On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:54:16 +1200, "~misfit~"
<misfit61nz@yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote:

Alan Woodford wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 03:09:56 +0100 (BST), raj@rijhwani.org (Raj
Rijhwani) wrote:

On Monday, in article <t39Nc.169$uX4.157@trndny06>
    brozewicz.rf@verizon.net "bob brozewicz" wrote:

it takes an average 8/9 hours.

Blimey!  It only take around 4 hours on an Athlon 1900+, on Linux.
A 2.8 GHz Celeron should be leaving that in its dust.

Bets?

She who must be Obeyed's 2.4 Celery is about 50% slower than my
overclocked Thunderbird 1.4 running at 1.54, ~7 hours as opposed to
under 5  on sah1. The P IV HT 3.0 takes just under 3 hours, but does 2
at a time :-)

When I can find a file for my vast stock of tuits, the Celery will get
upgraded to the quickest P IV the m/b can handle - a 533fsb.

The P4 Celeron is one of the most gutless processors ever made since the
first Celeron 266 and 300's which had no L2 cache. They are fine for
children and old ladies to email or do wordprocessing.

You'll get no disagreement here :-)

I have a P3 (Tualatin) Celeron here, overclocked to 1.6Ghz, that does S@H
units in 5 hours and BOINC units in just under six hours.

My old 466 Celery, wound up to 525MHz, used to run at about 1/3 the
speed of the 1.5GHz T-bird. I suspect Intel just don't want to make
them work anymore.

Raj, an Athlon XP1900+ is twice the processor that a 2.8Ghz is. As evidenced
by the times posted here.

Alan "3+ days of cache, and happy now" Woodford

-- 
Men in Frocks, Protecting the Earth with mystical flummery!