Re: [Off Topic] Celeron 366 or 400 MHz, 64+ MB RAM?

[matt garman <garman@uiuc.edu>]

On Sun, Jan 09, 2000 at 09:47:44PM -0600, ktb wrote:
> I'm looking into buying a computer with either a 366 or 400MHz Celeron
> processor.  It has an L2 cache size of 128 Kb.  I've read somewhere that
> an L2 cache under something like 512 kb, will slow down your computer if
> there is more than 64 MB of RAM added.  On the other hand I've read that

I don't think that's necessarily true.  That is, I don't see why a small
cache on a system with more than 64 mb of ram is any different that a
system with less physical memory.

> this isn't a problem for PII processors and above, even if the cache is
> smaller than 512 kb.  I've searched the archives and looked around on
> the net and can't nail this one down.  Can I use more than 64 MB with
> this processor/L2 cache combination?  

You certainly can use a Celeron with 64 MB or more physical memory.  The
Celeron and Pentium II are the same chip, except for the L2 cache size
(the Pentium II has a 512kb L2 cache and the Celeron a 128kb L2 cache).

Very fast memory systems (e.g. cache memory) is very expensive, and I'm
pretty sure this is what accounts for the price difference between the
Celeron and Pentium II.

For two systems that differ only in their processors, one with a P-II
and one with a Celeron (both chips with the same clock), the P-II would
probably be the better performer.

But if you're basing your decision on price/performance ratio, rather
than just performance, the Celeron is usually the winner.  For what
you'll save on buying a Celeron over the Pentium II, you can probably
afford a higher clock or more physical ram.

If you can afford it, you might consider the AMD Athlon, arguably the
best PC chip available at this time, and reasonably priced.

Hope this helps,
MG

-- 
Matt Garman, garman@ews.uiuc.edu
"And through the window in the wall
 Come streaming in on sunlight wings
 A million bright ambassadors of morning." 
	--Pink Floyd, "Echoes"