On Saturday 26 March 2005 09:32 pm, Tom wrote: | OOzy Pal wrote: | > Dears | > | > I am using Athlon 1.3 GHz and I would like to upgrade | > to Celeron 2.4 GHz. Is it worth it. I mean will I see | > a difference. Someone said the the 1.3 will perform | > better with Linux do to the Cache. Please help. | | Your AMD 1.3 vs. a Celery is a toss up in synthetic benchmarks.
| | You really need to give specs for your current system, an how | you use it, for more concise appraisals. The motherboard you're | usin is as, or more important than the cpu. As is ram (brand, | cas/latency, banking, etc.) and presupposes a good quality power | supply. | | Then you can also tailor Linux to your hardware. For instance, | I'm usin 2.6.11-6mdkK74g preempt K7 gcc-3.4 (compiled for Athlon, | preempt enabled, > 4gig ram ) an find it to be much more responsive | than 2.6.8 or 2.6.10 kernels compiled the same way. On a 3+Ghz | Athlon, VIA KT600, 1GB 2.5CL 4-bank ram system, mildly overclocked. | Mostly optimizations are only seen in compiling, an re-de-encoding | of large files (which I do a lot of). | | > Regards, | > OOzy Also, keep in mind that fast chips are bogged down by low-memory vid cards. CPU power is worth something, but waiting for the graphical interface to render is what makes a system seem to be slow. Unless you are shelling out $$$ for a high-mem video card, the real differences (as Tom wrote) are what you can't see--compiling and such. e
____________________________________________________ Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com ____________________________________________________
