|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Free:
Thanks for this complete report.
It reminds me of the title of a book "Everything
you wanted to know about XXX but were afraid to ask". I was more like the
dullard that didn't know what to ask.
thanks again. It is much
appreciated
Lionel Issen<A
href="mailto:lissen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>lissen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From:
Free
To: <A title=metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 11:11
AM
Subject: Re: computer graphic card
memory
Lionel,
I am a little out of date, so I could stnad
corrected on recent events. A little history: Intel was caught off-guard
with the sub-$1000 phenomenon (time flies, this must have been 3-4 years ago!)
and moved quickly to counter AMD in this space. The best they could do
to save money on short notice was to come up with a no-cache version, code
named Covington. At this time, the PII had 512K L2 cache on a
separate die packaged in the Slot-1 form factor, which was very expensive to
produce. Covington was the first Celeron, but the Mendocino
version was in the works as the 2nd generation; this had an integrated on-die
cache, 128K as I recall. So, from about 6 months after its initial
introduction, Celeron has had L2 cache. Pentium was moving to a 100MHz
front side bus and Celeron was still 66MHz, so there was another
difference. Because of the rush, Celerons were first offered as a funky
open SEPP cartrudge form; Mendocino evolved to offer a cost-reduced PPGA
cartridge.
There was a point in time, ca. 1999, when the L2
caceh on Celeron was actually faster than Pentium. Because of the
quicker move to on-die cache, Celeron first has full speed cache. The
larger cache size caused on-die cache to be later for Pentium. Pentium
had a separate cache that could only be driven at 1/2 the back-side bus
speed.
Except for some highly integrated (e.g. onboard
graphics that I am not sure ever made it to market) chips, Celeron has
traditionally used the same processor technology as Pentium. One
way we know the Celeron has changed considerably since introduction is the
speeds now available. The top Celeron is now 900MHz with a 100MHz front
side bus. It had to undergo basic architectural changes to quadruple its
speed.
Again, I am not necessarily current, but I think
the difference between Celeron and PIII is the smaller 128k L2 cache and
100MHz FSB vs. 133. The P4 is a different architecture altogether, with
1.8GHz speeds, 400MHz FSB, etc. A not insignificant difference is in
your question: "...because the Celeron is used on cheaper computers
...". This is a marketing, not a technical, issue, but the fact is that
the OEM's will put lower performing components around a Celeron for a cheaper
total system.
That's all I know!
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From:
Lionel
Issen
To: <A title=metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 6:47
AM
Subject: Re: computer graphic card
memory
Free:
Thanks for bringing me up to date on the
Celeron. Can you tell me what the intrinsic differences are between the
Celeron and other microprocessors. I assumed that because the Celeron is
used on cheaper computers that it hadn't been changed.
Lionel Issen<A
href="mailto:lissen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>lissen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From:
Free
To: <A title=metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 9:19
PM
Subject: Re: computer graphic card
memory
The original Celeron (2-3 years ago) had no
L2 cache, but 2nd generation and above do have an integrated L2
cache.
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From:
<A title=lissen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
href="mailto:lissen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>Lionel Issen
To: <A
title=metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 7:26
PM
Subject: Re: computer graphic card
memory
Dave D.
You are correct about the Celeron it has no
cache. As a general rule, when I buy a new computer, I want the hardware
not to be integrated. Its cheaper and easier to make changes and
repairs.
Lionel Issen<A
href="mailto:lissen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>lissen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From:
David
DeFina
To: <A
title=metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001
10:43 AM
Subject: RE: computer graphic
card memory
<FONT face=Arial
color=navy size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">My
two cents is don’t purchase a computer with an integrated graphics
card, especially with 4mb ram.
That’s like buying a car with a governor that keeps it below
45mph. The Cache is
different from the Ram memory.
It resides near the processor and offloads tasks to free up the
processor and allows faster throughput.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> 256K is what comes with a
Celeron chip and the Pentium usually has 512K.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> Don’t torture yourself with
that computer. Just my
opinion. Dave
D.
<FONT face=Tahoma
color=black size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">-----Original
Message-----From:
owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]<SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">On Behalf Of
MayTseshuyan1@xxxxxxx<SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent: Aug 10, 2001 6:21
PMTo:
metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject: computer graphic card
memory
<FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>
<FONT face=Arial
color=black size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I am looking
at new computer and also thinking of buying a good charting
program. Dell told me this new computer I am
thinking of purchasing has a graphic card that is 'integrated',
meaning unremovable, and also 4mb ram only. He
suggested I check first to see if it may not be strong enough for
my intended charting software program. He also mentioned
the cache is 256mb , and I read a good charting program needs to
work on 512mb cache. I am thinking of putting 256x2
mb ram onto this new computer.
Is Cache & Ram 2 different
kinds of memories? I thought I know I lot, but now I really
think I know nothing...:-( TYIA for any guidances....
Have a nice weekend, all of you :-)<FONT
color=black><SPAN
style="COLOR: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext">
|