> Accccckkkkkk! That was rather inexact wording. Let me try again...my > Celeron 400 based systems crunch exponents in the 384K FFT range at about > the same speed as George's PII-400 machine. However, at the 448K FFT size, > George's machine appears to be 20% or more faster than my Celeron 400s. > Could the 128K L2 cache of the Celeron chips (vs. the 512K L2 cache of the > PIIs) be the culprit? I think it is much more the bus speed/multipliers- tek = 4.5*100 cas = 5.5*83. | tek Celeron (Mendocino) 451.031641/451.031641 MHz 448.92/450.56 bms| | uptime 6:00pm up 8 days, 17:41, 0 users, load average: 2.00, 2.00, 2.00| | Iteration: 3850100 / 5515217 [69%]. Clocks: 81008907 = 0.180 sec. | | Iteration: 2357600 / 5511949 [42%]. Clocks: 81235328 = 0.181 sec. | | cas Celeron (Mendocino) 456.510316/456.510316 MHz 455.48/455.48 bms| | uptime 6:00pm up 17 days, 20:15, 0 users, load average: 2.00, 2.00, 2.0| | Iteration: 4084700 / 5505959 [74%]. Clocks: 97777645 = 0.217 sec. | | Iteration: 239600 / 5505919 [4%]. Clocks: 97636893 = 0.217 sec. | By the way is o/c frowned upon when running these tests? I got two errors back in early august (a sumout and a ERROR: ROUND OFF (0.5) > 0.40), two weeks after starting gimps, I adjusted the cooling and since then no reported errors. But overall am I wasting my time (an perhaps others) by running o/c'ed? _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
