6 ms·
Actually the Pentium & Celeron brands aren't really whole lot different than their higher end counterparts like Core i3/i5/i7. The main difference still is core
by Klinky 14y ago
Actually the Pentium & Celeron brands aren't really whole lot different than their higher end counterparts like Core i3/i5/i7. The main difference still is core count, cache and clock. Minor things also apply now such as hardware threads & TurboBoost, but the underlying architecture is quite similar.
The Celeron 430 used in the tests is based off the Conroe core which is what Core/Core2 products used. Just with less cache and slower front side bus.
I think the point was that a CPU which retailed for $50 5 years ago, beat out a bunch of exotic and more costly setups.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- spitfire 14y agoI do remember at one point the celeron had a very locked (like 66mhz while the good stuff was 133mhz) front side bus. But again, if you don't need FSB performance, it's not actually a loss but a net gain - same calculations for less money.
- Klinky 14y agoYeah the original Celeron was absolutely horrible without any L2 cache and the slower bus. Once the Celeron 300A hit the scene, it became pretty respectable.
- PakG1 14y agoI think mostly because that thing was so easily overclockable. I remember running my dual 366A on an Abit BP6 to 550, perfectly stable on Windows XP with stock cooling.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- spitfire 14y agoWell, you could also put them on slot-1 cards and solder them up to do dual processor. Saving yourself a few hundred bucks in the processes. For the money they weren't that bad a deal.