|
|
|
|
|
by MontyCarloHall
166 days ago
|
|
>Celeron CPUs were usually CPUs that shared the same core architecture as the current Pentium standard, but often had a lower core clock speed, lower core memory speed, and/or had smaller L2 caches. This had an interesting side effect: Celerons of that era overclocked extremely well (stable 300 -> 500MHz+), due to the smaller and simpler on-die L2 cache relative to the Pentiums of the era, whose L2 cache was much larger but had to be off-die (and less amenable to overclocking) as a result. An overclocked dual Celeron could easily outperform the highest-end Pentiums of the era on clock-sensitive, cache-insensitive applications, especially those designed to take advantage of parallelism. |
|
Another thing that helped the Celeron overclocking craze is Intel seemed to damage the brand badly out of the gate. The original Celerons had no cache at all, performed terribly and took a beating in PC reviews. So even though the A variants were much better this still had a stink on them.
The thing that probably helped the Celeron the most with overclocking though was they gimped them by only giving them a 66mhz front side bus speed. Since you had to increase this number to push the locked multiplier CPU speed up this was an advantage if you were going to overclock as you could buy a capable motherboard and run it at stable 100mhz. Whereas you'd have a lot more system wide problems trying to push a Pentium's 100mhz bus higher.