~misfit~ wrote:

"Bob" <none@none.none> wrote in message
news:bmlr6s$6d2$1@hercules.btinternet.com...

~misfit~ wrote:

"Bob" <none@none.none> wrote in message
news:bmlmja$sj4$2@sparta.btinternet.com...

~misfit~ wrote:

"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:0sjjb.15526$zw4.13052@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...

You DON'T want Celeron, you want full PIII CPU.  The Celeron is

cheaper

due to the smaller
L2 cache and other constructs that are bolstered in a full PIII CPU.

I reckon the [1.4]celeron would be faster than the [1.1]PIII.
--
~misfit~

Celerons used to be alot slower than PIIIs, AFAIK that hasn't changed -
they simply can't hold enough data in their caches to process full time.
It's why they are cheap...

It really depends on the app and if it is cache-reliant. They basically

have

the same core so if the app isn't very cache-reliant it will run faster

on

the Celly. I'm not sure if a larger cache makes much difference to SETI.
Anyone tell me? It seems to run well on my old coppermine Cellys. Also

the

Tualatin Cellys are very overclocker-friendly  due to their 100MHz FSB

and

low vcore, they have quite a bit of head-room. I believe though that the
original poster mentioned it was for a Dell and they're not usually very
overclockable.
--
~misfit~

SETI used to be very cache dependant, and cellys used to have full speed
cache, whilst the early PIIIs had off die cache at 1/2 speed.

I can't tell you how cache dependant SETI is now - but newer PIIIs
(socket, not slot) have on die cache at full speed, so the celly won't
be faster.

The obvious way to think it to look on teh SETI spy webpage - there is a
good calculator there, I believe it is correct for the current version...

http://cox-internet.com/setispy/efficiency.htm

Well, seems I was wrong (again :-( )

Celly Tualatin at 1.4 GHz      6 hours 17 mins.
PIII  Tualatin at 1.1GHz        5 hours 44 mins.

My apologies for talking shit.
--
~misfit~

PS. Not sure if I completely trust that calculator though. I just put in the
three different Celerons at a theoretical CPU speed of 500MHz and a memory
speed of 100 and got:

Mendicino:    11.1 hours
Coppermine: 13.5 hours
Tualatin:        17.6 hours

Both the Mendicino and Coppermine have 128MB full-speed cache but different
process size but the Tualatin has 256MB full-speed cache.

And for 1GHz: (Both the Cumine and the Tui came out at 1GHz versions and
Mendicinos have been clocked very close to 1GHz using extreme cooling)

Men: 6.93 hrs
Cu:    8.36 hrs
Tui:   8.8 hrs

And yet the Tui has twice the cache and a more modern core.  Hmmm.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 9/10/2003

Does the tuali have a longer pipeline? - I don't think so, but minor changes in preprocessing algorithms, or any other changes, can have huge implications for SETI performance...