No comparison between C533 and C533A???

[xtreme2k]

i am looking for some benchmarks between these 2 cpu... i wana know how come the Celeron 2 is so damn slow!

how come no one/site has post such a review

 

[Hyper99]

well they run like a k62 650mhz so I wouldnt say it slow
after overclock to say 800 it more like K6-2 at 960mhz
OH boy for all those K6-2@ 550 to 582
it still like a celeron at 466
really pathetic, hey I am a K6-2 user myself
and it sucks
I could have pay a little more 30-40 buck and get a celeron instead?
and get almost twice the performance of a K6-2?

 

[cdrakejr]

Have you checked the post on the 533 a few lines down from yours.
I posted links there to some reviews.
Since I'm an AMD fan, I'm not that familiar with the differences. The reviews from http://www.reviewclick.com are all for the 533ppga; the review at http://www.overclockers.com/articles117
is a 533fcpga.

Also there is an explanation of the differences between the Celerons at: http://www.dansdata.com/duron.htm
The article is a Duron review, but the introduction to the article has a good overview of the history of the "value" cpus including lengthy overview of the history of the Celeron.

 

[pcmark]

I assume you mean a c533a and a c2-533a. They use the A as in C533A to designate 128 cache, to distinguish between the old C300 with no cache and the C300A with cache. I have a C550 which benchmarks close to my PIII550 for CPU in Sandra. However,in the Multimedia CPU benchmark,the PIII blows the celeron away due to the SSE instructions. SO it's safe to assume the C2-533a will beat the C533a due to the SSE.

 

[felix88]

pcmark: the a isn't there to designate 128k of l2 cache, it's there to show that there are 2 chips at the same speed...the 533 was based on the .25 celeron core, while the 533a is based on the new coppemine celeron core. if you don't believe me about the a's, check intels site, there are only 2 chips with the "a" in the name, the 300a and the 533a.

 

[Bill L.]

"check intels site, there are only 2 chips with the "a" in the name, the 300a and the 533a."

Actually there are three - Intel also list a 500A but no one has ever seen one that I can find out about.

http://www.intel.com/design/celeron/qit/update.pdf

Bill

 

[Bartman]

How did so many people come to think that almost every Celeron has an A after the rateing?! I got into a verbal fight with someone over it till I showed him some Intel www sites. There are only TWO celerons that use the "A". TWO! Celeron 300A and Celeron2 533A.

Bart

 

[xtreme2k]

hahaa
i didn't make a mistake when i say comparison between C533 and C533a

C533 - mendocino core (0.25 - no sse)
C533a - coppermine core (0.18 - sse)

wat i want is a review having BOTH of this cpu in it

i wana see why is the Celeron2 so slow

 

[WetWilly]

You'd have thought *someone* at one of the major hardware sites would have done this one, at least out of curiosity. I suspect that everyone went straight to the Celeron 566 because of the greater overclocking potential (though my 533A is running at 920MHz at 1.85v ) I checked those sites that cdrakejr listed, and no one has reviewed a 533A FC-PGA processor - only the PPGA chips.

There was a benchmark of both the Celeron 533 and 533A at an Asian site (either Singapore or Japan) right before the Coppermine Celerons were introduced. The results - at 533MHz, the Mendocino and Coppermine cores performed virtually identically except for benchmarks that used SSE (like 3DMark2000), where the Coppermine core clobbered the Mendocino. The results were pretty much what one would expect, which is why I didn't bookmark the link.

If you want to know what the Celeron 2 is slow relative to the Pentium III, search the forums for the rather extensive previous discussions about cache size, latency and associativity. It's only slow relative to something else. I can tell you 920MHz is pretty decent.

 

[Tom]

An overclocked Celeron 2 isn't slow even relative to a Pentium 3.


C2 566(952/112 oc'd)
vs
P3 600(800/133 oc'd)


http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1227&p=11

 

[WetWilly]

Ummm, not quite. Unless I'm missing something, the only platform the P3-800/133 was tested on is the VIA. On the same VIA platform, the Celeron with a 150MHz advantage over the PIII only scores 2.5fps more. Go over to the BX platform where you're more likely to find a Celeron, and the Celeron@952 on a 112MHz bus scores only 5fps more than a P3-800 on a 100MHz bus.

Look here for a more thorough set of benchmarks across CPUs and platforms:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1264&p=8:
Intel Celeron 850/100 (BX): 111.3
Intel Pentium III 800/100 (BX): 125.2

I don't think you'd want to do the BX comparison on the PIII 600@800:
Intel Pentium III 800/133 (BX): 142.8

The Celeron's not a bad deal - heck, I bought one myself - but, clock-for-clock it is slower than a Pentium III.

 

[Tom]

I was comparing a Celeron 566 to a Pentium III 600.
the Celeron overclocked to 952/112, the Pentium 3 600 overclocked to 800/133.

Overclocking a P3 to 133mhz on a BX board is quite a bit farther out of spec than the C2 at 112mhz, therefore less likely to succeed. But even given that the number from your reference is

P3 800/133 on BX 142.8

C2 952/112 on BX 124.1

This is the test where the largest difference between them appears. While its a significant difference I don't think it would be fair to characterize the Celeron 2 as "slow" based on this. I would say they are both very fast.

Remember the starting point was a C2 566 and a P3 600. Some look at the overclocked C2s speed of 952 and think that if it doesn't perform as well as a 950mhz P3 that it is something of a failure. I don't think this is valid because the price/performance ratio is based on the pre-overclocked speed. Intel sells the C2 566 as a 566, not a 952 and prices it accordingly. The C2 566 at this time is significantly cheaper than a P3 600, which has to be pushed farther to perform at roughly equivalent levels. Of course P3 700s and up are even more expensive, putting them out of the category of super value that I'd put the Celeron2 533a and 566 in.

Of course cpu prices tend to drop rather quickly; the edge in price/performance will go away as P3 prices drop. For me the key is that the 566 can be bought for $100 or less right now, in a few weeks or months maybe a P3 600 will get that cheap. At that time the 566 won't be the good deal it is right now.

 

[xtreme2k]

i do not think the C533 and C533A will perform identical to each other since their cache architecture is totally different

C533 - 4way Association 64bit datapath (forgot wat lantency)
C533A - 4way association 256bit datapath 7-cycle lantency i think

7cycle is wat i read from P3 coppermine

C533 from wat i remmeber is about 11 or sth
anyone remind me there (DONT GIVE ME THAT LANTENCY CRAP FROM WCPUID)

anyway wat i am looking for is how this 2 cpu benchmarked in order to predict wat intel did to cripple the Celeron2

just from reading the specs, the C533A should KICK C533 even without the use of SSE instructions...
but if it is NOT kicking it, then there is a problem... u get wat i mean?

(dont give me benchmark from sandra - one of the worst cpu comparison benchmark u can have, their result between P3 and C2 is the same.. which is totally crap bench since it doesnt take into account of their L2 difference)