From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Jun 10 16:17:11 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mail.wolves.k12.mo.us (mail.wolves.k12.mo.us [207.160.214.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B58714F28 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:17:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us) Received: from mail.wolves.k12.mo.us (cdillon@mail.wolves.k12.mo.us [207.160.214.1]) by mail.wolves.k12.mo.us (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id SAA91343; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:17:33 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:17:32 -0500 (CDT) From: Chris Dillon To: Dennis Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: P5 vs Celeron vs PII In-Reply-To: <199906102221.SAA01467@etinc.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 10 Jun 1999, Dennis wrote: > > In a nutshell, does anyone have a handle on the relative preformance of > these are? > > 233Mhz P5 vs 233Mhz Celeron 233MHz P5 (w/L2 cache on motherboard) > 233MHz Celeron (no L2 cache) > 333Mhz Celeron vs 333 Mhz PII In my experience, the Celeron CPUs which have the 128KB full-speed cache are pretty much on-par (though not always) with the PII CPUs with 512KB half-speed cache. I have noticed that in certain computationally-heavy situations that the smaller Celeron cache hurts (cracking a password with John The Ripper, for instance), even though it runs at a higher clock rate. Last time I looked, the price difference was enough that the Celeron gives you more bang for the buck. -- Chris Dillon - cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us - cdillon@inter-linc.net FreeBSD: The fastest and most stable server OS on the planet. For Intel x86 and Alpha architectures (SPARC under development). ( http://www.freebsd.org ) "One should admire Windows users. It takes a great deal of courage to trust Windows with your data." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message