Linux-Hardware Digest #758, Volume #10 Wed, 14 Jul 99 07:13:21 EDT
Contents:
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (kls)
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (Paul Hsieh)
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (Paul Hsieh)
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (Paul Hsieh)
Re: Linksys Parascsi Plus Linux Drivers (Grant Guenther)
Re: USR Sporster voicie 33.6 internal ????? (Harald Arnesen)
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (Paul Hsieh)
Re: Abit ATA-66 PCI card ??? ("Eirik Wilberg")
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (Paul Hsieh)
Re: Help: My printer/lp1 device is not getting detected: ("Thierry ANDRIAMIRADO")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (kls)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:04:07 GMT
In article <7mfilk$s0d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (kls) writes:
>>Coming back from a hiatus from the computer, i c the lil' fud gremlins have
>>been busy:)
>>
>>In article <7m8p8t$1a8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>>>>Can't say I've ever heard of damaged hard drives from overclocking
>>>
>>>This happens. This happened already to me, and this can
>>>happen to anyone trying to risk their drives, for example, 83MHz. File
>>>system damage is already a common known fact for overclocking hard
>>>drives. You can reduce damage by turning off UDMA and going down to PIO
>>>2, but that will take performance off your hard drive.
>>
>>
>>Reducing the ide mode reduces the speed from overclocked back to normal.
>>
>
>It reduces PERFORMANCE you thick head!
Yes, it reduces performance. What happens to the performance when you
overclock the bus?:)
>Not even the overclocking newgroup recommend any form of 83MHz use against
>the hard disk.
I havn't made any recommendation to use 83MHz bus.
>><response: snip, snip, blah, abit bad, blah, very bad, snip, boo, snip>
>>
>>
>>Again, there's more motherboard manf. than just abit. Fixation?:)
>>
>
>I prefer other brands, thank you.
AGAIN, fine. If that's your preference, great. There's other manf. to
choose from besides abit. Your the one who keeps harping about abit even
after repeated responses saying great use someone else.
>>>>No. For most of them, just no. Look at those ARSTechnica benchmarks
>>>>>again. Note that these are recent ZDNet benchmarks, which often run
>>>>>multiple processes simultaneously, and these benchmarks are well known
>>>>>to have evolved to this manner from earlier, single processing ZDNet
>>>>>benches, primarily suspected aimed to give an advantage for PII caches.
>>>>>What advantage does SMP have there? ZDNet benches are supposed to
>>>>>represent the average Windows enviroment with its most commonly used
>>>>>applications.
>>>>
>>>>1st single threaded bus. winstone 99: no speed gain, no suprise.
>>>>2nd, multi threaded winstone 99: 29.5%
>>>>3rd, single threaded high end: no gain.
>>>>4th, list of individual apps performance: 3 multithreaded, 4 single.
guess.
>>>> vc mp: 39.8%
>>>> sound forge: minute
>>>> premiere: minute
>>>> photoshop mp: 35.5%
>>>> microstation se mp: 22%
>>>> frontpage 98: minute
>>>> avs/express: minute
>>>>5th, cpumark: not benching 2nd cpu.
>>>>6th, fpumark: not benching 2nd cpu.
>>>>7th, disk, slight gain.
>>>>8th, graphics, no gain.
>>>>9th, photoshop 30mb file, multi threaded: 30%
>>>>10th, || 100mb file, ||: 3%
>>>>11th, || 30mb lighting effect: none
>>>>12th, || 100mb ||: 2%
>>>>13th, linux compile: 71%
>>>>14th, quake 2 8x6: none
>>>>15th, || 10x7: none
>>>>
>>>>Four out of seven is pretty thin ratio to try to pull off a comment like
>>"No.
>>>>For most of them, just no." don't ya think?:) Doesn't matter, as these
are
>>NOT
>>>
>>>And out of all 15, only six has benefit, five at 20-30% and only one has
>>>71%. 9 has no practical difference at all. The five 20-30% does not
>>>justify the cost and complexity of SMP either, since you might as well
>>>buy a single faster processor.
>>
>>
>>Your tally is a joke Chris:
>>14/15quake in two resolutions, ha!, 5/6 cpu/fpumark synthetic tests, 9
benches
>>the hd, cpu has minimal impact, 10 benches video, functions long since moved
>>onto video cards, 9-12 breakdown of photoshops average score, 1&3 averaged
>>score of single threaed apps from 4. Sheesh, who'd you think you where
going
>>to fool?
>
>
>Who are you trying to fool?
>
>The bottom line is that dual SMP (and the vast majority of users do
>agree) does not benefit for majority of situations NO MATTER WHAT THE
>REASON IS.
You tried to add up things where it was already counted(the averaged scores of
the singles) or where the cpu has little or no impact(hd & video benchmarks)
or the best one of all, quake in different resolutions:) To avoid having to
respond to this we've moved onto 'the bottom line':) OK. Vast majority of
users use w95/98, play games, & surf the web, with some money management &
word usage on the side. If were going to talk about the better system for
them it'll be a single celeron over a k63 because of games(and the vast
majority of users do agree:). & ignoring the performance issues, there's
the little issue of cost.
>>>So tell me how dual Celeron 333s and 366s can be consistently faster
>>>than a single K6-III 450 again with an estimated integer performance
>>>better than a Cel 500?
>>
>>
>>duals, oc'ing, multithreaded, multiprocess, multitasking.
>
>You're really dim about all these do you? SMP is useless if
>multithreading, multiprocessing and multitasking is I/O, user input
>bound, and synchronization/locking dependent---and the majority of
>applications are written like this.
smp is not useless if there isn't multithreading. make isn't multithreaded.
It intiates mutiple processes. Single process apps can still benefit from
smp: you start more than one instance or run more than one program at a time:
multitasking. If an apps performance isn't cpu bound then why would you
agrue any cpu is better for such cases?
<snip, snip, attempts to flaim, snip, snip> note: flaim definition below.
>>>>btw, cpureview got around to putting up a dual celeron linux compile time:
>>>>http://cpureview.com/art_smp_f.html. 77.4%(183% utilization) vs k63's
>>23.5%:)
>>>>The test is compiling the linux kernal but the performance is indicative
of
>>>>everything that's compiled or assembled using a makefile. & his system
only
>>>>had 64MB of memory!(I seem to recall an argument that one would have to
>>spend
>>>>extra $ on a larger amount of memory than a k63 would need in order to
>>attain
>>>>such performance(acutally, I also seem to recall it was argued such
>>performance
>>>
>>>>wasn't realistic or obtainable:) moot point regardless with such low
memory
>>>>prices. btw did everyone notice 128MB pc100 dimms just jumped +$10
>>>>recently!?).
>>>>
>>>>>>>Plus there is no 100% guarantee that a dual Celeron will work reliably
>>>>>>>everytime and without problems, so again, that's a crap shot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yeah, but by user reports, they're good odds.
>>>>>
>>>>>You cannot deny a K6-III 450 working on its rated
>>>>>speed and delivering its vaunted performance is practically a guaranteed
>>>>
>>>>Don't think anyone ever has. That is, no one's argued 'a k63 is not as
>>>>fast as a k63!':)
>>>>
>>>>>and much better odds than dual Celerons,
>>>>
>>>>Well, there's overclocking odds & odds that there's multithreaded &/or
>>>>multiprocess enhancements for the type of apps you want to use or will be
>>>>helped out in general from the os being smp aware. That a k63 is as fast
as
>>a
>>>
>>>Don't expect to see such applications except for expensive, workstation
>>>class types that work on NT,
>>
>>
>>We've gone over what apps & none of them were 'expensive workstation class
>>types'. Those are a bonus:)<snicker>:)
>
>Sure, sure, sure.
>
>Give me some prices.
>>>and nobody would take the chance of working
>>>such applications on unproven unsupported platforms like dual Celerons.
>>
>>
>>I beg to differ about nobody chance taking & unproven. So would motherboard
>>manf., slot 1 converter manf., hardware vendors, system vendors, & end
users.
>>
>It's unproven enough.
>From my first reply, obviously not.
>No business would attempt to use it for serious work.
I havn't been arguing business users would use overclocked parts & systems.
But we could always email vendors from the above mentioned groups & ask if any
businesses use their products.
>>>Other than this, the best utilization for SMP right now is being a LAN
>>>party game server using LInux and Linux compiles.
>>>
>>>There is plenty of heavy kinds of Windows applications out there, and
>>>most of them are basically single process.
>>
>>
>><new windows slogan>:P
>>'where do you want to <multi-task> today?':)
>
>Not with unproven crap like this.
>
>By the way, where is your machine?
What's that supposed to mean? If it means what I think it does, that's weak,
really weak. What, all the results from url's not good enough anymore?
>>>>k63 one would regard as a baseline. Odds come into play with betting
you'll
>>>>get astoundingly better performance(dual oc'd), much better
>>performance(dual),
>>>>roughly the same(oc'd), or 23.5% less than(can't oc, doesn't take
advantage
>>of
>>>>duals) with inbetween gradients of performance where duals come into play
>>>>depending on how well dual support is implemented.
>>>
>>>Overclocking and using the processors beyond their specification is
>>>unacceptable on a workplace enviroment.
>>
>>
>>For the business user & the timid, they can opt not to overclock & choose
just
>>the much better performance instead of the astoundingly better performance
>>category:)
>>
>
>They can opt for something that works reliably day by day.
duals are unreliable eh?
>>>Keep the hobbies to yourself; they have no place on business.
>>
>>
>>Keep the flaim bait to yourself; they have no place on newsgroups:)
>>
>
>What is "flaim"?
http://www.users.bigpond.com/ajbower/MVDictFL.html
To maim someone emotionally with a flame. Though I did err in that I should
have used flame or reworded the sentence.
>>
>>>Anything thats recommended for a business enviroment makes a much more
>>>valid ground for recommendation that your opinion about taking chances
>>>on warranty and doing things out of spec. A business enviroment
>>>recommendation will cover far more users out there, than one for a
>>>fringe geek group.
>>
>>
>>Keep the flaim bait to yourself; they have no place on newsgroups:)
>>
>
>You're really out of intelligent answers do you.
>
>You're nailed on the hole, I can see.
We've been going at it for awhile now under more than one thread(ha! the
irony:) I feel we've put enough out there for anyone reading to decide
what's what. Just do a deja.com search, ya'll:)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Hsieh)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 03:04:31 -0700
In article <7llo9f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> But the chess program is going to do a lot of searching (depth first or
> breath first) on a search tree, which involves accessing memory frequently
> and revisiting previously accessed memory.
The process of traversing a search tree in a depth first manner does not
require very much memory at all. On the other hand, the use of a hash
table to order the search to allow for better pruning, which is typical,
will use a lot of memory bandwidth. The exact hash table size depends
highly on the architecture of the chess program.
> [...] In this case the L2 cache and the
> memory access speed (66 vs 100 Mhz) can make quite a difference. The FPU of
> the Celeron is exactly the same a regular Pentium II, so the Celeron loses
> from too much memory access. So my guess is that Chess will also perform
> about 25% worse.
I think 25% is a serious exageration. However, again this looks like the
right conclusion from the wrongline of reasoning.
--
Paul Hsieh
http://www.pobox.com/~qed/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Hsieh)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 03:00:57 -0700
In article <7lkidn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> I am a Ph.D. student at Lehigh and recently assembled myself a Celeron
> machine running at 488 Mhz (overclocked from 433). I was very curious about
> its performance compared to regular Pentium IIs in scientific computing. I
> ran a mathematical optimization package called CPLEX on my machine and on a
> regular Pentium 400. The result is that the regular Pentium II outperforms
> my machine (celeron 488) by about 10%. Extrapolating from here I conclude
> that the Pentium performs about 25% faster than an equally clocked Celeron
> in intensive computing tasks. Therefore for fractals and chess expect a
> similar behaviour.
You data point does not lead to the conclusion you have made. The
primary difference between the Celeron and the P-II is that the P-II has
a *larger* L2 cache and is based on a 100Mhz BUS. A Celeron is based on
a 66 Mhz bus (or in your case a 75Mhz bus, I suppose.)
The FPUs in these CPU are identical, and thus their performance is
related entire on clock rate. Most fractals use very little data to
generate, and thus will rely entirely on the FPU performance. I would
thus expect that fractals would be entirely clock rate dependent.
Chess programs vary from implementation to implementation, however Rebel,
which is a very strong PC program, apparently is highly dependent on
Cache size (according to the author. See http://www.rebel.nl/bench.htm)
I have a hard time believing that a chess program would use floating
point over fixed point. Thus you would expect that this chess program,
at least, to do somewhat better on P-II than a Celeron at the same clock
rate (but its probably pretty close).
> However, I think it will do almost as well on routine Windows tasks such as
> word processing, web surfing, MP3 processing etc. In my opinion the Celeron
> is a very good value. For me as a student the marginal cost of getting a
> Pentium II is more than its marginal benefit.
Sounds like a correct conclusion from an incorrect line of reasoning to
me.
--
Paul Hsieh
http://www.pobox.com/~qed
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Hsieh)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 03:10:00 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> On Sun, 04 Jul 1999 00:19:17 +0200, Marc Mutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Well, that is not true. The benchmark used is the widely accepted
> >SPEC{fp,int}. It would be a _bad_ idea for AMD to polish those results,
> >since everyone can verify them in three months time. AMD _bitterly_
> >needs to sell these CPUs _very_ well and they cannot affort to do such
> >things.
>
> I would still like to see the benchmarks done by somebody other than the
> manufacturer of the new CPU.
Actually, I believe that the way that SPEC works, there are checks and
balances to these things. If AMD has official scores that have been
submitted to SPEC, then they have to stick by those scores and obviously
have to explain how to reproduce their exact numbers.
Basically, I don't think anyone, with any desire to retain some sort of
reputation, would create fake SPEC numbers in the current environment.
There's too much scrutiny.
--
Paul Hsieh
http://www.pobox.com/~qed/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Guenther)
Subject: Re: Linksys Parascsi Plus Linux Drivers
Date: 14 Jul 1999 09:47:42 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 11 Jul 1999 20:51:58 GMT, Prime Number <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Anyone have linux drivers for a Linksys Parascsi Plus printer port to
>scsi adapter for a NEC CD #502 and Quantum Fireball HD #1080s.
>Linksys no longer supports this adapter.
Visit the Linux parallel port devices page at http://www.torque.net/parport/
The SparCSI driver in the ppSCSI subsystem (currently in BETA testing) should
work with your cable.
The adapter is still marketed in the US by Shining Technology.
==========================================================================
Grant R. Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
==========================================================================
------------------------------
From: Harald Arnesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: USR Sporster voicie 33.6 internal ?????
Date: 13 Jul 1999 23:38:59 +0200
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> such wrote:
>
> > I'm trying to install my 33,6 baud internal modem under linux and it doesn't
> > work
> > It's not a winmodem , it's a sporster voice 33,6 internal
> > HELP PLEASE
> > how can I make it work ???
I have such a modem, and it works fine for me. Set the jumpers for
COM3 or COM4 (I use COM4, aka ttyS3), set it to an unused IRQ (7 on my
system) and use setserial to have Linux use the proper device and IRQ.
--
Harald Arnesen, Apalløkkveien 23 A, N-0956 Oslo, Norway
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Hsieh)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 03:27:02 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On that topic, it seems Netscape's algorithm for rendering nested tables
> is not very smart. Not sure about IE. This could be a good
> benchmark...heh. See how well your wiz-bang Celeron or K6-III handles
> these:
>
> http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/jhoward/tables/11.html (depth = 11)
> http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/jhoward/tables/12.html (depth = 12)
>
> These seem to be the magic numbers. 10 and below load fine, 11 took my
> P200 30 seconds to render, I gave up on 12 after waiting a minute and a
> half.
Bizzare. Using both Opera and IE, these tables are rendered basically as
fast as the html can be downloaded.
--
Paul Hsieh
http://www.pobox.com/~qed
------------------------------
From: "Eirik Wilberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Abit ATA-66 PCI card ???
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:01:35 +0200
It IS backward compatible, and it should work
Rowan Hughes skrev i meldingen ...
>I see Abit have an ATA66 PCI card with two controller
>lines, the HA66. It's backwards compatible with ATA33/UDMA.
>Do you know if 2.0.37 or 2.2.X will drive this card?
>
>TIA
>--
>=======================================================
>Dr Rowan Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Qld Dept Natural Resources Forestry Bldg, 4.06
>CIS group, Indooroopilly. W:07-38969705 H:07-38768083
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Hsieh)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 03:29:43 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Jay Patrick Howard wrote:
> > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Dean Kent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > : Oops! my default browser is IE. My office system is a P166MMX, so I
> > : tried it here. Netscape 4.01 goes to lunch and takes the rest of the day
> > : off. IE comes back in less than a second (this is with the 13 nested
> > : tables).
> >
> > As much as I hate to say it, Kudos to MS then. At least they were able to
> > implement this one thing correctly.
> Has someone tried Gecko* on them?
>
> My estimate: 0.5s
My estimate: It crashes. (My experience with gekko, has been that its
probably the most fragile piece of software I have ever attempted to use.
I hate to be bagging on Netscape like this, but they really haven't
followed through technically.)
--
Paul Hsieh
http://www.pobox.com/~qed/
------------------------------
From: "Thierry ANDRIAMIRADO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux
Subject: Re: Help: My printer/lp1 device is not getting detected:
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 23:44:01 +0200
Ateran a écrit dans le message <7me2t2$48g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Linux is having problems detecting my printer. Printer capability is
>enabled, but still, no results. I am running Red Hat 6.0. I tried
>installing RH 5.2, since I had no problems with my printer under that,
>and had the same difficulty. This makes me think that it's a hardware
>problem. Recently, I installed a new sound card, could this possibly
>be causing the problem? Other than that, there have been no changes
>made to my system. Any ideas on what could be causing this. If you
I got the same problem and it makes me crazy!
I thought it was because of my soundcard and the isa pnp tools, as my Linux
Box is an isa one (i486). I tried so many things, de-sloted the soundcard,
updated to kernel 2.2.5-22 and to the last -RedHat- 'dev' package, but it
doesn't works. Here's some details:
- after the RH5.2 to RH6 upgrade, my '/dev/lp' symbolik link desappeared. I
re-created it.
- of course, PrintTool doesn't find any /dev/lpx with a printer attached
- 'cat test.file >/dev/lp1' returns a not found device message, even an 'ls
/dev/lp?' shows the three /dev/lpx
- the parallel port (/dev/lp1) never appears in /proc/ioports nor in
/proc/interrupts:
Here is my /proc/ioports: (the parallel port, /dev/lp1, should be at 0378)
0000-001f : dma1
0020-003f : pic1
0040-005f : timer
0060-006f : keyboard
0070-007f : rtc
0080-008f : dma page reg
00a0-00bf : pic2
00c0-00df : dma2
00f0-00ff : fpu
0170-0177 : ide1
01f0-01f7 : ide0
0220-022f : soundblaster
02f8-02ff : serial(auto)
0300-031f : NE2000
0330-0333 : MPU-401 UART
0376-0376 : ide1
03c0-03df : vga+
03f6-03f6 : ide0
03f8-03ff : serial(auto)
0620-0623 : sound driver (AWE32)
0a20-0a23 : sound driver (AWE32)
0e20-0e23 : sound driver (AWE32)
and my /proc/interrupts (/dev/lp1's irq should be irq7):
CPU0
0: 146854 XT-PIC timer
1: 724 XT-PIC keyboard
2: 0 XT-PIC cascade
4: 103 XT-PIC serial
5: 1 XT-PIC soundblaster
8: 2 XT-PIC rtc
11: 755 XT-PIC NE2000
13: 0 XT-PIC fpu
14: 56615 XT-PIC ide0
15: 5 XT-PIC ide1
NMI: 0
And it's not a hardware problem. When Linux initialise the printer during
boot process, it seems ok!
As I need to print my resumes it really annoys me, makes me crazy!
Any ideas please?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.hardware) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Hardware Digest
******************************
