Which is better, Celeron 2.6 GHz or Celeron-M 370 1.5 GHz?

Hello all,

I am just wondering which cpu is better, Celeron 2.6 GHz or Celeron-M 370 1.5 GHz? I am asking this because my sister is getting a B130 soon, so I am consern about the cpu. I know the FSB for both cpus is the same, 400 mhz. But there is a huge difference between cache, Celeron is 128KB and Celeron-M 370 is 1MB. Is this makes a huge differences for performace?

TIA.

JC

 

celeron 370 of course.....the 2.6 is old retarded cpu

the celeron 370 is a newer architecture...its just run like a pentium m but have 1mb cache, which is still really good

the celeron 2.6 one even slower than a pentium 4-m...but faster than a pentium 3

 

Thank you.

JC

 

Well, boon27 is correct that the Celeron M is a better CPU choice, but the Celeron 2.6 is a good CPU (not "retarded" at all), but will run hot. In the Dell B130, as cheaply as it is being sold, I would be concerned with the heat even if the Celeron 2.6 is a slightly better performer.

Q

 

I just got out from under a Toshiba Satellite A65 that was running a Celeron 2.8 processor.

It was VERY HOT, and the battery life was pathetic. I never once got more than 45 minutes out of a charge, with dim screen and all....

A Celeron is a bad idea for a laptop, but the Celeron M would probably be a major step up.

 

I got 4 hrs on Celeron 2.6 ghz. Yeah, Celeron is a good CPU but yea, it does get alittle warm, but thats alright by me.

JC

 

Even a Celeron M might be a bad idea. It doesn't have SpeedStep, so it produces more heat and uses more power than a Pentium M.

The main problem might be that the fan will be always on.

 

It also has a much smaller L1 cache than the Pentium M, which makes it a celeron.

 

The Celeron M 370 1.5GHz is an older Pentium M chip without SpeedStep (doesn't dynamically adjust clockspeed, always runs at maximum speed which means more heat/less battery life as posted) and a halved cache. It's not a bad performer, just a budget-oriented chip.
The 370 is probably around the speed of a 2.4GHz Pentium 4, which is faster than a 2.6 Celeron. The older Celerons with the 128k L2 were poor performers indeed, but perfectly adequate for basic use.

 

YES. Thank you, ChazMan421. That is the answer what I am looking for.

JC

 

My fan was freaking ALWAYS on with my Celeron, and it was so loud in class. When it turned on (without warning) other students from across the room would hear it and look at me.

 

On my Celeron, its mostly quiet, but when it doesnt, that is when I either compresss a video, or doing audio files, mostly multimeida stuffs. I can barely hear it when I am just using it for word processing, basic stuffs.

JC

 

Well, I have the b120 same as the b130 with a smaller screen and the Celeron M 360. It runs full power all the time but the heat, noise, and battery life were not bad. The performance despite having half the L2 cache was on par with a Pentium M of the same speed. Also it's not the older (banias) architecture, it is 90nm Dothan which is also used in the Sonoma.

Oh yeah, the B130 with the 370 will pin mod to 2.0 Ghz without increasing the voltage or decreasing batt life. The Celeron doesn't even come close.

I did switch the notebook to a Pentium M [email protected] since enhanced speedstep would have been non functional in my desktop PC; Perfect place for a Celeron M . I was going to build a PM desktop but CM is close enough.

 

celeron m with 1mb cache is like really good! between 1mb and 2mb is a bit hard to tell the diff with normal applications....

between 125kb and 512kb is a real huge performance compare to 1mb and 2mb


I still use pentium 4 with 512kb cache for desktop and dont see any bad performance...

true the celeron m runs hot but really alot cooler from a pentium 4-m....

 

Thanks for the info.

JC