Which would perform better, a PII 350 or a Celeron 366?

[Tipycol]

I have both, and was wondering which one to have in the family comp. Also do you think if I ran the Celeron at 566MHz it'd perform better than the PII?


Thanks

Tipycol

 

[TUK101]

The Pentium will definately perform better stock, but the Celeron has a history of being a great OC'er. With the Celeron 366 OC'ed to [email protected] fsb it should do well for games and things like that where the cache doesnt come into effect as much. But on the other hand you say that it is going to be a family comp, where most people do things like editing pictures and surfing the new, so the Pentium with all the cache would probably outdo the Celeron. If you plan to game, go with the Celeron, if you plan to just surf the net and play with pictures and video then go with the Pentium. You should be able to get that Pentium to OC a bit too.

 

[alien76]

4 months ago i had celeron 366, my father has P2 at 350 Mhz. I say both of them are piece of bull****. Now I am satisfied with P4!

 

[BaldHeadedDork]

I'm going to vote with the Celeron. The old Celeron A's only had 128MB of onboard cache compared to the P2's 256 (I think, but it might have been 512.) But the cache on the Celeron A's ran at full processor speed where the P2 memory only ran at half speed.

Back in the day, this meant the Pentium only had the slightest edge on the Celeron, and as you bumped up the FSB on both the Celly could actually outperform the P2.

But, if this is the family rig, I'd be careful about overclocking. Those old 440BX boards used jumpers to set the FSB and that didn't offer the fine control you get in today's BIOS settings. It was often the case that a rig would run fine at one setting and get toasted at the next jump.


BHD

 

[Darkseid]

the pentium 2 has 512 cache, but it runs at half speed than chip clock and is not on-die so it`s cas latency is 7, soo. yes you have big cache but slower, but anyway i vote pII i have a 400 in my family`s pc and i can watch divx and play stuff, the celeron has more troubles with that
by the way it can go all the way to 480, is that good or what?

 

[DS]

Some of the P2's were good overclockers, especially some of the 333's. Check my sig, the overclocked 333 is in my daughters machine.

 

[Peter007]

I would go with the Celeron.
I have a Pentium II 300 versus a Celeron 300A,
the P2 can be OC to 350mhz, versus Celeron 450mhz.

In either Case, I have found my Celeron easily kick Pentium II's BUTT despite its huge Cache Size of 512K.

Pentium II has 1/2 divider on cache speed.
So your 350mhz = 175mhz Cache speed. versus Celeron's full cache speed of 300mhz on default, and 450mhz on Overclock. It really leaves the PII in the dust.

However, comparing the TWO is a MUTE POINT!
Both CPU LACK the support for SSE, you might as well throw both of them away and buy a new CPU/MB combo

 

[mirko_3]

I'm going to vote with the Celeron. The old Celeron A's only had 128MB of onboard cache compared to the P2's 256 (I think, but it might have been 512.) But the cache on the Celeron A's ran at full processor speed where the P2 memory only ran at half speed.

Well, if it really is 128 Megabytes of L2, I think I'd get the Celeron... and throw away all my ram....lol

 

[BaldHeadedDork]

Hey, you try posting at two am and get everything perfect.


BHD
...off to write kilobyte 100 times on the blackboard.