Well, using winbench98 as a "standard" reference (as long as all the comparison computers use the same benchmark, you can directly compare the results) point, on the CPU (integer, NOT FPU) test my Celeron 300A / Abit BH6 combo @ 450mhz runs at approx 940 or so. A true 450 PII runs at about 1050. As I am somewhat cheap, I would not buy the true 450 PII chip, but I do get somewhat tired of everyone saying that a Celeron @ 450 is as fast as a PII true 450 chip with 512k L2 cache. It's not except in games!
Additional examples; (none overclocked, same cpu integer performance, NOT FPU performance)
A Cyrix MII 333 on a FSB of 100mhz will post just under 700, A Celeron 300A running on a FSB of 66mhz posts about 610. A Cyrix 6X86 200 posts about 435 and a PPro 200 will post approx 500
I always say "about" because the tests will vary sligtly from test to test. I would figure a fudge factor of about 3% +/-
Before you decide on a Celeron or a true PII you may want to view INTELs Website and read what they have to say.
I've got a PII333 that i can run at 392 without problems and a Celeron 366 at 458.
Which proc. should i use? I think the Celeron. What do you think?
300a for price, P-II 450 for power and performance.
I have the latter, runs fine at 504. Also have Abit BX6 v2.0 on order. Fully expect to see 526.5 and maybe 558. 300a won't go there.
PII vs. Celeron
does anyone know how big the diff. in performance is between a PII and a Celeron at the same speed.
New Security Features Planned for Firefox 4
Another Laptop Theft Exposes 21K Patients' Data
Oracle Hits to Road to Pitch Data Center Plans
Microsoft Preps Array of Windows Patches
Microsoft Nears IE9 Beta With Final Preview
Simplified Analytics Improve CRM, BI Tools
Android Passes RIM as Top Mobile OS in 2Q
VMware Updates Hyperic System Management
File Monitoring Key to Enterprise Security
LinkedIn Snaps Up SaaS Player mSpoke