Are Celerons just slower than real cpu's?
28 Apr 2006 21:54:53 UTC
Topic 191142
(moderation:
I have four computers doing Einstein@home.
One is a P4 3.0 ghz running XP Pro, that does work units two at a time and nothing else,with a RAC of 680.94.
One Celeron 2.4 ghz, running XP Pro, that does nothing but Einstein@home, with a RAC of 220.78.
One AMD 1.3 ghz machine, running Win2000 Pro, does nothing but Einstein@home, with a RAC of 467.64.
One AMD 1.2 ghz machine, running XP Pro, and used for everything and is the internet hub for the other computers, with a RAC of 323.47.
I have the latest (I think) versions of Albert. The Celeron machine doesn't seem to care which version of Albert it runs, it just takes longer to process with any version than the two AMD machines. I guess being 2.40 ghz is just an Intel sales number?
Should I just give up on looking for a way to speed up that machine?
Are Celerons just slower than real cpu's?
)
They can test times the S40.12 on their computers and try whether it become better.
But please they use besides still truxoft Bionc for a more or less normal credit note remuneration, http://boinc.truxoft.com/core-opt.htm.
I hope it will helps you.
(Sorry for broken englisch but it would translated by lycos :P )
RE: I have four computers
)
The Celeron : high on MHz but low on performance without forgotting that you can find Celeron 2.4A Ghz - 256 Ko L2 but also Celeron 2.4 Ghz - 128 Ko L2.
[