Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 11:58:42 -0500 (EST) From: Kenneth Wayne Culver <culverk@wam.umd.edu> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Cc: Bryan Seitz <phiber@udel.edu>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD Celeron and Celeron ( Mendocino ) kernel patch. Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990109115739.9809A-100000@rac10.wam.umd.edu> In-Reply-To: <199901091622.LAA07272@khavrinen.lcs.mit.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. I wasn't disagreeing with that, I was just saying what I said about the cache. Intel would have you believe that there is not any cache on the Celeron. Kenneth Culver 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?Pine.GSO.3.95q.990109115739.9809A-100000>