram, 20gig, dvd, cd-r, printer, scaner for under $1400. This is really where the celeron was intended for.

[Taz]

From the reviews i've read elsewhere on the Net the new Celeron II's run considerably slower than Coppermines or Athlons even at higher clock speeds. The review on GamePC shows a 1Ghz Celeron II to be marginally faster than a 500e PIII in Quake III, the Celeron was running at 105Mhz FSB and the PIII at 100Mhz FSB. I know the Celeron II's have half the Cache of the PIII's but the difference shouldn't be that great. I reckon that after the embarisment of the Celeron/PII performance gap, or lack of it, they have somehow slowed the Celeron II's down in some other way.

[superfly]

And do you guy know what the punchline is?...the celeron II is exactly the exact same processor as the p3's(the chip itself has 256k of cache but half of it is disabled) and of course programed to run only at 66mhz fsb,a friend if mine is going through the tecnical white papers of the chip to see if there's a way to re-enable the other half of it's cache,the modification could have been done internally(in that case it would be impossible to enable the other half)or if we're lucky(and intel very dumb)they could have done it by changing the pin layout of the chip(in which case there's a definite possibility to re-enable the cache)...ummm 800/900 mhz celeron's with 256k at 100/150$... .

[Compton]

I've heard that Intel changed the cache latency on the Celeron IIs to slow them down even more. But even if this is the case shouldn't that program by H. Oda (WCPUL2.EXE) be able to speed it back up?

[paulcs]

More and more numbers are coming in on the chip. So far, it looks very overclockable; everyone seems to be getting the 566 MHz part to 900 MHz. But then it gets bested by PIII's clocked substantially lower.

I don't know what was going through the minds of our friends in Santa Clara. If Intel thinks the Celeron II is going to compete with the Athlon, they have another thing coming. If, clock for clock, the Athlon and the PIII Coppermine perform similarly, and the Celeron II is soundly beaten by the PIII, then the only thing the Celeron II appears to compete against is the Celeron I.

I can see it now. In a couple of months, we'll be inundated with irate newbies whose G450/Celeron II systems are being soundly beaten by their friends' "slower" GeForce 256/PIII or Althon-based systems in Quake3 and UT. And it will all be Matrox's fault.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net