On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Thomas Poole wrote:
> Since the 300A's can often run at 450Mhz, what type of performance can I
> expect to see out of two Celeron's compared to two PII's? I know this is
> a subjective question, but I am concerned about the size of the L2 cache
> and how 128K at core speed compares with 512K at 1/2 core speed. I know
> that a Celeron at 450 performs well in non-smp situations, but is
> performance good in SMP situations as well? Or should I avoid the
> Celeron's and go for PII 300's?
One thing to consider is memory contention. Both a PII-300 and Celeron
use a 66MHz bus speed. To overclock a Celeron, you do so by increasing
the bus speed to 100MHz, assuming your Celeron will actually run at
450MHz. (Remember that not all will.) But this will give you an extra
33MHz of memory bandwidth. Definite plus. On the other hand, the larger
(if slower) L2 cache in the PII will help reduce main memory usage.
I can't say which is better, to a point it will depend on your
applications. Maybe there are some people on the list with similar setups
who would be willing to try Robert G. Brown's benchmarks which show when
bandwidth runs out for memory intensive processes.
http://www.phy.duke.edu/brahma/benchmark.results
Sketch
-
Linux SMP list: FIRST see FAQ at http://www.irisa.fr/prive/mentre/smp-faq/
To Unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe linux-smp" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
