Hi, I have been quietly reading you all for a while. I have set up a Celeron 300A with 128 Ko L2 cache, overclocked to 450 Mhz. It is working very well 24/24 & 7/7 :-) For the benchmark, I will look into it and report (Linux reports 450 Bogomips). This is much faster for the price than any Pentium II. Mother Board : DFI 440 BX, 128 Mo SDRAM 100 Mhz. > I'm suggesting to anyone who can afford it, get a P-II 400 today. > I'm being fed exponents to LL-test on a P2/350 - I'd recommend you get a BX > motherboard and a large pile of SDRAM, start with a P2/350 or even an > overclocked Celeron if you want to live dangerously, and expect to upgrade > when Intel give away Katmais in cornflake packets. > For those on a tight budget, consider building a machine around > the Intel Celeron 300A. There have been many success stories > overclocking this chip to 450MHz with a 100MHz front-side bus. > Suppose one were to get an overclockable Celeron 300A and ran it at > 450MHz. That would mean you would have 128K of L2 cache running at 450MHz > (I might not have some of this right--if so, someone please let me know!). > I wonder how it would compare speedwise (running LL tests on an exponent > in the 5500000 to 6000000 range, say) to a regular PII-450 with 512K L2 > cache running at 1/2 the processor speed? The Celeron L2 cache would be > quicker, but would that be offset by it's small size (relative to the PII > cache) when running LL tests? Has anyone done any systematic testing? > I've seen reports of overclocked Celeron 300A chips benchmarking as high > as PII-450 chips, but I suspect that LL tests are such that this might not > be true for those of us in GIMPS. Question about a IBM 233 processor : it is reported by Prime95 as a Cyrix 166, and running 24/24, so why the default is set to do factoring ? Yann
