A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

PII vs PIII



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 10th 03, 04:22 PM
Gregory L. Hansen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default PII vs PIII


It looks like the machine I have (an HP Kayak XAS, you may have seen me
mention it already) can be upgraded from a PII 400MHz to dual PIII 600MHz.
But the PIII's are substantially more expensive than the PII's, around $70
each compared to $10 each.

I guess I'm not that excited about a 50% increase in clock rate, by
itself. But is there a great advantage just in going from a PII to a PIII
with a comparable clock speed? Would I get substantially more computing
for the money?

--
"Is that plutonium on your gums?"
"Shut up and kiss me!"
-- Marge and Homer Simpson

  #3  
Old October 10th 03, 06:24 PM
Steve Wolfe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It looks like the machine I have (an HP Kayak XAS, you may have seen me
mention it already) can be upgraded from a PII 400MHz to dual PIII

600MHz.
But the PIII's are substantially more expensive than the PII's, around

$70
each compared to $10 each.

I guess I'm not that excited about a 50% increase in clock rate, by
itself. But is there a great advantage just in going from a PII to a

PIII
with a comparable clock speed? Would I get substantially more computing
for the money?


There *can* be an advantage, but whether it's important to you is
debatable. Early P3's had the same cache architecture as the P2's -
namely, external cache running at half of the CPU's clock speed. Starting
around the 600 MHz mark, you were able to get P3's with on-die cache
running at full CPU speed.

So, if cache latency is a deal-breaker for your application, the extra
money would be worth it. If not, then it's a lot more of a
personal-preference type of thing.

As a side note, I'm surprised that a P3/600 would be $70, seeing that
you can buy something like an Athlon 2400+ for less than that. I looked
over on ebay, and found the P3's running $20 to $30 each.

steve


  #4  
Old October 10th 03, 06:34 PM
Gregory L. Hansen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Steve Wolfe wrote:
It looks like the machine I have (an HP Kayak XAS, you may have seen me
mention it already) can be upgraded from a PII 400MHz to dual PIII

600MHz.
But the PIII's are substantially more expensive than the PII's, around

$70
each compared to $10 each.

I guess I'm not that excited about a 50% increase in clock rate, by
itself. But is there a great advantage just in going from a PII to a

PIII
with a comparable clock speed? Would I get substantially more computing
for the money?


There *can* be an advantage, but whether it's important to you is
debatable. Early P3's had the same cache architecture as the P2's -
namely, external cache running at half of the CPU's clock speed. Starting
around the 600 MHz mark, you were able to get P3's with on-die cache
running at full CPU speed.

So, if cache latency is a deal-breaker for your application, the extra
money would be worth it. If not, then it's a lot more of a
personal-preference type of thing.

As a side note, I'm surprised that a P3/600 would be $70, seeing that
you can buy something like an Athlon 2400+ for less than that. I looked
over on ebay, and found the P3's running $20 to $30 each.


There's a wide range of prices, so I tried to generalize, and I was
looking specifically at PIII 600MHz 512 cache. I was thinking especially
of a matched pair I saw for something over $100, although they had 256K
cache.

I suppose I should make sure I can get the system up and running in the
first place, before I start worrying about upgrading it. I'm still
waiting for some cables and adapters to arrive so I can plug it into my
monitor, so I still can't see what I'm doing and it's just sitting there
with a clean hard drive right now.
--
"Is that plutonium on your gums?"
"Shut up and kiss me!"
-- Marge and Homer Simpson

  #5  
Old October 10th 03, 06:37 PM
Mike Walsh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


When Intel went to the on chip L2 cache it was not to increase performance, it was to save money. They cut the size of the cache from 512 Kb to 256 Kb. My old Pentium 2 L2 cache tested at half of the L1 cache speed, which it is supposed to be. With my Pentium 3 (1.26 Ghz with 512 Kb L2 cache) the L2 cache tests at 60% of L1 cache speed, not 100% as Intel would have you believe.

Steve Wolfe wrote:

There *can* be an advantage, but whether it's important to you is
debatable. Early P3's had the same cache architecture as the P2's -
namely, external cache running at half of the CPU's clock speed. Starting
around the 600 MHz mark, you were able to get P3's with on-die cache
running at full CPU speed.


--
Mike Walsh
West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S.A.
  #7  
Old October 10th 03, 07:13 PM
Steve Wolfe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The fact that the top speed for this board is 600MHz leads me to think
that it will only work with the "Katmai" flavour of P-III not with its
successor the "coppermine". The Coppermine was the one where they
halved the amount of L2 cache on the basis that they made it full
speed at the same time. These chips require a lower core voltage than
the Katmai ones and some motherboards don't have voltage regulators
that are capable of supplying the correct one. So, if it says top
speed is 600MHz they probably mean that you're limited to the older,
512KB cache, P-III's.


It still might pay to check if it will support them or not - there are a
number of boards which were originally designed for P2's which also had
the flexibility to support the P3 Coppermines - my home machine, with a
650 MHz P3, is running on such a motherboard.

steve


  #8  
Old October 10th 03, 07:17 PM
Steve Wolfe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

When Intel went to the on chip L2 cache it was not to increase
performance, it was to save money. They cut the size of the cache from 512
Kb to 256 Kb. My old Pentium 2 L2 cache tested at half of the L1 cache
speed, which it is supposed to be. With my Pentium 3 (1.26 Ghz with 512 Kb
L2 cache) the L2 cache tests at 60% of L1 cache speed, not 100% as Intel
would have you believe.

The *frequency* at which the cache works in the on-die chips is actually
100% of clock speed. However, as you point out, that doesn't work out to
100% performance, as there are a lot of factors involved. However, in
apps where cache latency is a factor, the chips with on-die cache do come
out ahead.

Perhaps the largest limitation to the P3 line is it's limitted FSB, at
133 MHz. I've used a good number of dual-p3 servers, and found that once
the CPU gets up to about 866, you've got pretty much all the performance
you're going to get - a faster CPU doesn't do anything for you. Once you
start talking about the "-S" chips (the later P3's with 512k on-die cache,
and clock speeds of 1.13 to 1.4 GHz), you get an initial performance boost
from the doubling of the cache, but little to no returns from increasing
the CPU speed along the 1.13- to 1.4-GHz line.

steve


  #9  
Old October 10th 03, 07:31 PM
Gregory L. Hansen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Trevor Hemsley wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 17:34:03 UTC in comp.os.linux.hardware,
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:

There's a wide range of prices, so I tried to generalize, and I was
looking specifically at PIII 600MHz 512 cache. I was thinking especially
of a matched pair I saw for something over $100, although they had 256K
cache.


The fact that the top speed for this board is 600MHz leads me to think
that it will only work with the "Katmai" flavour of P-III not with its
successor the "coppermine". The Coppermine was the one where they
halved the amount of L2 cache on the basis that they made it full
speed at the same time. These chips require a lower core voltage than
the Katmai ones and some motherboards don't have voltage regulators
that are capable of supplying the correct one. So, if it says top
speed is 600MHz they probably mean that you're limited to the older,
512KB cache, P-III's.


I didn't realize there was such a difference between a PIII 600MHz 512K
cache and a PIII 600MHz 256K cache. Are all PIIIs with 512K Katmais, and
all PIIIs with 256K coppermines?

When I asked about the VRM, I was told the part number 0950-2837 was for
any PII/PIII up to 600MHz, and they specifically said it's not for
"coppermine". I've asked if the machine would support a faster PIII if a
different VRM were installed, but haven't gotten an answer yet, and I'm
beginning to wonder if I will. I think the motherboard has the 440BX
chipset, if that makes a difference, but I know it also matters which
motherboard the chipset is sitting on. And maybe a BIOS upgrade, which HP
may or may not have, and which I've never done.

The more I learn about this, the more it all gets complicated by little
bits of information like what you've just said above.
--
"Is that plutonium on your gums?"
"Shut up and kiss me!"
-- Marge and Homer Simpson

  #10  
Old October 10th 03, 08:22 PM
TCS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 15:22:34 +0000 (UTC), Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

It looks like the machine I have (an HP Kayak XAS, you may have seen me
mention it already) can be upgraded from a PII 400MHz to dual PIII 600MHz.
But the PIII's are substantially more expensive than the PII's, around $70
each compared to $10 each.

I guess I'm not that excited about a 50% increase in clock rate, by
itself. But is there a great advantage just in going from a PII to a PIII
with a comparable clock speed? Would I get substantially more computing
for the money?


For $140 you can get a new case that'll accept standard motherboards
and a motherboard'n'cpu on ebay that'll be twice as fast as a pair of
P3-600s.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PIII 1333 roch General 3 October 3rd 03 12:53 AM
CPU upgrade, how high can I go? Sam General 3 September 19th 03 03:30 PM
DELL Inspiron 4000 PIII, 600, 128 RAM sc General 0 August 14th 03 11:57 AM
Dell CS-X Slimline Notebook PIII 500Mhz help hammer General 1 July 15th 03 09:59 PM
my graphic card require 650mhz I have a pIII 450mhz is that enough? Kanolsen General 4 June 29th 03 02:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.