[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Uhhh.... Re: Pentium II processor..
Ummm... look. The Pentium II and Celeron 266 - 300 are the exact same
chip, just the card that the Pentium II is on has two 256k cache SRAMs
on it, operating at half processor frequency. They both have MMX, blah,
blah, etc. They are the same exact chip, made on the same assembly line,
just one is mounted to a little card with some cache on it, and the
other one (Celeron) isn't. Now the Celeron 300A and 333 are slightly
different in that they have 128k built into the chip, which runs at full
Now any Pentium II outperforms the Pentium Pro 200 at every single
conceivable test. There is nothing a Pro 200 does better than a Pentium
II. I don't know where you are getting your information, but I'd love to
see some web links or references or something.
Buying a Pentium II was not a mistake. This processor offers the most
floating point performance of any processor for the money right now,
except for the Celeron(which as I just explained is a cheaper version of
the same thing), and depending on the benchmark may or may not offer
better price/performance over the K6. The fastest Pentium II at 450MHz
naturally kicks the crap out of any other CPU out there with the
exception of the Alpha and the latest UltraSPARC(depending on
Jeremy Tregunna wrote:
> Your first mistake was buying a Pentium CPU with MMX... if you can, take
> it back and get a Celeron 300a, they're much better CPU's (with less cache
> however). That's just my opinion, i've found Pentium 2's are crap, Pentium
> Pro's are still the top Pentium CPU, and Celeron is the next nicest Intel
> CPU... MMX (in my testing) has resulted in blowing up a CPU (took 4
> minutes to blow up a P2 400 (i was using it as a server cpu)).
> Bottom line: If you can, take it back, and get a Celeron 300a or splurge
> and get a Pentium Pro 200, other than that, I really can't tell you how to
> fix your problem but my guess would be the MMX shit. P2's aren't really
> built for unices (from what I've heard).
> --Jeremy Tregunna
> email@example.com +1 519 338-3591
> On Thu, 17 Sep 1998, Chris wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I currently installed a Pentium II 233mhz processor and 64megs
> > SDRAM, using OpenBSD 2.3. I used to have a Pentium 133mhz processor, and
> > 64 megs of edo ram. Using the 133 processor, my load averages were always
> > below .50, and now with my Pentium II processor, my loads are always above
> > 1, even 10 minutes after boot up time. What could be the problem here?
> > Any help is greatly appreciated.
> > Chris