Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 19:30:28 -0500 (CDT) From: Chris Dillon <cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us> To: "Stein B. Sylvarnes" <sylvarnes@geocities.com> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: P5 vs Celeron vs PII Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9906101853590.91464-100000@mail.wolves.k12.mo.us> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990611012822.0079d930@mail.geocities.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Moved to -chat... This is now way off-topic. On Fri, 11 Jun 1999, Stein B. Sylvarnes wrote: > At 18:17 10.06.99 -0500, Chris Dillon <cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us> wrote: > >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 > >Last time I looked, the price difference was enough that the Celeron > >gives you more bang for the buck. > > > The AMD K6-3 has given best preformance/price, at least here in > Norway. The lead has been signifficant, but most vendors have > built their PCs with (W)Intel CPUs. For the home-builder/upgrader, > the choice has been simple, though. Tom Pabst of Tom's Hardware Guide (http://www.tomshardware.com) seems to do some pretty good benchmarks, generally using real-world applications (i.e. for benchmarking gaming performace, he actually uses several different popular games, not some meaningless "3D WinBench" scoring). From what I have seen of the benchmarks on Tom's site, the K6-2/3 is not all that great, in any situation. In my real-world experience, it seems to do just fine for everyday use on our Win95 boxen, but so do the PII and Celeron systems. I don't get much time to play a lot of games on our systems though. :-) In another RealWorld(TM) experience of mine, a K6-2 300 system I have (well, not at the moment) next to me does far fewer keys/sec for the RC5DES challenge than our PII-300 systems. According to the Distributed.Net web site, the RC5DES algorithms don't even use floating-point calculations, so the lower AMD FPU performance wouldn't even be a factor here. If anything I would have thought the AMD processors would have done better because they do integer calculations so well, but I guess not in this case. > But lately Intel has dropped their prices, and if I was to buy a new CPU > now, I would have to choose between PIII and K6-3 (They're pretty much > equally fast, AMD a bit faster in Q2 in windoze) Hmm... According to Tom's benchmarks, the AMD K6-3 450 did worse (almost 4 FPS) than a Celeron 400 in Quake 2 with a Riva TNT2 based card (TNT2 drivers are NOT 3DNow! optimized). In Quake2 using a VooDoo3 3500 card (whose drivers ARE 3DNow! optimized), the K6-3 450 fared much, much better than it did with the TNT2, but then only a couple of FPS higher than a Celeron 400. Now, if a Celeron or PII 400 which doesn't have anything but plain MMX can almost match a K6-3 450 with 3DNow! optimized software, imagine what a PIII could do with SSE-optimized software. Since the Celeron 400 is exactly half the cost of a K6-3 450 (according to Pricewatch, I just checked), I couldn't understand anyone buying an AMD processor for gaming or other multimedia stuff, and especially not FPU-intensive stuff. All this might change when the AMD K7 comes out, though. :-) Let's just hope the K7 lives up to what everybody has been hoping it will be. -- 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-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.9906101853590.91464-100000>