Author: Andrew Slough
Date: 10:51:09 07/26/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 26, 1999 at 09:25:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 26, 1999 at 04:10:21, Terry Ripple wrote: > >>On July 25, 1999 at 10:23:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On July 25, 1999 at 02:38:08, blass uri wrote: >>> >>>>I am interested to know the speed improvement that you get from celeron relative >>>>to pentium200MMX in C chess programs. >>>> >>>>Can you get more than 100% speed improvement? >>>>What is your experience about it? >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>> >>>Several points. The celeron cpu core is better than the P200/mmx core. The >>>P200 is the old P5 architecture. The Celeron is based on the pentium pro/ >>>pentium II cpu core. Which is _much_ better. >>> >>>The celeron has both a L1 _and_ a L2 cache (running at core cpu speed, >>>although the L2 is only 128kb). The old P200 has a good L1 cache (same >>>as Celeron) the the L2 cache is external and much slower. >>> >>>For comparison, I used to run crafty on a P233/mmx machine and found that to >>>be about 70% of the speed of my pentium pro 200. The celeron is a good match >>>for the pentium-pro clock for clock. 450/500 celerons scream... >>-------- >>Hi Bob, >> In the case of the AMD K6-2, how would this compare to the celeron and pentium >>-pro clock for clock? >>-------- >>Regards, Terry > > >The data I have seen puts them pretty equal cycle-for-cycle, although I am not >sure of the differences between the K6/3 and K6/2. And I am not sure which was >used in the test I saw... AFAIK the *ONLY* difference between the K6/2 & K6/3 is that the K6/3 has an on chip, full speed, 256k L2 cache. Like the celeron, but twice the size. Andy
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.