"Flwrite" <lostwithout@home.com> wrote in message
news:pmUjb.14151$YO5.6565154@news3.news.adelphia.net...

Dear Ma'ams and Sirs,

Wow, checking the Powerleap website, the 1.4 GHz Celeron conversion was

just

reduced $30 :) to $120.  The 1.1 GHz PIII was reduced $10 to $220.

However,

even if they were both free, the issue would be which crunches WUs faster.

It seems we can't agree for sure on that. That on-line SETI WU times
calculator says the PIII would be faster but, after testing it with a few
things I don't agree with it's results on other CPUs so.....

I still think that the Celeron would be faster but have no evidence to back
it up. Take it with a grain of salt. I have played with older PIIIs and
Celerons and have found that, if the Celeron is 10% faster than the PIII
they perform about the same with SETI, all else being equal.

Thanks for letting me push all your buttons.  I had a feeling it would be
close.


They don't mention the cache sizes; I assume they are the usual 512/half
speed and 256/full speed.  Bob blew my mind with:

The "512/half speed" Pentium III architecture stopped with the Katmai PIII.
(Topped out at 600MHz) Ever since the coppermine came out it's been
full-speed on all Intel CPUs. Confusingly, some of the PIII Tualatins had
256KB and some had 512KB.

Does the tuali have a longer pipeline?... minor changes in preprocessing

algorithms, or any other changes, can have huge implications for SETI
performance...

I'm not sure on this one either Bob. I do know however that the new Intel M
CPU (Braunias?) as used in the Centrino notebooks is based on the Tualatin
CPU and is blindingly fast with SETI.

I don't know Bob.  I asked you first.  But I think I saw something,
somewhere, about the modern Celerons having improved their cache

pipelines.

It is vague marketing phrases like this that are tilting me to the

Celeron.

I think it's cache latency that was improved on the celerons. The early
celerons had a different latency to the PIIIs, didn't access the cache as
fast.

Beside, I did exchange emails with Powerleap, and they sent a terse,
two-word recommendation for the 1.4 GHz Celeron.  I couldn't believe it.
That's why I had to check with y'all.

For one, if the 1.4 GHz Celeron is cheaper, faster, and recommended, why
would they bother to offer a 1.1 GHz PIII?  Just to satisfy people that
don't ask first for a recommendation?

As I said earlier, some applications really benefit from the extra
(full-speed) cache. And the 'Pentium' name sells better than the 'Celeron'.
That said, and all that's been said in this thread, notwithstanding, I'd
still buy the Celeron. But that's me.
--
~misfit~


---
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