Yep, we just discussed that in another thread. A Celeron M would probably, in newer PCs, be a Dothan core (or maybe still the older Banias, which was already quite nice) and that is related to the Core- based on the old P3 architecture (Coppermine and similar) iirc and also related to the new Core 2 Duos, whereas the P4 is a completely different architecture. I think Core CPUs are way more efficient than Netburst if I see what my brother's Dothan (Pentium M sold as Centrino) can do in the benchmarks at only 1.7 GHz which sounds lame but is easily fast enough for gaming and stuff...
The newest Celeron M with 533 MHz FSB are of the Core Solo-Type Core.
Thus faster than the Celeron with 400 MHz FSB or maybe even like the Pentium M with the same FSB and the same core frequency - must be tested, i should consider buying one. ;)
The desktop Celeron and the mobile Celeron M are two completly different processors. The desktop celeron is based an the Pentium 4 Netburst technologie, while the Celeron M is based on the Pentium M (Core 1) technologie.
I meant Mobile Celeron (Celeron M). Sorry I didn't make it very clear, speaking in regards to laptops, I thought I would get my point across. Thanks for the info.
Actually, there are some laptops around with "normal" (Netburst or similar) CPUs, at least here in Germany. No idea what the point is (probably they're cheaper, plus they have higher tact rates so they look faster even if they aren't cause Banias/Dothan is more efficient) but some people keep buying them. Okay, I think most of them are noobs :-D
Well, I am looking at getting a Acer laptop with a mobile AMD Sempron 1.8GHZ 3000+
A laptop on my team, a Compaq Presario Mobile AMD Sempron 1.8GHZ 3000+ does a short WU in between 2700 to 2900 secs. So, I think that may be the CPU I go with.
I am going to search google.com on this site, to see if I can find a Intel Celeron 2.6 GHZ, which is the other proccessor I am thinking about. To compare times.
EDIT: Well after looking. I guess the Celeron I was interested in was a 1.46GHZ. Which is less fast. Unless I want to go up to a Mobile Turion 64 x2, I think the Mobile Sempron is the best option. Each proccessor on a Turion does a small WU in about 3600 seconds but, if you count in both proccessors working at the same time, it is fast. But, I think the Mobile Sempron is what I am going to go with.
If you do decide to go with a Turion X2, my is processing a small workunit per core at ~2700 sec. and large ones ~25,000 sec.
I know, that's an 'oddball' I posted several Times in the BOINCstats Forums.
For some reason BOINCstats (besides a more accurate RAC called "According to BOINCstats") also has a RAC figure called "Projects accumulated", which it uses for the Signature and which has always been way off.
I have no clue what basis it's using for calculating RAC, but it's obviously wrong - never understood why this one was used for the Sig Graphics, when there always was a much more accurate number readily available.
Actual RAC is stated to be currently 11937, adding the Sig numbers together should make it 11486 right now.
I know, that's an 'oddball' I posted several Times in the BOINCstats Forums.
For some reason BOINCstats (besides a more accurate RAC called "According to BOINCstats") also has a RAC figure called "Projects accumulated", which it uses for the Signature and which has always been way off.
I have no clue what basis it's using for calculating RAC, but it's obviously wrong - never understood why this one was used for the Sig Graphics, when there always was a much more accurate number readily available.
Actual RAC is stated to be currently 11937, adding the Sig numbers together should make it 11486 right now.
You know, BOINC Synergy sigs and stats calculate RAC accurately. And you don't have to be a team member to have a sig. Come over to our page and check it out ;)
RE: Yep, we just discussed
)
The newest Celeron M with 533 MHz FSB are of the Core Solo-Type Core.
Thus faster than the Celeron with 400 MHz FSB or maybe even like the Pentium M with the same FSB and the same core frequency - must be tested, i should consider buying one. ;)
RE: The desktop Celeron and
)
I meant Mobile Celeron (Celeron M). Sorry I didn't make it very clear, speaking in regards to laptops, I thought I would get my point across. Thanks for the info.
d3xt3r.net
Actually, there are some
)
Actually, there are some laptops around with "normal" (Netburst or similar) CPUs, at least here in Germany. No idea what the point is (probably they're cheaper, plus they have higher tact rates so they look faster even if they aren't cause Banias/Dothan is more efficient) but some people keep buying them. Okay, I think most of them are noobs :-D
RE: Well, I am looking at
)
If you do decide to go with a Turion X2, my is processing a small workunit per core at ~2700 sec. and large ones ~25,000 sec.
Good call, a Dual Core will
)
Good call, a Dual Core will be a far more powerful cruncher than any single Core.
I wouldn't buy any more Single Core CPU's/Systems when there's a DC alternative abailable (for as long as you can afford it of course).
Hey Falcon, your RAC doesn't
)
Hey Falcon, your RAC doesn't add up in your sig.
RE: Hey Falcon, your RAC
)
Hey Matt, yours doesn't either. =;^)
The stat sites have different update time cycles.
Reno, NV Team: SETI.USA
RE: RE: Hey Falcon, your
)
What I mean is that the RAC showing for each project is way off compared to the RAC total at the bottom of the sig.
If you add up my three RACs you get exactly my RAC total.
However, Falcon should have a combined RAC of over 10,000 according to the individual RACs, but he's listed as only having around 8000.
I know, that's an 'oddball' I
)
I know, that's an 'oddball' I posted several Times in the BOINCstats Forums.
For some reason BOINCstats (besides a more accurate RAC called "According to BOINCstats") also has a RAC figure called "Projects accumulated", which it uses for the Signature and which has always been way off.
I have no clue what basis it's using for calculating RAC, but it's obviously wrong - never understood why this one was used for the Sig Graphics, when there always was a much more accurate number readily available.
Actual RAC is stated to be currently 11937, adding the Sig numbers together should make it 11486 right now.
RE: I know, that's an
)
You know, BOINC Synergy sigs and stats calculate RAC accurately. And you don't have to be a team member to have a sig. Come over to our page and check it out ;)