Go for Asus p2b-ds rev 1.05 or higher

Pentium of course, as no one likes Celerons, as they are the cheap solution of intel..

True, but an OC celeron can perform very well, or so i've seen
@jcarvalho Oooh! Can't forget the dual-slot boards! I do want one of those.

I think from all old Celerons only the Tualatin was really good, while rest like coppermine, and older was trash they did not have L2 and that did make them useless, see the slot 1 Celeron they was total junk, also i prefer not to use Celerons if possible, but the Tualatin Celeron is different thing and it perform about the same as the Pentium tualatin...

Radical Vision wrote:

I think from all old Celerons only the Tualatin was really good, while rest like coppermine, and older was trash they did not have L2 and that did make them useless, see the slot 1 Celeron they was total junk, also i prefer not to use Celerons if possible, but the Tualatin Celeron is different thing and it perform about the same as the Pentium tualatin...

Plain wrong. Only the very first model of the Celerons lacked L2 cache, the subsequent revisions all had some. The second model, Mendocino even had smaller but faster cache than its contemporary Pentium IIs so it was quite decent in comparison, at least they were pretty comletitive when overclocked to the P2s' FSB.

Coppermine Celerons had half of their P3 counterparts' L2 and generally lower FSB but they weren't THAT bad.

Tualatins are better of course.

Good to know, as i did think as well that maybe only the first slot 1 and socket 7 Celerons was so bad, but i was not sure, as im more AMD guy, not intel. But still i prefer pentium every time over Celeron, one exception is the tualatin, as Tualatin processor is never bad no matter is Celeron or Pentium..

There was never a Celeron chip for the socket 7. They were for Slot 1 motherboards and up.

Well the 370 celeron and the socket 7 Pentium the glass/black ones seems about the same, only difference are the pins, so is easy to get wrong...

Radical Vision wrote:

Pentium of course, as no one likes Celerons, as they are the cheap solution of intel..

Not true. I've used a Mendocino 400Mhz for years to great content 😁
I also kinda liked the Celeron 800 and Tualeron is good as well, provided it works with your motherboard one way or another.
In the end it's not about performance, as one could easily use something 2 generations more recent if one wants more performance. Many Celerons are good as they are. I have some doubts though when it comes to the P4 Celerons, those seemed to be quite gimped.

Netburst Celerons suffered heavily from their memory bandwidth-hungry architecture with their low cache and FSB, and from their deep pipelining with (even by P4 standards) very high multiplier. A Tualeron could comfortably beat any of the Willamette Celerons and most of the Northwoods before the FSB bump to 133/533Mbps FSB, and by that time the same money would buy a vastly superior AthlonXP.

well, judging by the discourse here, i think i'll be sticking with a p3. (but once I get a BP7, then it's all hands on deck for dual overclocked celeries!)

Still no matter what Pentium is the S class and Celeron will be the E class...
For example the Coppermine and Tualatin Celerons are ok,they perform similar to Pentium, but that is only on coppermine and tualatin cores, while on all (or most) others the celeron is way under the Pentium.
Still if possible just stick to Pentium, why to waste time/money on Celeron...

Radical Vision wrote:

Still no matter what Pentium is the S class and Celeron will be the E class...
For example the Coppermine and Tualatin Celerons are ok,they perform similar to Pentium, but that is only on coppermine and tualatin cores, while on all (or most) others the celeron is way under the Pentium.

As stated before, that's simply not true. In particular the 1999 Mendocino Celerons frequently outperformed their Pentium 2 counterparts because their L2 cache ran at full speed, as opposed to the larger, but 1/2 speed, cache on the P2/P3, and when overclocked to 100MHz FSB (which almost every Celeron 300A and most 333A was able to handle) they clearly outperformed the comparable Katmai Pentium 3 as well.

Still if possible just stick to Pentium, why to waste time/money on Celeron...

Because at the time they were the best performing CPUs available, offered the best value-for-money and as most enthousiasts back then were running them, they have a lot of nostalgic value as well. If you want a period correct system from 1999 or early 2000 and you want the best performance available then, a Celeron 300A@450 or 333A@500 would be the logical choice.

Your prejudices about Celeron seem to come from the L2 cacheless Covington parts (which were an unmitigated disaster) and from the later P4 Celeron, which worked, but were awfully bad value for money - although you could say that about all Netburst CPUs really. In Mendocino vs Deschutes/Katmai days, the Celeron was actually the better CPU, and in Coppermine/Tualatin days the Celeron were slightly slower, but because of the different i686 architecture the same features (less cache, lower FSB, higher multiplier) that crippled the P4 Celeron had far less impact, and the lower FSB actually gave you better OC potential given locked multipliers. For pretty much all the P2/P3 era from the launch of Mendocino onwards, Celeron were a perfectly valid choice, only really undermined once AMD released the Duron, which was both cheaper and faster than any So370 Celeron.

So what you say is Intel release budget processors as celeron, that are way better then the premium Pentiums, do you know that does not make any sense ?!? Also for me Celeron is dumped, as i don`t like them, and i get only Pentium if possible, while i get celerons if someone give it them to me without to have to pay.
Back in the days people did buy what did have the best price-performance, but today i can afford to get the very best as in the face of Pentium. As i know very well how damn greedy intel are, i don`t see them releasing cheap Celerons that will even outperform their premium offers. This sounds like today intel to sell I3 processors that are capable of outperforming the I7, or for example I7 7700 to outperform the unlocked 7700K that is unlocked and can be overclocked way above...
So to have 50% lesser L2 but on bigger speed is considered better, how is that, then if i have like dual core with lower clock speed, and single core with more clock speed the single core will be better how so ?
Also on my 462 platform i prefer 2GB of memory on about 400MHz, instead of only x2 512MB on 600-700MHz.....

Radical Vision wrote:

So what you say is Intel release budget processors as celeron, that are way better then the premium Pentiums, do you know that does not make any sense ?!?

Go talk to Intel's marketing and R&D departments around 1998 for the "why". But seriously, make the effort to read up on stuff you clearly know little about before making sweeping - and wrong - statements here about this stuff.

Here's two articles from 1998 to get you started:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/174/4

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/big-cpu-shoot,84-2.html

In games, the Celeron 300A@450 outperforms the Pentium II 450 which at the time was Intel's flagship CPU.

On stock speed they are about on par, as the Celeron seems to be like 1% faster, so is not a big deal, also not everyone OC their systems.
About what i don`t know, well im not 100% geek like the rest hardware enthusiasts, i like to know some things, not all. Also Intel is not my main aim, i aim mostly AMD, not intel. Also i just build machines i do not test them, only machine i have put real effort is my 462, and some feature dual CPU set ups, or maybe the Slot 1/Tualatin build, as im collecting too much stuff, so i don`t plan to get 1000% knowledge of what the hell is going on some platform..
Also you can blame intel for doing such retarded things, to release one celeron to have no L2, other to be on par with the Pentiums, and rest to be slower, not me for now knowing some facts about that retarded company, also i don`t like both intel or nvidia to spend too much time for them, as they did brake the computer industry with their greedy, arrogant and junk way of doing things, and all the damage they did to the consumer...

Still is good to know intel did other retarded things, then the list i have now.

Radical Vision wrote:

On stock speed they are about on par, as the Celeron seems to be like 1% faster, so is not a big deal, also not everyone OC thei […]
Show full quote

On stock speed they are about on par, as the Celeron seems to be like 1% faster, so is not a big deal, also not everyone OC their systems.
About what i don`t know, well im not 100% geek like the rest hardware enthusiasts, i like to know some things, not all. Also Intel is not my main aim, i aim mostly AMD, not intel. Also i just build machines i do not test them, only machine i have put real effort is my 462, and some feature dual CPU set ups, or maybe the Slot 1/Tualatin build, as im collecting too much stuff, so i don`t plan to get 1000% knowledge of what the hell is going on some platform..
Also you can blame intel for doing such retarded things, to release one celeron to have no L2, other to be on par with the Pentiums, and rest to be slower, not me for now knowing some facts about that retarded company, also i don`t like both intel or nvidia to spend too much time for them, as they did brake the computer industry with their greedy, arrogant and junk way of doing things, and all the damage they did to the consumer...

Still is good to know intel did other retarded things, then the list i have now.

While all this may be true (and I'm not stating that every single bit of info here is actually true), this has basically nothing to do with retro computing 😜
Another example would be RDRAM. These days an RDRAM system is seen for what it is and the backstory is of course nice to hear. But for me, the reasons of why RDRAM was hated and frowned upon so much back when it was new, is in itself no reason to me to choose something else over an RDRAM rig.
I care more about the technical properties and less about the marketing ones from back then, it's not relevant to me anymore.

I've build AMD, Intel, Cyrix, NVidia, Ati (and AMD), S3, Rendition, 3DFX, who cares about marketing from back then? It's about what I can accomplish with these parts right now that matters to me.

I used to really 'hate' netburst...till I got convinced to simply try a Northwood for myself and it was a really nice experience (except for FX5900U in FEAR, I shall not ever forget that experience 🤣!).

I knew OCed Celerons were fast but I never knew that fast!!
I have to brush up on my architectures/cores though.

Jupiter-18 wrote:

I knew OCed Celerons were fast but I never knew that fast!!
I have to brush up on my architectures/cores though.

The very first Celerons got pretty bad rep for having no L2 cache and I think Intel kinda tried to compensate for that by giving the Celeron 128KB full speed L2 cache where the Pentium IIs had 512KB half speed L2 cache. From hindsight perhaps giving the Celerons 64KB cache would have been sufficient (kinda like what AMD did when they created Duron), given that the later Coppermines had 256KB cache.

The 300MHz models were made with a relatively new die process (the same as Deschutes) and due to the Deschutes having external cache that was harder to overclock, these Celerons were very good overclockers.

Intel "solved" this "problem" when they created the netburst Celerons and those weren't so great.

I have a soft spot for my old abit be6 it was great but im in love with msi ms-6163 pretty freaking stable and overclocked pretty well decent amount of fsb selections and sb-link. The msi ms-6163 pro is the one to get though way more in between fsb selections same quality.