Photo taken from
"Laptop" Magazine.
Lets examine this pictures. We have P500 Celeron and PIII 500; they both have 64 MB of SRAM and 6G H D. They are basically the same. But it seems that P500 Celeron showed a much lower Benchmark Test (167.2) than PIII 500 (269.2). What can we conclude from this experiment? We can conclude that Celeron processors or even computers with Celeron processors are about 50% slower than Pentium models. The data is processed at 1/2 rate of that in Pentium models. Intel, prepare to answer some questions!!!
Further Studies...
A typical
533 Celeron based System (128 MB Ram, 13 GB Hard Drive, 4 MB Video) -->
BenchMark Score 144.7
At the same time we have a PIII 600 (128 MB Ram, 30 GB Hard Drive with INtel 810E embedded AGP video with 11MB of shared system memory) ---> BenchMark Score 317.3 The whole idea of Celeron processors doesn't make any sense. How is it possible for a system with basically the same options to have a 2X "+" Benchmark score. Symantec claims that a typical PII 450 System has a Benchmark score of 200, while a 600 MHz PIII scores 300. It looks like a 533 Celeron processor is 27.65 % slower than a typical PII 450 Mhz System. There is no reason to go any further. In both laptops and Desktop PCs, Celeron processors proved to be much slower than originally expected and claimed by Intel. Approximately, a typical Celeron processor with the same Clock speed as its Pentium cousin will produce a score which is 50% lower than it is in Pentium and AMD K6 chips.
|
My answer is simple; Celeron sucks!!!
Intel.com
Copyright ©
2000 ETsoft Inc. / MadHouse Inc. All rights reserved.
If you believe
that your work has been copied in any way, form or shape, please contact
ETsoft Inc.