I've never been clear on what one is sacrificing by getting a cheaper Celeron instead of Pentium Intel CPU. I assume you can't simply compare processing speed.
My understanding is summed up in this quote: *The Celeron processors are based on the same core as more expensive Pentium-branded processors, but usually lack in some features such as L2 cache size and bus speed. * from: Celeron vs Pentium - difference between desktop Celeron and Pentium processors | CPU World
So basically, the Celeron and Prentium differ based on:
- CPU Clock speed
- L2 Cache Size
- Is this accurate?
- How would you factor in L2 Cache size and bus speed to make an accurate comparison?
This will be for an internal file server and printer server primarily. A little bit of light duty cd duplication (running a Primeral Bravo 2 CD Duplicator).
More info: TomsHardware reports that L2 Cache makes a big difference but in his graphs, it seems to make only a small (5% or less) difference (b/t 1 MB and 4 MB L2 Cache)
Integrated L2 cache resulted in considerably improved performance across virtually all applications. The performance impact even is significant enough to say that L2 cache is the most important performance factor on an x86 microprocessor. Disabling the L2 cache will reduce system performance more than disabling a second CPU core of a dual-core processor. from:
Does Cache Size Really Boost Performance? | Tom's Hardware