View Full Version : Celeron-M
03-30-05, 09:51 PM
So I was looking around at laptops the other day and finally gave the Celeron-M a looking at.
Holy effing crap! It's got 1MB L2 cache...that's more than my Athlon XP...now, I've been very lazy and haven't searched for reviews or anything, but has anyone had experience with one? How do they compare to a Pentium-M, Athlon XP and Athlon 64?
It just boggles my mind becuase Celerons were always teh suck due to their lack of L2 cache, so now that they've got so much, they must kick ass, right?
03-30-05, 10:06 PM
I did a little research and found that while it has 1MB L2, it's only 1.4GHz
But still...I'm sure you can OC it, right? Getting that thing in the 1.8-2.2GHz region would destroy, no?
Performance on the Celeron-M's to my knowledge is pretty good considering their price point.
I am waiting eagerly for Amd's response to the Dothan's and the numbers it tosses up.
04-01-05, 10:22 PM
Apparently Cel-Ms are actually pretty quick. From what I hear (from a friend of mine who's been doing a lot of Lappie research lately) they fall down power management - apparently they don't have the advanced Speedstep stuff of a P-M, and so are far inferior as laptop solutions. As deskies though... I would think they'd be pretty damn good.
I don't think they have the integrated Wireless of the Centrino, and they are also missing the extra 1mb of cache. Good luck on OC'ing. It is a notebook, and you will likely get 0 options for voltages/fsb's etc.
They are decent, definetely better than they used to be. They are no AMD64's though.
Believe it or not, L2 cache hardly makes a CPU fast. Many people believe so, but its not the case. Actually, its more the speed of the L2 cache. Look at Prescott vs Northwood. 1mb L2 vs 512K L2. They are about the same speed wise. The Prescott has lower rated (slower) L2 speed.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.