Subject: Re: Worst Average CPU time per work unit
From: "~misfit~" <misfit61nz@hooya.co.nz>
Date: 01/10/2004, 23:55
Newsgroups: alt.sci.seti

Louie wrote:
"~misfit~" <misfit61nz@hooya.co.nz> wrote in message
news:2s4rggF1h7ibpU1@uni-berlin.de...
Louie wrote:
I believe that was me, Martin.  I did it more as an experiment than
anything else.  <bg>  BTW, that WU is *still* crunching!  Machine is
a Packard Bell Model PB1120 (420 Mobo), Intel 486DX\8Mhz (Turbo
off), 0 L2 cache, 12MB RAM, 200MB HD running Win98SE.

486DX *8*Mhz? I didn't know Intel made one. I take it it's an
underclocked faster chip?
--
~misfit~

Exactly.  It's *supposed* to run @ 25Mhz.  With Turbo *on* it runs @
16Mhz so it's severely underclocked.  I didn't bother changing
jumpers as I wanted to see how it ran *as is*.

That is so, like, incomprehensible to a dyed-in-the-wool overclocker such as
myself. :-)
--
~misfit~