| Jeff Abrahamson on 10 Mar 2004 16:41:02 -0000 |
|
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 10:43:58AM -0500, Gregson Helledy wrote: > [37 lines, 223 words, 1648 characters] Top characters: etnsoa_r > > >Uh...well, when I installed RH something told me that the box was an > >i686. Is that a P4? Or is there no relationship? Also, why are Celerons > >the poor relations of the Intel family? Is it the cache, or lack thereof? > > An i686 is apparently anything Pentium II or faster. I compiled > a custom kernel for my Athlon but uname -a still describes it as i686. > > This Slashdot article: > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/05/0554230&mode=thread > covers an Anandtech article on Celeron performance. It compares > the new 2+ GHz Celerons to Duron, AthlonXP and Pentium 4 chips, and > offers explanations as to the differences. Let's just say that the > Celeron didn't do that well. It sounds like some are confusing instruction set or chip architecture or something like that (i686) with processor name (cat /proc/cpuinfo). (Unless I'm confused, too.) -- Jeff Jeff Abrahamson <http://www.purple.com/jeff/> GPG fingerprint: 1A1A BA95 D082 A558 A276 63C6 16BF 8C4C 0D1D AE4B Attachment:
signature.asc
|
|