Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 09:39:05 04/12/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 12, 1999 at 01:20:31, Micheal Cummings wrote: > >On April 12, 1999 at 01:02:18, Mark Young wrote: > >>On April 11, 1999 at 23:06:57, Micheal Cummings wrote: >> >>> >>>On April 11, 1999 at 21:17:46, John Wish wrote: >>> >>>>How does a Celeron chip in a C.P.U. affect a Chess software's playing strength? >>>>How would the same software program play differently on a microchip, of the same >>>>megahertz frequency, that was not a celeron chip? >>>> >>>>Also, does anyone know, now that Fritz came out with a 32 bit engine, will >>>>Extreme Chess be following suite? >>> >>>The Celeron Chips are crap. They are just cheap Intel Rubbish chips. I could not >>>believe when I saw the intel benchmark tests of these chips compared to their >>>other ones. They are shocking. >>> >>>Well you get what you pay for. And Celeron Chips compared to other intel chips >>>and the AMD ones are rubbish. The only other chip I would never buy are the >>>Cyrix ones, they are on par as being a bigger joke as the Celeron chips. >>> >>>So yes they do affect the performance of chess software, and you only have to >>>look at comparative benchmark tests to see how they would perform against other >>>chips. >>> >>>I know they are cheap, but you get what you pay for, cheap crappy performance >>>and a nice price. >> >>I just put together a Celeron 333 to run my DVD and surround sound system for my >>big screen tv. I took the time and benched some chess programs on the Celeron. >>The Celeron was just as fast running Rebel as my P II 400 as well with some >>other chess programs, and just as fast as a P II 333 running Fritz 5, and Junior >>5. >> >>Rebel 10 benchmark from my Celeron was 2545. >> >>Fritz 5 scored a FM of 232, and 303 kN/s on my Celeron. >> >>If this is crappy performance...I will take it. >> >>Mark > >Mark maybe for chess programs like Bruse wrote in another post they might work >fine. But a PII400 and the Celeron 333 are not even in the same ball park. So >maybe for chess it is okay, but for graphics and other high application >programs, no way That's right, the Celeron is better, because you can probably clock it at 504 Mhz, but almost guaranteed to 450 MHz. The cache runs at the full CPU speed rate, not at half of the CPU speed rate like the regular Pentium IIs. If I didn't have a dual-processor machine, I would definately be using a Celeron. Dave Gomboc
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.