Can this be true (Pentium vs. K6) ?

Hello!

I have just set up two old computer, only to do seti work.

Seti Pc1:
-Pentium 133mhz
-46mb ram
-2.1 gb quantium hd
-linux debian (newest version i think).

Performs around 1.84% an hour.

Seit Pc2:
-Amd k6 233mhz
-64mb ram
-2.1 gb quantium hd
-linux debian (same ver. as above).

Performs only around 2% an hour.

Can it be true, or is the "spy" program fouling me ?

http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/f...user_stats_new

SETI uses the CPU FPU (floating point unit) extensively. AMD CPUs (old
ones) had a poor FPU. So it took longer compared to an Intel CPU.

For example, my first SETI PC was an AMD k6-2 500. It took 28 hours for a
WU. I found out that it was poor for SETI so I switch to other PCs. I had
an Intel PIII 450 overclocked to 504. (112 FSB) It ran in 12 hours or
less.

Intel much better on older CPUs. AMD Duron and Athalon much better, on par
with Intel PII and Celeron.

Here is a table I found of CPUs. There is a calculator out there too.

http://www.sos.mcmaster.ca/sp/seti.htm


"C.B" wrote in message
om...
Hello!

I have just set up two old computer, only to do seti work.

Seti Pc1:
-Pentium 133mhz
-46mb ram
-2.1 gb quantium hd
-linux debian (newest version i think).

Performs around 1.84% an hour.

Seit Pc2:
-Amd k6 233mhz
-64mb ram
-2.1 gb quantium hd
-linux debian (same ver. as above).

Performs only around 2% an hour.

Can it be true, or is the "spy" program fouling me ?


http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/f...user_stats_new

SETI uses the CPU FPU (floating point unit) extensively. AMD CPUs (old
ones) had a poor FPU. So it took longer compared to an Intel CPU.

For example, my first SETI PC was an AMD k6-2 500. It took 28 hours for a
WU. I found out that it was poor for SETI so I switch to other PCs. I had
an Intel PIII 450 overclocked to 504. (112 FSB) It ran in 12 hours or
less.

Intel much better on older CPUs. AMD Duron and Athalon much better, on par
with Intel PII and Celeron.

Here is a table I found of CPUs. There is a calculator out there too.

http://www.sos.mcmaster.ca/sp/seti.htm


"C.B" wrote in message
om...
Hello!

I have just set up two old computer, only to do seti work.

Seti Pc1:
-Pentium 133mhz
-46mb ram
-2.1 gb quantium hd
-linux debian (newest version i think).

Performs around 1.84% an hour.

Seit Pc2:
-Amd k6 233mhz
-64mb ram
-2.1 gb quantium hd
-linux debian (same ver. as above).

Performs only around 2% an hour.

Can it be true, or is the "spy" program fouling me ?


http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/f...user_stats_new

I'm still trying to work out why a 2.8GHz P4/1GigaByte 266MHz DDR/Win XP Pro
l/t is slightly less than twice as fast as a 1.2GHz P3/512MBytes
PC133/Win2kPro l/t for processing units using the 3.03 CL version. No other
active apps, beyond those required by the O/S. ??

M

p.s. I have timings for large numbers of units on these plus P3/750MHz ,
Celeron/850MHz and Duron/1.3GHz, if anyone is interested. I haven't wibbled
on about them because they seem off base for here. Machines wot I have
hijacked to seti@home use in the past.
-----
"C.B" wrote in message
om...
Hello!

I have just set up two old computer, only to do seti work.

Seti Pc1:
-Pentium 133mhz
-46mb ram
-2.1 gb quantium hd
-linux debian (newest version i think).

Performs around 1.84% an hour.

Seit Pc2:
-Amd k6 233mhz
-64mb ram
-2.1 gb quantium hd
-linux debian (same ver. as above).

Performs only around 2% an hour.

Can it be true, or is the "spy" program fouling me ?


http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/f...orldonline.dk&
cmd=user_stats_new

I'm still trying to work out why a 2.8GHz P4/1GigaByte 266MHz DDR/Win XP Pro
l/t is slightly less than twice as fast as a 1.2GHz P3/512MBytes
PC133/Win2kPro l/t for processing units using the 3.03 CL version. No other
active apps, beyond those required by the O/S. ??

M

p.s. I have timings for large numbers of units on these plus P3/750MHz ,
Celeron/850MHz and Duron/1.3GHz, if anyone is interested. I haven't wibbled
on about them because they seem off base for here. Machines wot I have
hijacked to seti@home use in the past.
-----
"C.B" wrote in message
om...
Hello!

I have just set up two old computer, only to do seti work.

Seti Pc1:
-Pentium 133mhz
-46mb ram
-2.1 gb quantium hd
-linux debian (newest version i think).

Performs around 1.84% an hour.

Seit Pc2:
-Amd k6 233mhz
-64mb ram
-2.1 gb quantium hd
-linux debian (same ver. as above).

Performs only around 2% an hour.

Can it be true, or is the "spy" program fouling me ?


http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/f...orldonline.dk&
cmd=user_stats_new

In article ,
m wrote:
I'm still trying to work out why a 2.8GHz P4/1GigaByte 266MHz DDR/Win XP Pro
l/t is slightly less than twice as fast as a 1.2GHz P3/512MBytes
PC133/Win2kPro l/t for processing units using the 3.03 CL version. No other
active apps, beyond those required by the O/S. ??
[ ... ]

Because the internal architecture of the P4 isn't nearly as efficient as
the P3; Intel lobotomized it to raise the clock speed for marketing
purposes.


Gary

--
Gary Heston
PHB: "That's the sort of leadership that will turn this company around."
Wally: "Were we doing well?"
Dilbert, 5/23/3

In article ,
m wrote:
I'm still trying to work out why a 2.8GHz P4/1GigaByte 266MHz DDR/Win XP Pro
l/t is slightly less than twice as fast as a 1.2GHz P3/512MBytes
PC133/Win2kPro l/t for processing units using the 3.03 CL version. No other
active apps, beyond those required by the O/S. ??
[ ... ]

Because the internal architecture of the P4 isn't nearly as efficient as
the P3; Intel lobotomized it to raise the clock speed for marketing
purposes.


Gary

--
Gary Heston
PHB: "That's the sort of leadership that will turn this company around."
Wally: "Were we doing well?"
Dilbert, 5/23/3

Hmm,

the worst thing is that, it seems that the Centrino based l/t machines
@1.6GHz are considerably better at crunching than my 2.8GHz P4 - it's a Dell
Inspiron 5100 and, to add insult to injury Dell announced it's D range of
Latitudes with 1.7GHz Centrinos just after I went for that machine. If they
correspond to the sort of performance of the other Centrino based systems,
they should be processing at about 1.5-1.8 or so hours per unit, not 2.8
like this one. Doh!

m

"Gary Heston" wrote in message
...
In article ,
m wrote:
I'm still trying to work out why a 2.8GHz P4/1GigaByte 266MHz DDR/Win XP
Pro
l/t is slightly less than twice as fast as a 1.2GHz P3/512MBytes
PC133/Win2kPro l/t for processing units using the 3.03 CL version. No
other
active apps, beyond those required by the O/S. ??
[ ... ]

Because the internal architecture of the P4 isn't nearly as efficient as
the P3; Intel lobotomized it to raise the clock speed for marketing
purposes.


Gary

--
Gary Heston
PHB: "That's the sort of leadership that will turn this company around."
Wally: "Were we doing well?"
Dilbert, 5/23/3

Hmm,

the worst thing is that, it seems that the Centrino based l/t machines
@1.6GHz are considerably better at crunching than my 2.8GHz P4 - it's a Dell
Inspiron 5100 and, to add insult to injury Dell announced it's D range of
Latitudes with 1.7GHz Centrinos just after I went for that machine. If they
correspond to the sort of performance of the other Centrino based systems,
they should be processing at about 1.5-1.8 or so hours per unit, not 2.8
like this one. Doh!

m

"Gary Heston" wrote in message
...
In article ,
m wrote:
I'm still trying to work out why a 2.8GHz P4/1GigaByte 266MHz DDR/Win XP
Pro
l/t is slightly less than twice as fast as a 1.2GHz P3/512MBytes
PC133/Win2kPro l/t for processing units using the 3.03 CL version. No
other
active apps, beyond those required by the O/S. ??
[ ... ]

Because the internal architecture of the P4 isn't nearly as efficient as
the P3; Intel lobotomized it to raise the clock speed for marketing
purposes.


Gary

--
Gary Heston
PHB: "That's the sort of leadership that will turn this company around."
Wally: "Were we doing well?"
Dilbert, 5/23/3