Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 11:22:06 -0500 (EST) From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> To: Kenneth Wayne Culver <culverk@wam.umd.edu> Cc: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>, Bryan Seitz <phiber@udel.edu>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD Celeron and Celeron ( Mendocino ) kernel patch. Message-ID: <199901091622.LAA07272@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990109111025.2557B-100000@rac8.wam.umd.edu> References: <199901091550.KAA07206@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990109111025.2557B-100000@rac8.wam.umd.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<<On Sat, 9 Jan 1999 11:12:20 -0500 (EST), Kenneth Wayne Culver <culverk@wam.umd.edu> said: > Well, they are the same in that respect, but the Pentium II has cache in > the same package, and most Pentium II's aren't overclockable. The celeron > is. That's OK -- we don't support overclocking anyway. The Celeron does have a cache in the package, BTW. The cache in the Celeron is this tiny little thing that is actually capable of running at clock rates of 250 MHz or higher; the actual CPU is a perfectly ordinary Pentium-II core of the sort that would be labeled as ``450 MHz'' when coupled with a more expensive cache. (According to my friend who does VLSI design.) The Celeron chips are intentionally down-rated by Intel marketing to keep them from cannibalizing the high-end market. (Remember when upgrading to a faster line printer meant that a SE would change a single belt?) I think we should stick to identifying the core. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same wollman@lcs.mit.edu | O Siem / The fires of freedom Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199901091622.LAA07272>