Which Processor?

[weazel]

I'm not really sure this should be in this forum but I'm running win2K Advanced Server on the box in question so I figured this was the best place for it.
Anyways...I'm trying to decide on the best processor to run in this server. Its only running the standard services and it is a DC for a 6 workstation enviroment. I have a few processors laying around and am trying to decide on which is best to use. choice one is a 566 celeron II, its been doing the job ok, but can be somewhat slow to respond. I also have a PII 333. I'm just wondering if AS would benefit more from the 512 cache over the 128k cache on the celeron. Oh, neither one is overclocked and theres 256 megs of pc133 generic cas 3 with 2 wd 20gig drives.
Thanks for your input guys

[TrackMan]

im talking out of my arse right here, but id imagine that the celery is the way to go. it enjoys a pretty good mhz lead over the p2. also, we all know that a p2 and celery of the same speed are for all intents and purposes just as fast. also, both share a 66 mhz data bus, so this isn't an arguement to choose one over the other.

the only way to know for shure is to try them both. you can pick up low end coppermine p3 chips pretty cheap these days, so that might be another option for you to explore

[Student^2]

Win2K AS will benefit immensely from the larger cache.
Sorry to disagree, but Celerons are slower than P2s when matched mHz to mHz. It's the cahce that does it.

[thirdfey]

I'll have to disagree with your disagreement <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0">

Back in the glory days of the PII and early celeries our Intel Rep told us that The Celery was the faster chip at 333 and had Intel Benchmarks to prove it. Of course, he didn't come out and tell us this without a little coaxing. In the office then we noticed the Celery performing as good and better in most cases. Not until the 350 when PII's hit 100Mhz FSB did the PII reclaim the crown.

One more vote for the celery since I have AS on a celery 500 with 256 megs on RAM, yet I have professional installed on the dual xeon 500's <IMG SRC="smilies/confused.gif" border="0">

[Sowulo]

One simple observation:

Seti@home on a PII 300--15hrs per packet

Seti@home on a Celeron 333--18hrs per packet

Same computer no other components or software changed in any way, nothing else running in background.

Different system (equitable in every way just a different brand of MB) Seti@home on a Celeron 433--15hrs per packet.


Interpretation: PII will be about 30% or so faster than a Celeron, everything else being equal. (I've verified this many times over the years)

PII 333 vs. Celeron 566:

PII 333 will run about the same speed as a Celeron 433 (333/3=111; 333+111=444)

Celeron 566 should be roughly 27% faster than the PII 333.

[weazel]

sorry guys...didn't mean to start anything.
I have the 333 in now and am running some tests....thanks for all of your input

[ShadowKing]

Never argue with Suwolo. He's always right.

[kannibul]

A cellery is a stripped out version of the PII/PIII
they left only what was needed for the home user. when it comes to server-style applications, a cel can't hold anything to a PII or PIII.
I have to put this in:
AMD has always performed better on the data processing market. most people don't know that the only reason that AMD was critisized so heavily in the past is because of the floating-point; which is used mostly in games. They would beat Intel on the buisiness applications everytime, clock for clock (going off of K6 and up)
AMD would make an excellent server in this situation (only 6 users...) and really would be better suitied to hold more of a load.
BUT, Intel has more experience with the server arena, so it is for me, a toss-up.
the 76X amd chipset coupled with the athlon MP makes a formidable opponent, regardless of what Intel has to counter-offer.

[unknownGHOST]

"Seti@home on a PII 300--15hrs per packet

Seti@home on a Celeron 333--18hrs per packet"

Processors that have a "33" or "66" in their mhz clock are really processors that failed to perform as a true "50" or "00" in mhz.