|
Site News | |
Our Black Friday section is now online! Click here to check it
out.
|
|
| Active Discussions
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
|
| |
By now you should have heard about the new Celeron-II. Basically just a Coppermine with half the cache disabled (it hasn't been physically removed, maybe someone will find a way around that). The main "downside" most people talk about is that it's still on the 66MHz bus, which greatly cripples performance. While this may be true for people running one of intel's BX, i810, or i820 boards, it isn't for those of you using VIA's new 133 chipset.
The reason? Like the KX133 (which is for the Athlon) you have the option of running the RAM 33MHz faster or slower than the main bus. So for you non-overclockers, you can still run your RAM at 100MHz; for you overclockers, this chip seems to run nicely at 100MHz, so your RAM can be set to run at 133MHz. Now the only difference between the Coppermine and the Celeron is the size of the cache (they both have full-speed cache, so that isn't a concern). Since the early Celerons are overclocking very nicely (a 600 for example does 900MHz without breaking a sweat, and can do 1GHz fairly easy with good cooling), there's not much reason to go with an actual Coppermine especially if you are getting a VIA 133 or 133A chipset. If only someone could find a way to enable that other 128K of cache....
As soon as they hit the retail shelves, I'll benchmark them and give you the low-down. Until then, the Coppermine 600E is still the overclocker's dream, doing 800 often without extra voltage or cooling.
Questions? Ask in the
forum or
email me.
For the Privacy Policy, click
here. | |
| |
|
