From: mark@unicorn.com
Date: Fri Jul 16 1999 - 05:13:11 MDT
J W [jawortham@bigfoot.com] wrote:
>My Celeron 300 is 63 hours, so that makes it equivalent to something
>like a PII 115. Can the small cache really cut my speed down to a third?
Potentially, yes. The Celeron loses over the PII by having a smaller cache,
but gains because the cache runs at the full clock speed, whereas the PII's
cache runs at half the clock speed with a 32k(?) L1 cache running at the
chip's clock speed. As a result, on any program which uses a lot of tight
code, the Celeron will be at least as fast as the PII, because it can all
fit in the cache... but when you're accessing a lot of data or a lot of
different routines in the code, the PII drops from a 450MHz L1 cache to
the 225MHz L2 cache, whereas the Celeron drops from the 300MHz L1 cache
to 66MHz system memory. Obviously the PII takes the L2 performance hit
well before the Celeron takes the system memory performance hit, but when
the PII is running from L2 cache and the Celeron is running from system
memory the Celeron will be much, much slower.
Seti has a fairly large dataset, and it spends a lot of time in Windows
drawing the bars on the screen, so it's not surprising that a Celeron is
slower than a PII.
Mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:29 MST