 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dear all,
I am planning on upgrading my Pentium II 233MHz(512K cache) to Celeron
433MHz(128K cache). Motherboard, RAM, and all other hardwares will be
the same.
I might not upgrade my motherboard yet. The current motherboard can
accept upto Pentium II 333MHz(512K cache) or the Celeron 433MHz.
Would the Celeron 433 give me performance boost of about 80% or more,
even though the cache size has been reduced, in terms of POV-ray
raytracing?
Any comment would be welcome.
Thanks in advance,
Jong
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Going from a PI (not two) 233MMX CPU to a PIII 500MHz CPU was about a 3 times
increase in render speed for me. Maybe that's comparable in some way to your
upgrade idea, so say about 2.5 times? I don't think the cache is going to be
all that important unless you count minutes or seconds or something. Mine went
from 256KB to 512KB; although I haven't seen anything on performance
benchmarking of one amount of cache to another so I really don't know.
Actually the biggest performance hit might be in keeping the old mainboard if
it's got a 66MHz or 75MHz bus instead of 100MHz for example. That and HD too.
You might reconsider and get a 100MHz bus mainboard and matching Celeron
instead(?). I just saw a web page about them but can't locate any. I didn't
see any mention about such a thing at Intel:
http://www.intel.com/design/celeron/index.htm
If you were asking if the Celeron 433 might be better (?, you wouldn't want 80%,
180% yes, 100% is equal) than with the PIII 333 I'd guess it would be close
enough for price to matter a whole lot. But there's that motherboard thing
about it all, memory as well, to sync up all the parts.
Bob
"J. Kim" <jjk### [at] mm ewhaackr> wrote in message
news:38AA10CB.3F3A4540@mm.ewha.ac.kr...
| Dear all,
|
| I am planning on upgrading my Pentium II 233MHz(512K cache) to Celeron
| 433MHz(128K cache). Motherboard, RAM, and all other hardwares will be
| the same.
| I might not upgrade my motherboard yet. The current motherboard can
| accept upto Pentium II 333MHz(512K cache) or the Celeron 433MHz.
| Would the Celeron 433 give me performance boost of about 80% or more,
| even though the cache size has been reduced, in terms of POV-ray
| raytracing?
| Any comment would be welcome.
| Thanks in advance,
|
| Jong
|
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
J. Kim <jjk### [at] mmewhaackr> wrote:
: I am planning on upgrading my Pentium II 233MHz(512K cache) to Celeron
: 433MHz(128K cache). Motherboard, RAM, and all other hardwares will be
: the same.
I don't think it's worth (unless you can do it for _very_ cheap).
It will have more MHz's but less cache. The increase in speed may be
only fractions. The amount of cache is quite crucial (just try disabling
the caches in bios and see how the computer slows down; my P-II 350MHz
runs like a 386 with caches disabled).
The speed of the memory bus may also be very important. I think that the
P-II 233 has a mem bus of 66MHz (while in the P-II 350 it's 100MHz). I don't
know how fast it's in the celeron.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nieminen Juha wrote:
>
> I don't think it's worth (unless you can do it for _very_ cheap).
I think it _is_ worth.
> It will have more MHz's but less cache. The increase in speed may be
> only fractions. The amount of cache is quite crucial (just try disabling
> the caches in bios and see how the computer slows down; my P-II 350MHz
> runs like a 386 with caches disabled).
You can't compare the difference between any amount of cache and no
cache with the difference between 128K and 512K cache.
Markus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Markus Becker <mar### [at] studentuni-siegende> wrote:
:> I don't think it's worth (unless you can do it for _very_ cheap).
: I think it _is_ worth.
Well, if he want to pay a lot of money for a 10% speed increase, then
it's ok.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nieminen Juha wrote:
>
> Well, if he want to pay a lot of money for a 10% speed increase, then
> it's ok.
How do you get to this number?
I would estimate that he would at least get an increase of ybout 50%
Right, there's a smaller cache, but it is faster.
Markus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <38AAC970.E287F46C@student.uni-siegen.de> , Markus Becker
<mar### [at] studentuni-siegende> wrote:
>> Well, if he want to pay a lot of money for a 10% speed increase, then
>> it's ok.
>
> How do you get to this number?
> I would estimate that he would at least get an increase of ybout 50%
> Right, there's a smaller cache, but it is faster.
I would also estimate 50% or so based on what I have seen on systems of some
of my friends.
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
news:38aae8c6@news.povray.org...
|
| I would also estimate 50% or so based on what I have seen on systems
Half the speed huh...? ;-)
But I know you mean double (I think).
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <38ab116e@news.povray.org> , "Bob Hughes"
<omn### [at] hotmailcom?subject=PoV-News:> wrote:
>>> How do you get to this number?
>>> I would estimate that he would at least get an increase of ybout 50%
>>> Right, there's a smaller cache, but it is faster.
>>
>>I would also estimate 50% or so based on what I have seen on systems of some
>>of my friends.
>
> Half the speed huh...? ;-)
> But I know you mean double (I think).
No, 50% in this context is correct. And 50% is not double, but means 1.5
times the speed of the original system. ;-)
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oh... I thought 150% was equivalent to 1.5 times. Hmm. Any math judges out
there? Just kidding!
Bob
"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
news:38ab68a3@news.povray.org...
| In article <38ab116e@news.povray.org> , "Bob Hughes"
| <omn### [at] hotmailcom?subject=PoV-News:> wrote:
|
| >>> How do you get to this number?
| >>> I would estimate that he would at least get an increase of ybout 50%
| >>> Right, there's a smaller cache, but it is faster.
| >>
| >>I would also estimate 50% or so based on what I have seen on systems of some
| >>of my friends.
| >
| > Half the speed huh...? ;-)
| > But I know you mean double (I think).
|
| No, 50% in this context is correct. And 50% is not double, but means 1.5
| times the speed of the original system. ;-)
|
|
| Thorsten
|
|
| ____________________________________________________
| Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
| e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
|
| Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
