[95576] in RedHat Linux List
Celeron or K6-2?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Razvan Oprea)
Mon Oct 19 13:43:53 1998
From: "Razvan Oprea" <roprea@fx.ro>
To: <redhat-list@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 20:46:50 +0200
Resent-From: redhat-list@redhat.com
Reply-To: redhat-list@redhat.com
Hi everyone.
Though it's not a question directly related to Linux, I'll put it anyway
since I trust in your opinions very much.
I'm in a dilema - I need to buy a new computer and I'm not still decided on
what processor to choose to "motorize" the system. As I won't throw approx.
900 USD (VAT not included) on a PII - 450 MHz processor (the current price
in Romania), the question is what should I choose: a Celeron or a K6-2?
About Celeron I understand that only the one with 128K cache worth the money
(around 200 USD for Celeron 300A - without VAT), the other type with no
cache at all being even slower than a MMX at the same frequency (as far as
I've heard).
About K6-2 I understand it's main value is the 100 MHz Bus Clock, something
that an old simple K6 can't dream of - correct me if I'm wrong, please.
And one more thing that bothers me a LOT - it's about overclocking: As far
as I see things it's something great for hacking and so on, the only effect,
as far as I understand things, being the electronic migration that finally
will occur - an effect that will reduce the life of the processor with few
years. But that's not the point. If, let's say, I'm interested in
performance (at a reasonable low cost) and also in RELIABILIY - for a system
that must work around the clock without mistake, I ask you then: HOW
reliable is an overclocked processor after all? Hmm?
PS. Thanks to Hugo Rabson for his advices. They made indeed a difference.
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
http://www.redhat.com http://archive.redhat.com
To unsubscribe: mail redhat-list-request@redhat.com with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject.
