What is celeron2?

[Gxp]

Is it just another name for celeron on 100mhz fsb?

[Pinky]

I believe so.

yes.. That's my final answer.

[The Doors]

No, Celeron 2 are called all Coppermine Cellie from 533Mhz to the newest 900's.

I hope it helps you ;)

[The Overclocker]

it is the celeons made with the .18 process

[The Doors]

Called Coppermines :D

[Kingslayer]

Officially there is no such thing as the Celeron II. Intel has never officially labelled any version of the Celeron the "II". Intel still considers them Celeron Processors regardless of speed, fsb, die size or design.

The Celeron II was given this label by the channel retailers and end users, not Intel.

[The Doors]

Excuse me but I don't understand,
we have called our Celeron's, since 533Mhz Celeron2, what's changed now??!

[JaY_III]

what is a celeron2?
celerons come in 3 flavors (or cores)

the original, a P2 with no cache. needless to say it sicked major ass 233-300

then came the celeron A, 128K full speed on die cache (p2 core)
and when overclocked to 100FSb MHz per Mhz it was faster than a P2 at the same speed. the P2 had 512K of 1/2 speed cache.
300A -533

then came the celeron 2 or copermine-128. Its a P3 copermine with 1/2 the cache. P3 is called a copermine-256 and the celeron the copermine-128... Notice how it is the same chip, just a different amount of cache.
this is a 533A-766 (on 66 FSB) and 800- onwards (on 100FSb)

So to sum it up(generaly), a celeron 2 is a new P3 with 1/2 the cache

[Kingslayer]

Originally posted by The Doors
Excuse me but I don't understand,
we have called our Celeron's, since 533Mhz Celeron2, what's changed now??!

Yes...you call it the Celeron II. Intel has never called it that.

[Mr B]

Po-tay-to, po-ta-to
to-may-to, to-ma-to

As long as it's understood what each other is talkin' about, adding a "2" to the name Celeron it trivial...=)

No, intel has never called it a Celeron "2" themselves, but it's usually referred to as such. The "2" is optional.

Jay's "definitions" hit the nail on the head. Good answer.

[CrystalMethod]

"...my cat's breath smells like cat food."
But, seriously. Mr.B, and Jay are right...
...a Celeron by any other name is still just a Celeron.

[GuNRocK]

Actually the new 100mhz celerons are PIIIs that were messed up in production and only half or more of the cache was useable and they just cut it in half of the good stuff and u get 128k so if only 1k was bad they would disable half of it and name it a celeron ..... just becuase the die size i belive is the same for pentiumIII and Celeron....thats how intel is able to still make some money on a screw up...... amd is difernt for athlon and duron the duron acutally uses smaller die..so tahts how they make it cheeper....hopefully this helps out... :D

**edited by Moderator**

Instead of apologizing "in advance" please use an alternate word as I've edited this to. Even with the asteriks, I've got to edit it.

Please watch the "F" bombs, folks! Thanks!

Mr B

[Sohryu Asuka Langley]

Originally posted by jay
what is a celeron2?
celerons come in 3 flavors (or cores)

the original, a P2 with no cache. needless to say it sicked major ass 233-300

then came the celeron A, 128K full speed on die cache (p2 core)
and when overclocked to 100FSb MHz per Mhz it was faster than a P2 at the same speed. the P2 had 512K of 1/2 speed cache.
300A -533

then came the celeron 2 or copermine-128. Its a P3 copermine with 1/2 the cache. P3 is called a copermine-256 and the celeron the copermine-128... Notice how it is the same chip, just a different amount of cache.
this is a 533A-766 (on 66 FSB) and 800- onwards (on 100FSb)

So to sum it up(generaly), a celeron 2 is a new P3 with 1/2 the cache

Its Coppermine for the P!!!'s and Coppermine-128 or Coppermine128 (anyone?) for the Celeron line. also, halving the cache also halved the access aswell.

[Pinky]

Originally posted by Pinky
I believe so.

yes.. That's my final answer.
I always thought the celerons were classified by their bus speeds... 66MHz were referred to as Celeron I and 100MHz Celeron II. I still think that a celeron is a celeron, and the distinction isn't as great as the ones made for the P3 since they all have the same things in common:

128KB cache
Pentium core = to that of the same speed P2/3 chips
66MHZ bus

the only exception and/or change has been the bus speed. The rest of the variables have remained constant.

So simply: Yes, the cores have changed, but in alignment with the same speed full-cache Pentium 2/3 model. The only random change to these chips has been the FSB increase.

[JaY_III]

"Its Coppermine for the P!!!'s and Coppermine-128 or Coppermine128 (anyone?) for the Celeron line. also, halving the cache also halved the access aswell."

Sohryu Asuka Langley is right about the cache access being cut in 1/2, the celeron only has 4 way access and the P!!! has 8 way...

yes P!!! are generaly refred as a Copermine (or coppermine-256)
and celerons are copermine-128's

Pinky, thier is a big differnece bettween a Celeron 1 and 2. And it is the core not FSB that makes that difference, and if you dont think that thier is a difference bettween the 2... well then neither is thier bettween a P2 and P3. Other than a new (updated) core with new instructions. The celeron 1 doesnt have any SSE instructions while the 2 does.

As cache changes go... you said it hasn't changed between the celerons so they are the same... not true at all. Original celerons didnt have cache. celeron A and 2 do. Intel then put on die cache into the celeron chips....
This idea worked better than intel though it could so they started to put it into work for the P!!!'s... the orginal P!!!'s, the Katmai core, had 512k of die L2 cache running at 1/2 clock speed.... celerons could be faster when overclocked to the same bus becuase of the faster cache speed (even though it was 1/4 the size)..... So intel put that idea to work in the coppermine (p3), 1/2 the p3 cache , from 512 to 256 but full speed... worked wonders.

Still dont belive me that thier is a difference.. get a celeron 533 (Mendocino core, P2)and a 533A (copermine core) and bench them
i think the copermine core will win.

Also as for overclocking goes....
the Coppermine celeron, is on a built in a 0.18u process
The Mendocino is built on a 0.25u process

Coppermine's have a lower Vcore 1.5V-1.75V
Mendocino have a higher 2.0V Vcore

So needless to say the coppermine-128 is alot better in the overclocking field. Made smaller = less heat, usess less Volts=Less Heat, Less heat = More MHz

Now what about transistors?
The same CPU should have the same ammount. If more are added i am sure they do something (do we need to get into what they do?)... or why would intel put them on the chip? More generaly mean more complex and better (generally)

Covington: Only 7.5 million transistors (1st celeron)
Mendocino: 19 million transistors (celeron A)
Coppermine128: 28 million transistors (celeron 2)

thier is a big difference between the different flavor or celerons...
i think the best way to compare it would be the difference between the pentium Pro (1st 686) and pentium 2, then the pentium 2 and pentium 3.

[Pinky]

Sorry, I was working on a different... well, I was paralleling the chips and trying to draw some similarities.

I could quote exceptions and compare all day, I was just trying to find something uniform... after reading your posts I realize why Intel has not bothered to distinguish the celeron chips form one another :p !!

I'd take a coppermine over a katmai or Mendocino, for the simple fact they overclock better... I'd care little about the chips at default :D .

You made good points too, thanks for being specific (IE--my "opinions are like... and we all got one" thread not too long ago). This sort of give and take is what we're all about.

[JaY_III]

sorry if i came across harsh or trying to prove you wrong.....
its just that i got a celeron 2 :-) and know what my chip is and isnt...

yeah your right, we could post quotes all day.....

its all in good fun and the glory to the overclocking gods

[Pinky]

Originally posted by jay
sorry if i came across harsh or trying to prove you wrong.....
its just that i got a celeron 2 :-) and know what my chip is and isnt...

yeah your right, we could post quotes all day.....

its all in good fun and the glory to the overclocking gods

You made good points, of course it's going to come as being harsh ;)!!

Still, the answer was 8 posts back -- Intel does not make that distinction, only us end-users do. But it did make for a good hashing of celeron knowledge, of which mine is admittedly limited (to my few celeron cpu experiences).

[ChadP]

Soon there will also be Celeron "3" - made with the Tulatin core. Hopefully the prefetch will make up for the cut down cache a bit more...

[Pinky]

Originally posted by ChadP
Soon there will also be Celeron "3" - made with the Tulatin core. Hopefully the prefetch will make up for the cut down cache a bit more...

That would be a worthy UT server chip! hehe

really, like to see what overclocks one will manage with that puppy.