A gigantic failure.Not even RDRAM,FDIV bug or the i820 chipset were such failures as the 266MHz Celeron.

Now that I said that I remembered I have a couple RDRAM sticks that I can't use.Any ideas what to do with them?

Well,I got myself a P4i45D+.Uses 845D chipset and supports Celeron D 330.
I'll post back results if it works,a custom BIOS screen(Zone-tan picture posted earlier)and a desktop shot of it (Rammstein Amerika wallpaper 😁)

EDIT:Well,I mounted it in the case,added a RAM stick and it won't POST.With that particular RAM stick (Sycron 256MB DDR400)it turns on for a few seconds,turns off,and as soon as the fans stop it turns on again.
Here's what other RAM sticks did:
Princeton,128MB,DDR266:3 beeps (AMI BIOS,this means there's no RAM,even though there is this RAM stick)
MSM,128MB,DDR266:either does the same as the Sycron,or it resets the PC once and no POST.
Hynix,256MB,DDR400:same as the Princeton stick.I'm going to push this one hard enough to see if it recognizes it,as I had this happen several times with a Gigabyte 7VT880-RZ.

Otherwise,the motherboard is nice,and I didn't even know the 845D supports Prescott CPUs,not to mention this board uses Rubycon caps all around the CPU.

PcBytes wrote:

RacoonRider wrote:

PcBytes, no one will answer you better than Redhill 😀
http://redhill.net.au/c/c-9.html

Now another thing comes here:if Intel had ALL the necessary things to do it,as they did the Pentium 2 266 and 300MHz,then why they did make a such failure of a CPU without L2 cache?Those Celerons without L2 cache are exactly a 386-486 for ATX motherboards probably.

The point was to be able to draw a distinction between the Celeron line and the Pentium II and to sell it to a more price conscious market. Leaving off the cache memory saves money. I don't think Intel really expected the backlash they got from the public after reviewers got ahold of them and started publishing benchmarks. I think in at least a few instances, IIRC, the Pentium MMX 233 would outperform a cacheless Celeron.

sliderider wrote:

The point was to be able to draw a distinction between the Celeron line and the Pentium II and to sell it to a more price conscious market. Leaving off the cache memory saves money.

The Celerons were probably a lot cheaper to produce since the cache memory chips are separate from the CPU, more connections are needing, testing is more complicated and so on. The yield was probably much better too since the CPU core worked at much higher than factory frequencies (as proven by overclockers).

sliderider wrote:

I don't think Intel really expected the backlash they got from the public after reviewers got ahold of them and started publishing benchmarks. I think in at least a few instances, IIRC, the Pentium MMX 233 would outperform a cacheless Celeron.

Let's say in most software except 3D games and other floating point heavy software like rendering the PMMX was faster in Windows 98, less so in NT.
See eg. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/big-cpu-shoot,84.html
A Pentium MMX 233 has a slightly higher Winstone 98 value than a Celeron 300.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/big-cpu-shoot,84-4.html
In NT 4.0 the Celeron 266 is just barely faster than the MMX 233.

sliderider wrote:

I might understand that if you said Celeron instead of Pentium III because the Celeron was hamstrung by the 66mhz bus for a long […]
Show full quote

armankordi wrote:

Do XP on a Athlon Classic. These CPU's really shine in the gaming department, and my K6-2 600MHz kicks my PIII 633MHz PC's butt. That could be because it has 128MB more ram then the 256MB in the PIII, but who knows.

I might understand that if you said Celeron instead of Pentium III because the Celeron was hamstrung by the 66mhz bus for a long time back then but with 100/133mhz bus Pentium III would usually outperform K6-2 and III. It wouldn't be until Athlon that AMD pushed ahead of Katmai, but not Coppermine.

And now that I have looked it up, I don't see any speed of Pentium III between 600 and 650. Are you sure you don't have a Celeron?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Pe … microprocessors

I do see a Celeron 633 on this list

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Ce … microprocessors

Hehe, my mistake. Yeah, ment to say a celeron, and this celeron rests in a emachine PC, of all things.