Celeron A? Will I see 2, 5, 10 fps difference?
10x,
Borut.
10x,
Borut.
> Anybody know if PII 512 kb of cache will be much better than 128 kb of
> Celeron A? Will I see 2, 5, 10 fps difference?
> 10x,
> Borut.
The small cache on the Celeron A (offset by the fact that it runs at
processor speed, as opposed to half-processor speed as on the PII) runs
games and standard apps without a performance hit.
Source:
www.tomshardware.com
www.anandtech.com
www.cyrellis.com
www.cpumadness.com
rob.
>10x,
>Borut.
/Christer, have the Celeron 300A running at 450 MHz with original cooling device
:o)
> Anybody know if PII 512 kb of cache will be much better than 128 kb of
> Celeron A? Will I see 2, 5, 10 fps difference?
> 10x,
> Borut.
Read somewhere that GPL uses 2level cache quiet heavily.
Dont remember where ... maybe one of the manuals.
Knudse.
.
> > Anybody know if PII 512 kb of cache will be much better than 128 kb of
> > Celeron A? Will I see 2, 5, 10 fps difference?
> > 10x,
> > Borut.
> The only time the cache size should come into play is with many programs
> running at once or if a system is transferring a gazillion files per
> second like a server.
> The small cache on the Celeron A (offset by the fact that it runs at
> processor speed, as opposed to half-processor speed as on the PII) runs
> games and standard apps without a performance hit.
BOrut
>rob.
>>Anybody know if PII 512 kb of cache will be much better than 128 kb of
>>Celeron A? Will I see 2, 5, 10 fps difference?
>>10x,
>>Borut.
Basically, what it looks like is not the CPU,memory,or motherboard... but
possibly the I/O devices on my computer. I didn't wanna spend time tweaking
it since 450 is easily reachable without any extra cooling.
>BOrut
>rob.
>>Anybody know if PII 512 kb of cache will be much better than 128 kb of
>>Celeron A? Will I see 2, 5, 10 fps difference?
>>10x,
>>Borut.
>Read somewhere that GPL uses 2level cache quiet heavily.
>Dont remember where ... maybe one of the manuals.
1) 128K is enough to hold the data that the GPL code works on without too
many cache misses. The CeleronA will be faster than the PII, because its
cache is running at twice the speed.
or...
2) 128K isn't enough to fit the data that the GPL code needs. The PII will
be faster than the CeleronA because while PII cache is slower, it's also
larger, which means there will be significantly fewer cache misses.
A smaller cache doesn't necessarily mean the CPU will run slower in
cache-intensive apps. If the data will fit in the smaller, faster cache,
then the it will win. If not, the bigger, slower one will.
Which is it? I don't know. Someone will have to benchmark it.
Jarrod Smith
The Scripps Research Institute
http://www.scripps.edu/~jsmith
.
> > Anybody know if PII 512 kb of cache will be much better than 128 kb of
> > Celeron A? Will I see 2, 5, 10 fps difference?
> > 10x,
> > Borut.
> The only time the cache size should come into play is with many programs
> running at once or if a system is transferring a gazillion files per
> second like a server.
> The small cache on the Celeron A (offset by the fact that it runs at
> processor speed, as opposed to half-processor speed as on the PII) runs
> games and standard apps without a performance hit.
Thanks in advance
Jens
With EVERYTHING turned up.. including a full field of 19 cars and 640x480
res, I get an easy 35 FPS while driving during training.. no matter what.
It's about 30 FPS at 800x600 while driving training mode.
During a race, at 640x480... when I pull out of the pit lane first session
and all cars.. FPS drop to about 12 FPS.. once I get away from all the cars
it goes back up in the low 30's.
At the starting grid of the actual race session.... FPS is about 12 FPS.
How does this compare?? Well.. on my 200mmx with 64 MB RAM and the same
Voodoo 1 card. Everywhere that I stated above that had 12 FPS was about 3-4
FPS before (all settings the same). Where I was getting the 30s FPS was
around 18-23 FPS on my 200mmx.
I know it's not exact and all.. most of this testing was done on the Monza
track with the Ferrari as my car
(oh yeah.. my sound channels were set to 4 on my AWE 64 Gold... I've noticed
that turning it up higher doesn't have any effect on gameplay but has a HUGE
effect on performance.. really slows it down)
I've noticed this in certain games, too. High quality audio on an ISA AWE
card costs big in the performance dept., while not giving much increase in
the enjoyability of the game. Time to go for a PCI 3D audio card, I guess
:-)
Jarrod Smith
The Scripps Research Institute
http://www.scripps.edu/~jsmith