Date: Fri, 02 Jan 1998 00:38:35 +0900 From: Atsuo Kobayshi <HGH02351@nifty.ne.jp> To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, olli@dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de Subject: Re: SMP and celerons? Message-ID: <19980102003835Y.akoba@nifty.ne.jp> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 20 Jun 1999 13:58:12 %2B0200 (CEST)" <199906201158.NAA26300@dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de> References: <199906201158.NAA26300@dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
From: Oliver Fromme <olli@dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de> Subject: Re: SMP and celerons? Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 13:58:12 +0200 (CEST) > Gregory Sutter wrote in list.freebsd-stable: > > On Sat, Jun 19, 1999 at 03:04:54PM +0000, Mark Turpin wrote: > > > On Sat, 19 Jun 1999, Alexander Langer wrote: > > > > Yes, but they work with such a slot1 adapter which helps the Ce= leron > > > > by doing the required stuff (afaik) > > > = > > > The celerons have the necessary pins to support multi-processing= , > > > but intel lists them as reserved in the data sheets. I do know t= hat MSI > > > (MicroStar) has released a PPGA->Slot1 converter with a jumper th= at > > > connects the pins. All you have to do is use two PPGA celerons a= nd two of > > > these converters and it works. There is some more information > > > available(part numbers and a picture) at http://www.cpu-central.c= om/ > > = > > An acquaintance of mine who is a former member of the Celeron > > development team said that the Celerons can do SMP, but there is a = bug > > that couldn't be fixed (in the time they had, without breaking othe= r > > test cycles), so they shouldn't be trusted for that. I have no fur= ther > > details on the bug at this time. > = > Please excuse me, but I'm inclined to believe that that claim > is a typical marketing statement of intel, and not the truth. > It's not a secret that intel tries to make their customers > believe that the Celeron is inferior and more low-end than it > actually is -- after all, they want to sell Pentium-IIs, too. > = > According to intel, the Celeron is only half as good as the > Pentium-II. But in reality, it is almost as good, and for many > applications you simply cannot see any difference at all. > See the articles and reviews at www.{cpu-central,tomshardware, > bxboards,stormlabs,...}.com. Even the difference in the FSB > clock (66 vs 100 MHz) doesn't make that much of a difference > in performance, as intel would like us to believe. > = > The Celeron is based on exactly the same core as the Pentium-II > (the only difference being that it has 128 Kb L2-cache on-die, > except for the -300 and older models, and only 66 Mhz FSB). > So if the Celeron had a bug in its SMP support, the same bug > should be present in regular Pentium-II processors. > = > Regards > Oliver > = > -- = > Oliver Fromme, Leibnizstr. 18/61, 38678 Clausthal, Germany > (Info: finger userinfo:olli@dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de) > = > "In jedem St=FCck Kohle wartet ein Diamant auf seine Geburt" > (Terry Pratchett) > = > = > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message > = My FreeBSD BOX is Celeron SMP system, and it is very table. M/B;EPOX KP6-BS + PPGA Cleleron 300AMHz + MS-6905Dual BUS converter FSB 100MHz(CPU 450MHz);over clocking But, some hardware tunings(Vcore setting, heat problem..). must be done = to get stablity. See the pointer. http://www.kikumaru.com/ (Mainly Japanese but Englush Bord is abailable there) ----- Kobayashi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980102003835Y.akoba>