Reply 40 of 467, by Standard Def Steve
Horun wrote on 2023-11-07, 02:28:Standard Def Steve wrote on 2023-11-07, 00:35:Aww, that's no fun. But a Northwood Celeron would be just as slow (or worse, even) so I guess the bottleneck fetishist with one of those boards could take that route. 😜
--
Speaking of which, the Willamette and Northwood Celerons are excruciatingly slow in 3DMark 2000. There's just something about that benchmark - I guess the data sets just don't fit at all into 128K. I kid you not, a 1GHz PIII will legit outperform a 2.6GHz Celeron in 3DMark 2000.Hmm ok so what about Celeron and 3DMark 2001 ?
3DMark 2001 (and '99, for that matter) isn't as cruel to the Celerons, although even in these benchmarks they look mighty weak next to the full-fat P4s.
But 3DMark 2000 is just on another level. I don't believe there exists another benchmark or application that paints Netburst-128 in such a curiously bad light. And the thing is, there's next to zero scaling with clock speed. A 1.7GHz Celeron will only score around 3900 (really, they are that slow) and increasing the clock by a full gigahertz will only net you an additional ~450 points.
So in my tiny mind, the near total lack of scaling indicates that this particular benchmark is constantly overstepping the cache.
94 MHz NEC VR4300 | SGI Reality CoPro | 8MB RDRAM | Each game gets its own SSD - nooice!