| 1 |
On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 08:12:56AM +0100, Dave S wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> The GHz sound impressive but I know neither chip is a very powerful, I |
| 4 |
> believe they 'water down' the internals !. I cant find anywhere a |
| 5 |
> comparison between my PIII & these two possibilitys. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I found a comparision between (almost) your target cpus: |
| 8 |
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=61 |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
(note the celeron is actually the 2.8 GHz Model) |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> My PIII is old technology, these two are newer technology with faster |
| 13 |
> clock speeds but engineered to a price, would the speed increase be |
| 14 |
> noticeable ? Any comments ? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The 512 MB Ram will defently noticeable when you work with KDE. KDE is |
| 17 |
very ram hungry and I wouldn't recommend to run it with less than 512. |
| 18 |
(Although speed / memory consumption seem to have improved miles with |
| 19 |
the latest versions of kde) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> Intel Celeron 2.4GHz 128K 400MHz Socket 478 CPU OEM - 512MB RAM |
| 22 |
> AMD Sempron 2800+ 2.0GHz (333FSB) 256K Cache Socket A OEM - 512 MB RAM |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
As to the processors, I'd go for the Sempron. Celerons are IMO castraded |
| 25 |
pentiums and really not great for compiler runs. The halved L1 cache |
| 26 |
really hits on the performance in general. Since you are on a contrained |
| 27 |
budget I'd even more strongley urge you to amd, since they usually give |
| 28 |
you more performance for the buck. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
(That being said.. i'm no fan of intel. Therefore take this with a grain |
| 31 |
of salt.) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Oh btw.. you may ignore GHz numbers now.. they are no longer an |
| 34 |
indicator of how "fast" processors are. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
- Folken |
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives