Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:22:26 -0700 From: Kent Stewart <kstewart@3-cities.com> To: thierry.herbelot@alcatel.fr Cc: mholloway@flashmail.com, questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: AMD or Intel? Message-ID: <37600262.97B851C6@3-cities.com> References: <375f4aae.17f.0@flashmail.com> <375F75A7.7A8C2082@telspace.alcatel.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thierry Herbelot wrote: > > Hello, > > you may just wait a little and get an "official" SMP board with two > celerons-400 for the same price as your P-II 400 (check Abit and QDI for > info and look at Tom's Hardware) One thing to consider is the memory. The Celeron uses PC-66 and the P-II 400 uses PC-100. When I run setiathome on a Celeron 433 with 64 MB and on two P-II 400 systems running NT4+ with 128MB, I get work unit times of 15hrs for the Celeron and 9:50 to 10:50 on the NT machines. There is a graphic display that goes with the NT version of setiathome and execution time varies a factor of 3+ depending on whether you have blanked the display or not. It is run as the screensaver and I am blanking the display. If I don't blank the display a WU requires as much as 35 hours. Setiathome on FreeBSD as I write this is showing 35.3hrs and 99.02% CPU on top. I haven't been doing anything for a couple of days on FreeBSD so the system is just sitting there running setiathome instead of chewing up idle time. At this point, I think the only difference in WU times is the 100Mhz memory on the P-II's. The Celeron is not supposed to use 100Mhz memory at this point. I think that is scheduled for the Celeron 500. The speeds ending in 33 or 66 and the 400 use the 66Mhz bus. I have more than enough memory on all three systems to run setiathome. It is a pure computation program and CPU speed and access to memory would be the primary throttles on performance. I think you would get more throughput with two Celerons but each single threaded job would run slower than on the P-II 400. I also think that it takes a special program to use memory that intensively and most programs would never see it, since the on-board cache is clocked faster on the current Celeron's than on the P-II. Kent > > This seems the best combination with a decent OS (it should still work > with Wincrap98) > > TfH > > "Mark L. Holloway" wrote: > > > > I'm looking do get another PC for my FreeBSD dektop workstation (ie not serving). > > > > For $189 I can get an AMD K2-450 and Motherboard. > > For $379 I can get an Intel 400 and Motherboard. > > > > I've heard the AMD has a weak FPU but as soon as you hit PIII the price jumps > > way too high (since I won't use the PIII extensions). Any advice? Is the AMD > > still a good cpu? > > > > Regards, > > Mark > > ______________________________________________________ > > Get Your FREE FlashMail Address now at http://www.flashmail.com > > It's Free, Easy, & Fun !!! > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message > > -- > Thierry Herbelot <thierry.herbelot@alcatel.fr> > Phone : (+33) 1 46 52 47 23 > Home Page : http://perso.cybercable.fr/herbelot > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message -- Kent Stewart Richland, WA mailto:kstewart@3-cities.com http://www.3-cities.com/~kstewart/index.html SETI @ Home (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?37600262.97B851C6>