RE: [SuSE Linux] I don't want no celery in my computer!
Hi, Finally a topic that I can add a knowledgeable $.02. Well the celeron is a a great chip if you know how to exploit it right. For a list of parts get a good quarlity bx chipset motherboard like an ABIT or ASUS P2B. You will also need PC100 memory(I'll explain). Then the standard parts for any other computer. The reason why you want a good bx board and PC100 memory is you can overclock the daylights out of a celeron. I currently run mine @400(4x100) from a 266 and have had it running 24x7 for 2 months with no crashes. The success rate for over clocking I have seen runs around 90-95% and I have even seen a few go up to 448(4x112). While it may lack 2nd level cache which makes it a dog the way it comes, when you crank it up to 400+(1 jumper difference) it kicks butt especially considering its price. For more info I suggest www.tomshardware.com , for prices on parts www.pricewatch.com . Thanks and have a good day. Brian D. -----Original Message----- From: owner-suse-linux-e@suse.com [<A HREF="mailto:owner-suse-linux-e@suse.com]On">mailto:owner-suse-linux-e@suse.com]On</A> Behalf Of Ted Maciag Sent: Monday, August 31, 1998 5:20 AM To: suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: Re: [SuSE Linux] I don't want no celery in my computer! Hello, I was reading your thread and would like to make a comment. The Celeron costs about $100US, which for what it does is very reasonable. I would like to know "what list of stuff" is need to make it work. For $200US you have a MB and a CPU that should do very well for Linux. My two cents, -ted George Toft wrote:
Samartha wrote:
I think the Celeron is a gimmick - reminds me of celery which should not be in my computer at all - actually, nobody should have celery in their computer because it would severely degrade performance.
The local dealers that care about what you buy (so you'll give good word-of-mouth advertising...) heartily recommend against the celeron as it costs the same as the PII by the time you add stuff (I don't remember the list of stuff). They will sell it if you insist.
Don't get me wrong, they're not gung-ho Intel - they sell equipment to meet the customer's needs at a very good price (for Hawaii - probably normal prices for mainland USA).
Better eat the celery and stay healthy!
I agree.
George
- To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
-- Ted Maciag - To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e - To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
Anonymous wrote:
The success rate for over clocking I have seen runs around 90-95% and I have even seen a few go up to 448(4x112). While it may lack 2nd level cache which makes it a dog the way it comes, when you crank it up to 400+(1 jumper difference) it kicks butt especially considering its price.
Can you give us an idea of how much butt it kicks? BogoMIPS, or a better benchmark? George - To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
George Toft wrote:
Can you give us an idea of how much butt it kicks? BogoMIPS, or a better benchmark?
Linux bogomips reporting is bogus (my p200mmx shows higher bogomips than my friend's dual p2-300) and is well documented as being a worthless number. A good floating point benchmark is Quake timedemo and a good integer benchmark is rc5 benchmark. There are plenty of benchmarks out there, but Quake and rc5 run on a lot of boxes so there are a wealth of results on the web to guage your pc's performance against in those two benchmarks. -- .###. /#######\## -==============================================- ;##### ;# Mike's WindowMaker ;##### ;# <A HREF="http://tasteslikechicken.ml.org/windowmaker.html"><A HREF="http://tasteslikechicken.ml.org/windowmaker.html</A">http://tasteslikechicken.ml.org/windowmaker.html</A</A>> \# /## -==============================================- ###'---'#### - To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
Michael Lankton wrote:
George Toft wrote:
Can you give us an idea of how much butt it kicks? BogoMIPS, or a better benchmark?
Linux bogomips reporting is bogus (my p200mmx shows higher bogomips than my friend's dual p2-300) and is well documented as being a worthless number. A good floating point benchmark is Quake timedemo and a good integer benchmark is rc5 benchmark. There are plenty of benchmarks out there, but Quake and rc5 run on a lot of boxes so there are a wealth of results on the web to guage your pc's performance against in those two benchmarks.
-- .###. /#######\## -==============================================- ;##### ;# Mike's WindowMaker ;##### ;# <A HREF="http://tasteslikechicken.ml.org/windowmaker.html"><A HREF="http://tasteslikechicken.ml.org/windowmaker.html</A">http://tasteslikechicken.ml.org/windowmaker.html</A</A>> \# /## -==============================================- ###'---'#### - To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
I've got 2 Linux systems participating in the RC5-64 cracking effort. One box is a K6-300 and there other is a PPro 200. While Linux shows that the K6's Bogomips are more than twice what the PPro's are, the PPro 200 cracks more keys per seconds than the K6-300 does. I really like how well the PPro runs Linux. :) Tony -- Tony Schlemmer | Phone : 425-372-2246 Software Developer | Fax : 425-372-2222 Global Mobility Systems, Inc. | Mobile: 425-503-8544 11201 SE 8th Street, Suite 110 | <A HREF="mailto:tschlemmer@gmswireless.com">mailto:tschlemmer@gmswireless.com</A> Bellevue, WA 98004 | <A HREF="http://www.gmswireless.com"><A HREF="http://www.gmswireless.com</A">http://www.gmswireless.com</A</A>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ "More programming projects have gone awry for lack of calendar time than for all other causes combined." Frederick Brooks - The Mythical Man Month ------------------------------------------------------------------ - To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
George Toft wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
The success rate for over clocking I have seen runs around 90-95% and I have even seen a few go up to 448(4x112). While it may lack 2nd level cache which makes it a dog the way it comes, when you crank it up to 400+(1 jumper difference) it kicks butt especially considering its price.
Can you give us an idea of how much butt it kicks? BogoMIPS, or a better benchmark?
George
- To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
I saw in Infoworld Electric column that mentioned the 2nd generation Celeron has a 128KB L2 cache. The cache is on the processor die and therefore runs at the same speed as the processor. Tony -- Tony Schlemmer | Phone : 425-372-2246 Software Developer | Fax : 425-372-2222 Global Mobility Systems, Inc. | Mobile: 425-503-8544 11201 SE 8th Street, Suite 110 | <A HREF="mailto:tschlemmer@gmswireless.com">mailto:tschlemmer@gmswireless.com</A> Bellevue, WA 98004 | <A HREF="http://www.gmswireless.com"><A HREF="http://www.gmswireless.com</A">http://www.gmswireless.com</A</A>> - To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
Hi, On Mon, Aug 31, 1998 at 12:55 -0700, Tony Schlemmer wrote:
I saw in Infoworld Electric column that mentioned the 2nd generation Celeron has a 128KB L2 cache. The cache is on the processor die and therefore runs at the same speed as the processor.
Yep this seems to boost the Celeron's performance quite a bit. I've just read an article in the German computer magazine c't where a bunch of processors were compared (<A HREF="http://www.heise.de/ct/98/18/020/"><A HREF="http://www.heise.de/ct/98/18/020/</A">http://www.heise.de/ct/98/18/020/</A</A>>). These are the benchmark results: Processor BAPCo 98 BAPCo 95 Quake II Quake I X-Bench POVRay td [fps] td [fps] [fps] [kPixel/s] Celeron 300 89 181 15 27 50 4,6 Celeron 300A 106 232 16 30 56 8,5 Celeron 333 118 250 17 33 57 9,3 Pentium-II-333 120 238 17 30 58 8,3 Pentium-II-450 157 319 23 44 62 11,0 K6-2-333 108 248 13 19 58 7,0 K6-2-350 109 251 13 20 58 7,0 M-II-333 81 246 11 16 37 5,0 Ciao, Stefan - To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
Thanks Stefan. Looks like the celeron 333 is very attractive compared to the p2-333 by those benchmarks. And that is without the 128k cache. I would be curious what the 333a benchmarked at. The celeron critics sure sound full of (expletive deleted) after seeing those benchmarks. -- .###. /#######\## -==============================================- ;##### ;# Mike's WindowMaker ;##### ;# <A HREF="http://tasteslikechicken.ml.org/windowmaker.html"><A HREF="http://tasteslikechicken.ml.org/windowmaker.html</A">http://tasteslikechicken.ml.org/windowmaker.html</A</A>> \# /## -==============================================- ###'---'#### - To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
Hi, On Mon, Aug 31, 1998 at 17:47 -0500, Michael Lankton wrote:
Thanks Stefan. Looks like the celeron 333 is very attractive compared to the p2-333 by those benchmarks. And that is without the 128k cache. I would be curious what the 333a benchmarked at. The celeron critics sure sound full of (expletive deleted) after seeing those benchmarks.
You got something wrong. The Celeron 333 does have 128k cache as well as the 300a. Ciao, Stefan - To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
participants (5)
-
mountainboy＠pcisys.net -
satan3＠home.com -
stefan.troeger＠wirtschaft.tu-chemnitz.de -
toftd001＠hawaii.rr.com -
tschlemmer＠gmswireless.com