Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:16:24 11/06/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 06, 1998 at 17:08:38, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >Depends on the program. My guess is that many programs will run much faster on >the o/c Celery because of its faster L1 cache. Many other programs will run much >slower because of the smaller size of the L1 cache. > >As for the hash table, the village idiot can tell you that a 128 MB hash table >can not fit in 128 k of L1 cache. Hash table size is a total non-issue, unless >you use a hash table that's really really really small and it DOES fit in L1 >cache, in which case it's pretty much useless anyway. > >-Tom A couple of things.. I assume you meant L2 but typed L1? IE the celeron L1 is the same as the PII L1 size and speed-wise. L2 is another matter, with the PII having 512K at clock/2, while the celeronA has 128K at clock/1... But as far as hash tables go, they don't count for cache... the average program executes 2,000 instructions (or more) per node, which means only a couple of those instructions access the hash table, the rest do other things... small enough that hashing has little to do with cache efficiency...IMO... > > >On November 06, 1998 at 11:58:19, Ren Wu wrote: > >>Hi, all >> >>Sorry if this is a little offtopic. >> >>I was almost ready to get a PII450 system, until i found that everyone seems be >>able to overclocking Celeron 300A to 450 as well. The huge price difference make >>me think twice on this. >> >>Did anyone here has a Celeron 300A, and o/c to 450? If so, what is the >>performance difference compare with the real 450? Will be nice if someone can >>post some data, like crafty's benchmarks, although Norton SI is also good. >> >>Celeron300 A only have 128K L2, is this a big disadvantage even o/c to 450, when >>you have a huge hashtables (say 128 or 256MB)? >> >>Thanks, >> >>Ren.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.