From: Vincent Poy (vince_at_pele.WURLDLINK.NET)
Date: Sat Jun 22 2002 - 23:51:44 EDT
On Sat, 15 Jun 2002, Bruce Markowitz wrote:
> Could you explain more fully about shorting the pins?
> And I fond a leapfrog setup that does a 1.4 gig Celeron, looks very fast
> indeed!
Yep except that the shorting of pins requires a slot 1 motherboard
as well so it's similar to the leapfrog at a $80 lower cost...
Cheers,
Vince - vince_at_WURLDLINK.NET - Vice President ________ __ ____
Unix Networking Operations - FreeBSD-Real Unix for Free / / / / | / |[__ ]
WurldLink Corporation / / / / | / | __] ]
San Francisco - Honolulu - Hong Kong / / / / / |/ / | __] ]
HongKong Stars/Gravis UltraSound Mailing Lists Admin /_/_/_/_/|___/|_|[____]
Almighty1_at_IRC - oahu.DAL.NET Hawaii's DALnet IRC Network Server Admin
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vincent Poy" <vince_at_pele.WURLDLINK.NET>
> To: "Bruce Markowitz" <scosgt_at_worldnet.att.net>
> Cc: "Cottrell, Eric" <ecottrell_at_doble.com>; "'shamanjp'"
> <shamanjp_at_prodigy.net>; "Thinkpad List" <thinkpad_at_cs.utk.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 3:59 AM
> Subject: Re: A 30p faster than A 31 in July PC World?
>
>
> > Well, you don't need a new motherboard since there are two ways to
> > do it. If you had a slot 1 motherboard, you can use a Leapfrog adapter
> > which comes with a Celeron 1.2Ghz CPU for $179. Or you can simply short
> > two of the pins on the Tulatin CPU and use it on a older motherboard.
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Vince - vince_at_WURLDLINK.NET - Vice President ________ __
> ____
> > Unix Networking Operations - FreeBSD-Real Unix for Free / / / / | /
> [__ ]
> > WurldLink Corporation / / / / | / |
> __] ]
> > San Francisco - Honolulu - Hong Kong / / / / / |/ / |
> __] ]
> > HongKong Stars/Gravis UltraSound Mailing Lists Admin
> /_/_/_/_/|___/|_|[____]
> > Almighty1_at_IRC - oahu.DAL.NET Hawaii's DALnet IRC Network Server Admin
> >
> > On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Bruce Markowitz wrote:
> >
> > > Now a question:
> > > I thought the Celerons above one gig needed a motherboard that is
> compatible
> > > ith the Tulatin chip?
> > > But you said that you replaced 550Mhz chips. How can that Mobo be new
> enough
> > > to support that chip?
> > > I have some IBM 300PL's (100FSB) that I have upgraded to P3 1Ghz and
> Celeron
> > > 1 gig, but the P3 1.1 gig would not work properly, and I assumed that
> the
> > > new Celerons (with the 256K cache) 1.2 and 1.3 would not work on this
> mobo.
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Cottrell, Eric" <ecottrell_at_doble.com>
> > > To: "'shamanjp'" <shamanjp_at_prodigy.net>; "Thinkpad List"
> > > <thinkpad_at_cs.utk.edu>
> > > Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 6:31 PM
> > > Subject: RE: A 30p faster than A 31 in July PC World?
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > Looking at the tabook it seems the A30p uses a video chip with a
> faster
> > > > clock 8->.
> > > > Remember that CPU speed is only part of the equation. The differences
> > > > between
> > > > benchmark numbers will depend on the benchmark as well. The speedstep
> > > > feature
> > > > can make a difference. Unfortunely I am not aware of the differences
> > > > between
> > > > the Mobile versions of the processors.
> > > >
> > > > The discussions I have seen indicate that P4 processors using SDRAM
> run
> > > > slower than
> > > > the newer Tualatin P3 when both are at the same clock speed. 1.4 GHz
> P4 =
> > > > 1.2 GHz P3.
> > > > So I wonder if the difference due to the higher clock is only 14%
> instead
> > > of
> > > > 33%.
> > > >
> > > > Even the newer Celerons using the Tualatin core (100 MHz FSB) work
> pretty
> > > > well. I
> > > > bought an adapter and replaced some slot 1 550 MHz P3 processors with
> 1.3
> > > > GHz Celerons.
> > > > It halfed compile times on a massive software project. The 1.3 GHz
> > > Celeron
> > > > has half
> > > > the cache of a 1.3 GHz P3 but this is the same amount as a 550 MHz P3.
> > > The
> > > > compile
> > > > times with the 1.3 GHz Celeron (100 FSB) are the same as a 1 GHz P3
> (133
> > > > FSB).
> > > >
> > > > No doubt there are applications where the P4 is faster than the P3.
> It
> > > > seems for the
> > > > general user there is no great difference between the Celeron, P3 or
> P4 in
> > > > the same
> > > > clock range. I also tend not to notice a task going from 4 seconds
> down
> > > to
> > > > 2 seconds
> > > > compared to a task going from 40 seconds down to 20 seconds 8->. I
> > > believe
> > > > there
> > > > is a point (about 300 MHz P2/P3) where a computer will still work
> great
> > > for
> > > > general
> > > > tasks. That is why I still use my 366 MHz TP600e.
> > > >
> > > > 73 Eric ecottrell_at_doble.com WB1HBU
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: shamanjp [mailto:shamanjp_at_prodigy.net]
> > > > Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 4:44 PM
> > > > To: Thinkpad List
> > > > Subject: A 30p faster than A 31 in July PC World?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why would a P3-M 1.2GHz A30p be so much faster than a new P4-M 1.6GHz
> A31?
> > > >
> > > > In the top 15 notebook PC's section of the magazine,
> > > >
> > > > PC WorldBench 4 Performance results
> > > > A30p= 113 Outstanding
> > > > A31= 90 Average
> > > >
> > > > Is it XP vs 2000? The hard drive? Actually none of the P4 machines did
> > > very
> > > > well compared to the P3's.
> > > > Interesting...
> > > > Jerry
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:59:01 EST