Re: [gentoo-user] OT worth upgrading hardware ?

[Raphael Melo de Oliveira Bastos Sales <raphael.melo21@gmail.com>]

Perhaps you can get a Semprom with a smaller clock but a higher FSB. I
have an AMD Semprom 2400+ with 400 Mhz FSB, 1 GB of Ram and I'm very
happy with it. It plays all the games I want and I can work in it very
smoothly. I recently upgrade to 1 GB of Ram, used to be 512 Mb and the
difference is amazing compared to 256, specially compile speeds. So,
unless you might want to upgrade you Celeron to a P4, assuming the
motherboard will take both, I'd go with Semprom, I believe it's more
cost-effective.

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

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list