Is it me or is the celeron just a pentium 1 mmx with a higher clock
Motherboard Reviews The Motherboard Thread
Plastic parts looking nasty and yellow try this Deyellowing Plastic
wrote:Is it me or is the celeron just a pentium 1 mmx with a higher clock
you can actually get Celerons and MMXs at the same clock (266), but the Celeron tends to be a little faster (the architecture is an evolution, the platform should also be better overall).
and the Mendocinos are a lot better with their small but fast l2 cache and high clocks
wrote:Is it me or is the celeron just a pentium 1 mmx with a higher clock
Celeron of that era was based on the pentium II core, the originals had no level 2 cache whatsoever, the second gen(Mendocino) had 128K of full speed on die cache. This made it faster than P II pretty often.
Until the AMD Duron came along it was the best little Value chip on the market in my opinion.
Best regards,
Chris
286 20MHz,1MB RAM,Trident 8900B 1MB, Conner CFA-170A.SB 1350B
386SX 33MHz,ULSI 387,4MB Ram,OAK OTI077 1MB. Seagate ST1144A, MS WSS audio
Amstrad PC 9486i, DX/2 66, 16 MB RAM, Cirrus SVGA,Win 95,SB 16
Cyrix MII 333,128MB,SiS 6326 H0 rev,ESS 1869,Win ME
wrote:Is it me or is the celeron just a pentium 1 mmx with a higher clock
Mendocino did have L2 on-die cache and not the slower motherboard cache. Other than that I don't really know (could check some benchmarks like SuperPi? I'll go check there in a moment and will edit this reply) except that the motherboards Mendocino ran from are typically better platforms overall compared to s7 and ss7 boards.
At first glance, Mendocino doesn't appear to be significantly faster than Pentium MMX clock for clock.
And I'll go update the SuperPi thread now 🤣! This will be fun haha!
Some people are saying that the celeron 533MHz will blow the K6 550MHz out of the water. I don't know how true that is, but i don't have a ss7 board to bench.
Motherboard Reviews The Motherboard Thread
Plastic parts looking nasty and yellow try this Deyellowing Plastic
This is true for sure. Just lookup the benchmarks. While the integer speed of the K6-2 was very good, the FPU of the Celeron was way faster than the K6-2's. Patched "3DNow!" version of games did narrow the gap in the real world gaming performance, but in general the Celeron is by far the faster gaming CPU for W9X games.
www.AmoRetro.de Visit my huge hardware gallery with many historic items from 16MHz 286 to 1000MHz Slot A. Includes more than 80 soundcards and a growing Wavetable Recording section with more than 300 recordings.
The K6-2's lack of integrated L2 cache also kept it from scaling much in that speed range. It was really an obsolete architecture at that point. Cranking them up to 550MHz doesn't hurt but they can't compete with CPUs that were more designed for that clock range.
It seems like both AMD and Cyrix either failed to anticipate or were just too slow to adapt to the importance of FPU performance in 3D games. Intel had a big advantage there for any desktop user that cared about games.
If I ever get sufficiently bored and motivated I think it might be interesting to compare CPUs at 450MHz, because it seems to be an intersection between a lot of different CPUs and I've realized I have a good variety of 450MHz CPUs already, including some of the less common ones. One I don't have though is a 300A@450, which is definitely an interesting entry on the list of options back then. Actually, I also wonder about the cacheless Covington 300@450, presuming they could run that fast.
