What is a Mobile Celeron equivalent to?
I overheard a Mac dealer telling a customer it the Toshiba 1.8 GHz Mobile Celeron processor was basically a pumped up Pentium II.
He went on to say that it wasn't any match for the G3 800mhz iBook's processor.
Is that pure salesmanship or is there any truth to that?
He went on to say that it wasn't any match for the G3 800mhz iBook's processor.
Is that pure salesmanship or is there any truth to that?
Comments
[ 12-07-2002: Message edited by: New ]</p>
I don't know how it would compare to an 800MHz G3, but it's nowhere near a 1.8GHz desktop P4.
<strong>I overheard a Mac dealer telling a customer it the Toshiba 1.8 GHz Mobile Celeron processor was basically a pumped up Pentium II.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the Celeron used to be a re-branded Pentium II. But when the P4 came out, that changed.
I am guessing a 1.8 GHz Celeron-M would be about the same as an 800 MHz 750fx. The G3, however, would have twice the L2 cache, full speed, on chip, which helps it a bunch. It also has a five step pipeline, making it super efficient. The 20 step pipeline on the P4 and Celeron (at least, I think the Celeron also uses a 20 stage pipeline) is very bad for performance.
Celerons might not support DDR either. I'm not sure on this one, though.
[ 12-07-2002: Message edited by: Luca Rescigno ]</p>
[quote]The conclusion to be drawn is that the Celeron, in its present form, can no longer keep pace with the Athlon XP and Pentium 4 by means of higher clock speeds. The Pentium 4 is considerably faster - but also much more expensive. AMD's Athlon XP does not, as a rule, cost any more, but offers significantly higher performance in some respects (including with DDR333). Anyone making a carefully considered purchase would be better advised to go for an Athlon XP or a Pentium 4. <hr></blockquote>
So regardless of the clockspeed, the thing is pretty slow compared to regular PIV. The mobile version is even slower still.
Nick
Any X86 chips are both flawed and slow compared with the risc chips of a mac.
The only advantage of this celeron P4 is his 478 pins socket. You can replace it by a P4 on any mobo.
As amorph said , this chip brings poor performance, even it's sufficiant for most basic use. I think that the performance of a 1,7 celeron are close than a 800 mhz G3 750 fxe with 512 KB of L2 cache.
<strong>Here's what Tom's Hardware Guide has to say about it.
So regardless of the clockspeed, the thing is pretty slow compared to regular PIV. The mobile version is even slower still.
Nick</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wrong. Read the entire article plus benchmarks. For things that require cache, of which Celeron has only 128K, P4/AMD will kick its butt. For any other stuff, sysmark, MP3 encoding, the difference is negligible.
This applies to the 2ghz 13nm Celeron. The 1.x ghz Celerons vis-a-vis P4 have a wider performance gap.