Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:31:06 -0500 From: "Steve Friedrich" <SteveFriedrich@Hot-Shot.com> To: "Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai" <asmodai@wxs.nl> Cc: "freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG" <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>, "ml1@geocities.co.jp" <ml1@geocities.co.jp> Subject: RE: Server Spec Message-ID: <199811181535.KAA05060@laker.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 18 Nov 1998 09:19:01 +0100 (CET), Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote: >> Intel took it in the shorts over the initial release of the Celeron >> without cache. So they added cache and stilled called it CELERON!! >> Look for a Celeron called 300A... > >So plainly, Intel sucks at times ;) can't argue with that... >Does the A denote cache then? It does, but only for the 300MHz part. There's another CPU speed (333 MHz) that also has cache, but no "A" to identify it as such. The 300A can be overclocked into the 400MHz range (until Intel locks the clock on newer parts). Take a look at http://www.computerpartsusa.com/cpu.htm The 300A has better overclock ability than the 333. See Tom's hardware page regarding that. I generally don't advocate overclocking, but it WOULD be cool to try it at home with a non-production FreeBSD machine. If I remember correctly, the Celeron WITH cache, runs it's cache at the CPU speed, whereas the PII runs it's cache at half the CPU speed. The Celeron is FREAKIN' CHEAP !!! Unix systems measure "uptime" in years, Winblows measures it in minutes. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199811181535.KAA05060>