[snip] > So what do you make of the second QST review, where the author expressed > regrets that they had settled for the Celeron (2.4GHz??) rather than > going for the P4 (2.8GHz to 3.2GHz??)? He found the performance with > "only" a 2.xGHz Celeron disappointing. > > Alan NV8A >
MHz isn't everything, especially these days. I had hypothesized before (based on my sample size of two) that Celeron's crippled cache hurt more than the MHz issues. I still suspect that to be true, until my betters, correct me (or maybe recorrect me -- getting to be a while since I mentioned this). My 1.3 GHz lappy is a Celeron and, at double the recommended MHz it ought, by all precedent, to be plenty fast enough. It mostly is, but there are the odd glitches that my 2.4 GHz P IV never sees. But, on modern CPUs, cache can matter and Intel has used it (or, the lack of it) to differentiate models. It would not surprise me to find our code is sensitive to cache -- not hard to do with the state of today's art -- my unscientific observations sure seem to suggest it. It could be my USB Creative Sound Card too, somehow, but I'd bet first on the cache unless/until I or someone else measures it and correct In any case, my rather ordinary, aging (at least 2 year old) P IV 2.4 GHZ is totally, totally solid with the D44 and I'd expect the corresponding AMD to be solid also. Larry WO0Z _______________________________________________ FlexRadio mailing list FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz Archive Link: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ FlexRadio Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com
