🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <01aiesk7oq7trpukvnspiqha9o765qum8r@pink.semolina.org>,
{R}  <newsjan@pink.semolina.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 03 Apr 00 20:32:15 GMT, siberia@nospam.demon.co.uk (Claire) wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>}As far as I can see, the Celeron's 66MHz bus should make it
>}slower in memory-intensive jobs than the AMD's 100MHz, but some
>}things I've read suggest that the AMD isn't very efficient at
>}memory access, so the Celeron comes out better.  And as to other
>}comparators, there seem to be as many difft ways of measuring
>}performance as pins on the chips :(
>
>AFAIK all Celerons will work at 100Mhz Bus speed, certainly the 300 and 466
>do.

The 466 would run at 700MHz with a 100MHz FSB. Although, *possible*
this is not at all likely. The 300 and 366 were good for 450 and
550 respectively when overclocked. That was almost certain (with
the correct batches) and you'd be pretty unlucky not to get that.
However, they are no longer manufactured and the newer Celeron's
are not so overclockable, due to the higher and higher multipliers.
www.overclockers.co.uk do still have some 366 that are guaranteed
to 550. However, they will probably be the last ones ever available.
For �69 the are excellent value. Of course, if you can stump up
the extra �95 for a 500E PIII Coppermine, then you will get a faster
CPU, as that will overclock to around 750MHz or the 550E will get
825MHz with all likelyhood. 

-- 
Mark Powell - UNIX System Administrator - Clifford Whitworth Building
A.I.S., University of Salford, Salford, Manchester, UK.
Tel: +44 161 295 5936  Fax: +44 161 295 5888  www.pgp.com for PGP key
M.S.Powell@salfrd.ac.uk (spell salford correctly to reply to me)

Claire wrote:
> 
> As far as I can see, the Celeron's 66MHz bus should make it
> slower in memory-intensive jobs than the AMD's 100MHz, but some
> things I've read suggest that the AMD isn't very efficient at
> memory access, so the Celeron comes out better.  And as to other
> comparators, there seem to be as many difft ways of measuring
> performance as pins on the chips :(
> 
> I am not interested in playing games with this PC: I want to run
> it it as a dual-boot NT4/Linux system

Both of those systems are SMP-aware.

If CPU throughput is your goal, have you looked at an Abit BP6
(dual Skt-370) board, with two Skt370 celerons?

Celerons are generally quite overclockable, so you may be able
to escape the 66Mhz limit that way, however, that's potentially
dangerous.

> speed in processing
> lots of data is the main thing (at the moment, running linklint
> on my 150Mb website takes 40 minutes on my 486, which is a bit
> tedious ...)

You won't see a major benefit with two CPU's if you aren't
doing more than one thing at once, or doing one thing with
SMP-aware software.  However, at the price (81.00 for the
BP6 last time I looked) it's worth considering.

Jim

Trouble with the K62 now is that there's nowhere to go in the future. The
m'boards seem to only go up to 550. The 550 seems to be the end of the line.

Cliff

In article <01aiesk7oq7trpukvnspiqha9o765qum8r@pink.semolina.org>, {R}
<{R}@soggy.semolina.org> writes
>On Mon, 03 Apr 00 20:32:15 GMT, siberia@nospam.demon.co.uk (Claire) wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>}As far as I can see, the Celeron's 66MHz bus should make it
>}slower in memory-intensive jobs than the AMD's 100MHz, but some
>}things I've read suggest that the AMD isn't very efficient at
>}memory access, so the Celeron comes out better.  And as to other
>}comparators, there seem to be as many difft ways of measuring
>}performance as pins on the chips :(
>
>AFAIK all Celerons will work at 100Mhz Bus speed, certainly the 300 and 466
>do.
>
>{R}
        If you go for a P3 slot-type motherboard you could go for 
a Celeron now (fits with an adapter), and put a P3 in later on.
        A Celeron 400 system was a _huge_ advance from a 66MHz 486.

Hope this helps
-- 
Tony 
Ooh, Gromit - it's Real Wensleydale!   [Wallace]

On Tuesday, in article <8cdfhs$mv7$1@supernews.com>
     cliff_tinson@lineone.net "Cliff Tinson" wrote:

CT> Trouble with the K62 now is that there's nowhere to go in the future. The
CT> m'boards seem to only go up to 550. The 550 seems to be the end of the line.

I'm sure you're right on that, Cliff ... but then again I seem
to take a different view of upgrading to others.  Some ppl seem to
jump every time CPU speeds increase by 50% or so ... but I prefer
to hang on to a system for much longer, so that by the time I
come to upgrade, it definitely needs a new m/b.

It's not just that my old 486 m/b is not meaningfully
upgradeable at this point ... it seems to me that any m/b more
than about 18 months old is unlikely to be much use for a
new CPU, *unless* it was one of the fastest and latest at the
time it was bought.

I reckon that since I probly won't u/g my CPU for 2 or 3 years,
I can probably use my money best by buying a m/b which does what
I need now, and get a new one when I get a new CPU.  By that 
stage I'll prob be looking at 1500MHz CeleronIV or something like
that, which would seek refugee status if confronted with a
current m/b :)

(It has always seemed to me that in terms of performance for your
money, the best value generally lies a few small steps up from
the bottom of the ladder at any given point in technological time.
For about UKP120, I can now get a Cleron with a reasonable m/b, 
and another UKP120 in 2 years or so will probably double or triple 
triple my CPU power with a new m/b.  OTOH, spending the whole UKP240
now would only just about buy a 30% or so increase in performance
... so it seems more sensible to use the money for a bigger jump
in a few years if I've followed the curve in software bloat).

But in view of all the helpful comments here, I'll be going for a
Celeron rather than a K6-2 ... and if I can squeeze the extra few
pennies, I think i'll treat myself to a dual setup on a BP6.

Thanks to everyone for their help.

Claire

-- 
Anti-spam address in use. The "Reply-to:" address given will be valid
for a few weeks; thereafter, change everything left of the @ to "c-mac"
when replying.  NB - some mail systems do not properly handle the
given reply-to address: if your msg is bounced, please use "c-mac"

In article <k6akesk14en4oq075b7ta3amt85sa4mbk8@pink.semolina.org>, {R}
<{R}@soggy.semolina.org> writes
>On 4 Apr 2000 14:00:32 +0100, mark@salfrd.ac.uk (Mark Powell) wrote:
>
>}In article <01aiesk7oq7trpukvnspiqha9o765qum8r@pink.semolina.org>,
>}{R}  <newsjan@pink.semolina.org> wrote:
>}>AFAIK all Celerons will work at 100Mhz Bus speed, certainly the 300 and 466
>}>do.
>}
>}The 466 would run at 700MHz with a 100MHz FSB. Although, *possible*
>}this is not at all likely. The 300 and 366 were good for 450 and
>}550 respectively when overclocked. That was almost certain (with
>}the correct batches) and you'd be pretty unlucky not to get that.
>}However, they are no longer manufactured and the newer Celeron's
>}are not so overclockable, due to the higher and higher multipliers.
>}www.overclockers.co.uk do still have some 366 that are guaranteed
>}to 550. However, they will probably be the last ones ever available.
>}For �69 the are excellent value. Of course, if you can stump up
>}the extra �95 for a 500E PIII Coppermine, then you will get a faster
>}CPU, as that will overclock to around 750MHz or the 550E will get
>}825MHz with all likelyhood. 
>
>Yup typo I am afarid I have a 300a on a BH6, shortly to be replaced with two
>366's on a BP6. No you cannot have it Tom.
>
>{R}

Been running twin Celery 366s at 550 on a BP6 for 9 months now, and
can't recommend it highly enough.  Fast, stable and cheap.
-- 
Toby

In article <01aiesk7oq7trpukvnspiqha9o765qum8r@pink.semolina.org> {R}
<{R}@soggy.semolina.org> shared the following with us in demon.tech.pc:
[snip]
>AFAIK all Celerons will work at 100Mhz Bus speed, certainly the 300 and 466
>do.
>
This 466 and BE6 fail to even boot at that speed. Just a black screen.
The best I can get out of it is 583MHz at a 83MHz bus speed.


-- 
Marcus Durham
The UMTSDW Homepage. News, Reviews, Features and Locations. 
http://www.zenn.demon.co.uk/drwho/drwho.htm

In article <954880788snz@siberia.demon.co.uk>,
Claire <m{$0004}$cl$@siberia.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>But in view of all the helpful comments here, I'll be going for a
>Celeron rather than a K6-2 ... and if I can squeeze the extra few
>pennies, I think i'll treat myself to a dual setup on a BP6.

If you do go that way then do get the 366 that are guaranteed to 550.
That's way the best value SMP setup available.

-- 
Mark Powell - UNIX System Administrator - Clifford Whitworth Building
A.I.S., University of Salford, Salford, Manchester, UK.
Tel: +44 161 295 5936  Fax: +44 161 295 5888  www.pgp.com for PGP key
M.S.Powell@salfrd.ac.uk (spell salford correctly to reply to me)

In article <cCbdcEAo8m64Ewr7@zenn.demon.co.uk>,
Marcus Durham  <Marcus@zenn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <01aiesk7oq7trpukvnspiqha9o765qum8r@pink.semolina.org> {R}
><{R}@soggy.semolina.org> shared the following with us in demon.tech.pc:
>[snip]
>>AFAIK all Celerons will work at 100Mhz Bus speed, certainly the 300 and 466
>>do.
>>
>This 466 and BE6 fail to even boot at that speed. Just a black screen.
>The best I can get out of it is 583MHz at a 83MHz bus speed.

That's not to say it's the limit of the CPU though. If you had an ABit
BE6-2 or BF6, you could probably get it higher. They are stable boards
that also allow setting the bus speed in 1MHz increments from 83MHz to
200MHz. If you already have one of those boards, then you have reached the
limit :)

-- 
Mark Powell - UNIX System Administrator - Clifford Whitworth Building
A.I.S., University of Salford, Salford, Manchester, UK.
Tel: +44 161 295 5936  Fax: +44 161 295 5888  www.pgp.com for PGP key
M.S.Powell@salfrd.ac.uk (spell salford correctly to reply to me)

In article <zwwT7LAaRl64Ew8b@iconia.demon.co.uk>, "Toby Groves"
<news@iconia.demon.co.uk> writes:

> Been running twin Celery 366s at 550 on a BP6 for 9 months now, and
> can't recommend it highly enough.  Fast, stable and cheap.

I noticed that there's another Cyrix coming out - socket 370, Celery
compatible. Does anyone happen to know whether that would dual-up on a
BP6, or am I going to have to do something radical like visiting a
website to find out?

-- 
Mike Fleming

In article <954793935snz@siberia.demon.co.uk>
           m{$0004}$cl$@siberia.demon.co.uk "Claire" writes:

>[x-posted to uk.comp.homebuilt,demon.tech.pc]
>
>I suspect this is an FAQ, but after checking tons of websites
>I can't find any way of deciding whether I'm better off
>building my new system with an AMD K6-2/500 or a Celeron 466
>
>(I know that the forthcoming AMD Spitfire looks good, but it
>won't be available for a while and I need a new system sooner
>than that)
>
>As far as I can see, the Celeron's 66MHz bus should make it
>slower in memory-intensive jobs than the AMD's 100MHz, but some
>things I've read suggest that the AMD isn't very efficient at
>memory access, so the Celeron comes out better.

The K6's are lumbered with the Socket 7 bus which is slow. Memory
rates can be well under half that of a Socket 370/Slot 1 system even
with the same meory chips. That's why SS7 motherboards need L2/L3 cache.

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com
-----------------------------------------

In article <955142958snz@genesis.demon.co.uk>, Lawrence Kirby
<fred@genesis.demon.co.uk> writes

>The K6's are lumbered with the Socket 7 bus which is slow. Memory
>rates can be well under half that of a Socket 370/Slot 1 system even
>with the same meory chips. That's why SS7 motherboards need L2/L3 cache.

My K6-2 400 box gets around 100MB/s memory bandwidth, the BP6 gets
300MB/s (all IIRC).

'nuff said.

TB               Busby the Cat 1984 - 22.9.1999