I have these old Athlon XPs running at about 1.47GHz. I'm using them at a childcare center and I'm thinking of replacing them with some mini-itx systems with Celeron Ms. The Ms come in 1.3 and 1.2 GHz (Little Valley) versions. I wondering if they are worth their weight in MHz.
Celeron M vs. Athlon ? Which is faster clock for clock?
- Thread starter bupkus
- Start date
http://www.imedialinux.com/int...n-and-performance.html
http://www.tabletpcreview.com/?newsID=178
From the latter link, it looks like they will run close in speed to each other, though the XP 1800 (?) you have may be a bit faster overall. However, if the XP has enough power for the software you run, so will the Celeron M.
http://www.tabletpcreview.com/?newsID=178
From the latter link, it looks like they will run close in speed to each other, though the XP 1800 (?) you have may be a bit faster overall. However, if the XP has enough power for the software you run, so will the Celeron M.
Arkaign
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2006
- 20,736
- 1,379
- 126
Power usage on the Cel-M will be much reduced, and depending on whether the Athlon XP boxes have discrete video, the video should be much better on the Celeron-M systems as well. You must remember : Athlon XP is many many years old, and the typical AXP boxes you're describing (Pre-Barton), would come with Sdram (or *maybe* DDR-266), 40GB or smaller HDD, CDRW or DVD-Rom, 32MB Geforce 2 MX, that kind of stuff. Great back in the day, but barely passable these days, even for new kids games.
TBH, you'd be better off skipping the Mini-ITX form factor (extra $$$ for minor convenience advantage), and just getting MicroATX instead. It doesn't take up much more space, you get much better/cheaper power supply/mobo/cooling. You can build :
AMD X2 4000+ Retail $69
Gigabyte 690V Mobo (ATI 1250 Video!) $59
2GB A-Data DDR2-667 $46
WD 250GB Sata 3.0 HDD $59
MicroATX Case + 380W $28
DVD+-RW $29
KB/Mouse $8
3-Piece Speakers $13
So, $321 + your choice of LCD / OS. I think this would *have* to be close to the price of those Mini-ITX systems you're speaking of, and they would last MUCH MUCH longer as viable boxes. With dual-core, 250GB HDD, 2GB Ram, DVD Burner, and really respectable ATI 1250 integrated video (even faster than the decent 6100/6150 NVidia!), combined with a real PCI-Express X16 slot and standard power supply, you'll probably see 5 years or so decent usability, and as time goes by, you can add DDR2 (up to 8GB), larger HDD, Optical Drive upgrade (BD/HD?), Video Card, and so on to keep them in decent form.
AMD is struggling, but that's an incredible value at the entry-level area. An X2-4000+ is a very decent Cpu.
TBH, you'd be better off skipping the Mini-ITX form factor (extra $$$ for minor convenience advantage), and just getting MicroATX instead. It doesn't take up much more space, you get much better/cheaper power supply/mobo/cooling. You can build :
AMD X2 4000+ Retail $69
Gigabyte 690V Mobo (ATI 1250 Video!) $59
2GB A-Data DDR2-667 $46
WD 250GB Sata 3.0 HDD $59
MicroATX Case + 380W $28
DVD+-RW $29
KB/Mouse $8
3-Piece Speakers $13
So, $321 + your choice of LCD / OS. I think this would *have* to be close to the price of those Mini-ITX systems you're speaking of, and they would last MUCH MUCH longer as viable boxes. With dual-core, 250GB HDD, 2GB Ram, DVD Burner, and really respectable ATI 1250 integrated video (even faster than the decent 6100/6150 NVidia!), combined with a real PCI-Express X16 slot and standard power supply, you'll probably see 5 years or so decent usability, and as time goes by, you can add DDR2 (up to 8GB), larger HDD, Optical Drive upgrade (BD/HD?), Video Card, and so on to keep them in decent form.
AMD is struggling, but that's an incredible value at the entry-level area. An X2-4000+ is a very decent Cpu.
The largest problem I have in maintaining these computers is protecting the box from abuse. I've had boxes fall off the table, mouses and keyboards disconnected and moved to another box and jammed into ps2/usb ports, d-sub connects pushed aside just enough to create a bad connection and loss of video signal. I had to cut pieces of aluminum out of soda cans and cover the voltage switch on the back of power supply units cause I'd find them switched to 220V! I've seen fan blades chipped or fans broken from kids sticking things into the blades of exhaust and power supply fans, broken usb ports, erroded ps2 ports, panels removed that covered bays and food, pencils, crayons, popcorn, coins, little figurines tossed in. I've removed all the optical drives for obvious reasons. Mice have been deballed, optical mice smashed, key caps removed and placed elsewhere upside-down. Power switch buttons-- well forget about them. I bought momentary contact buttons, drill a hole into plastic and solder them to the old wires. Then there's the OS and software! Ever hear of "Deep Freeze"? Did you know that that skateboard game with Tony Hawks? has a secret way to dress the female skateboarders up in lacy black underwear? Goes over just great when new parents come inside to see the kids hard at play on the computers.
I hate this job.
The point of this rant is that I'd like to encase an lcd and cpu inside a custom box as a single unit that I can bolt to the table top and mini-itx fits the need pretty well. I suppose a mATX could work if I alter my design some, but the little valley by Intel is cheap, cool and low voltage and sounds like mini-itx may have a future. I could swap out the old and place in a new as time goes by.
I hate this job.
The point of this rant is that I'd like to encase an lcd and cpu inside a custom box as a single unit that I can bolt to the table top and mini-itx fits the need pretty well. I suppose a mATX could work if I alter my design some, but the little valley by Intel is cheap, cool and low voltage and sounds like mini-itx may have a future. I could swap out the old and place in a new as time goes by.
Arkaign
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2006
- 20,736
- 1,379
- 126
Sounds like you might be a candidate for extension KVM cables, just buy a crate of cheap PS/2 kb/mice, and keep the screens out of the way, run all the cables to your *locked* PC room, and you won't suffer these kind of nightmares.
A MicroATX PC that is ~3-4x faster than a MiniITX for the same price is worth it. MiniITX is a niche product, for every 500 MATX boards, you see 1 MiniITX board. Cooling is a nightmare, expansion is basically nonexistent, replacing a power supply is ridiculously expensive, and so on.
A MicroATX PC that is ~3-4x faster than a MiniITX for the same price is worth it. MiniITX is a niche product, for every 500 MATX boards, you see 1 MiniITX board. Cooling is a nightmare, expansion is basically nonexistent, replacing a power supply is ridiculously expensive, and so on.
Dear Bup,
depending on what software you need to run: thin clients?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_client
Advantages of thin clients
Obviously, boot image control is much simpler when only thin clients are used ? typically a single boot image can accommodate a very wide range of user needs, and be managed centrally, resulting in:
Lower IT admin costs. Thin clients are managed almost entirely at the server. The hardware has fewer points of failure and the local environment is highly restricted (and often stateless), providing protection from malware.
Easier to secure. Thin clients can be designed so that no application data ever resides on the client (it is entirely rendered), centralizing malware protection and minimising the risks of physical data theft.
Lower hardware costs. Thin client hardware is generally cheaper because it does not contain a disk, application memory, or a powerful processor. They also generally have a longer period before requiring an upgrade or becoming obsolete. The total hardware requirements for a thin client system (including both servers and clients) are usually much lower compared to a system with fat clients. One reason for this is that the hardware is better utilized. A CPU in a fat workstation is idle most of the time. With thin clients, memory can be shared. If several users are running the same application, it only needs to be loaded into RAM once with a central server. With fat clients, each workstation must have its own copy of the program in memory.
Lower Energy Consumption. Dedicated thin client hardware has much lower energy consumption than thick client PCs. This not only reduces energy costs but may mean that in some cases air-conditioning systems are not required or need not be upgraded which can be a significant cost saving and contribute to achieving energy saving targets.
Easier hardware failure management. If a thin client fails, a replacement can simply be swapped in while the client is repaired; the user is not inconvenienced because their data is not on the client.
Worthless to most thieves. Thin client hardware, whether dedicated or simply older hardware that has been repurposed via cascading, is useless outside a client-server environment. Burglars interested in computer equipment have a much harder time fencing thin client hardware (and it is less valuable).
Hostile Environments. Most devices have no moving parts so can be used in dusty environments without the worry of PC fans clogging up and overheating and burning out the PC.
Less network bandwidth. Since terminal servers typically reside on the same high-speed network backbone as file servers, most network traffic is confined to the server room. In a fat client environment if you open a 10MB document that's 10MB transferred from the file server to your PC. When you save it that's another 10MB from your PC to the server. When you print it the same happens again ? another 10MB over the network to your print server and then 10MB onward to the printer. This is highly inefficient. In a thin client environment only mouse movements, keystrokes and screen updates are transmitted from/to the end user. Over efficient protocols such as ICA or NX this can consume as little as 5 kbit/s bandwidth.
More efficient use of resources. A typical thick-client will be specified to cope with the maximum load the user needs, which can be inefficient at times when it is not utilised. In contrast, thin clients only use the exact amount of resources required by the current task ? in a large network, there is a good probability the load from each user will fluctuate in a different cycle to that of another user (i.e. the peaks of one will more than likely correspond, time-wise, to the troughs of another.
Simple hardware upgrade path. If the peak resource usage is above a pre-defined limit, it is a relatively simple process to add another rack to a blade server (be it power, processing, storage), boosting resources to exactly the amount required. The existing units can be continued in service alongside the new, whereas a thick client model requires an entire desktop unit be replaced, resulting in down-time for the user, and the problem of disposing of the old unit.
Lower noise. The aforementioned removal of fans reduces the noise produced by the unit. This can create a more pleasant working environment.
Less Wasted Hardware. Computer hardware is very environmentally damaging. Thin clients can remain in service longer and ultimately produce less surplus computer hardware than an equivalent thick client installation.
http://www.neoware.com/product...e/thin_client_e140.php
Sun has some good thin clients, and Sun hardware runs Windows now:
http://www.sun.com/desktop/index.jsp?tab=1
And:
http://www.devonit.com/?gclid=...8bmXmY8CFQw3YQodFSVvfA
And, by the way, you do have to sort of admire the skanky skater mod....and remember Steves Jobs and Wozniak startted out "hacking" the phone system, and developed some of their hardware and software skills experimenting on the AT&T network....
HTH
NXIL
depending on what software you need to run: thin clients?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_client
Advantages of thin clients
Obviously, boot image control is much simpler when only thin clients are used ? typically a single boot image can accommodate a very wide range of user needs, and be managed centrally, resulting in:
Lower IT admin costs. Thin clients are managed almost entirely at the server. The hardware has fewer points of failure and the local environment is highly restricted (and often stateless), providing protection from malware.
Easier to secure. Thin clients can be designed so that no application data ever resides on the client (it is entirely rendered), centralizing malware protection and minimising the risks of physical data theft.
Lower hardware costs. Thin client hardware is generally cheaper because it does not contain a disk, application memory, or a powerful processor. They also generally have a longer period before requiring an upgrade or becoming obsolete. The total hardware requirements for a thin client system (including both servers and clients) are usually much lower compared to a system with fat clients. One reason for this is that the hardware is better utilized. A CPU in a fat workstation is idle most of the time. With thin clients, memory can be shared. If several users are running the same application, it only needs to be loaded into RAM once with a central server. With fat clients, each workstation must have its own copy of the program in memory.
Lower Energy Consumption. Dedicated thin client hardware has much lower energy consumption than thick client PCs. This not only reduces energy costs but may mean that in some cases air-conditioning systems are not required or need not be upgraded which can be a significant cost saving and contribute to achieving energy saving targets.
Easier hardware failure management. If a thin client fails, a replacement can simply be swapped in while the client is repaired; the user is not inconvenienced because their data is not on the client.
Worthless to most thieves. Thin client hardware, whether dedicated or simply older hardware that has been repurposed via cascading, is useless outside a client-server environment. Burglars interested in computer equipment have a much harder time fencing thin client hardware (and it is less valuable).
Hostile Environments. Most devices have no moving parts so can be used in dusty environments without the worry of PC fans clogging up and overheating and burning out the PC.
Less network bandwidth. Since terminal servers typically reside on the same high-speed network backbone as file servers, most network traffic is confined to the server room. In a fat client environment if you open a 10MB document that's 10MB transferred from the file server to your PC. When you save it that's another 10MB from your PC to the server. When you print it the same happens again ? another 10MB over the network to your print server and then 10MB onward to the printer. This is highly inefficient. In a thin client environment only mouse movements, keystrokes and screen updates are transmitted from/to the end user. Over efficient protocols such as ICA or NX this can consume as little as 5 kbit/s bandwidth.
More efficient use of resources. A typical thick-client will be specified to cope with the maximum load the user needs, which can be inefficient at times when it is not utilised. In contrast, thin clients only use the exact amount of resources required by the current task ? in a large network, there is a good probability the load from each user will fluctuate in a different cycle to that of another user (i.e. the peaks of one will more than likely correspond, time-wise, to the troughs of another.
Simple hardware upgrade path. If the peak resource usage is above a pre-defined limit, it is a relatively simple process to add another rack to a blade server (be it power, processing, storage), boosting resources to exactly the amount required. The existing units can be continued in service alongside the new, whereas a thick client model requires an entire desktop unit be replaced, resulting in down-time for the user, and the problem of disposing of the old unit.
Lower noise. The aforementioned removal of fans reduces the noise produced by the unit. This can create a more pleasant working environment.
Less Wasted Hardware. Computer hardware is very environmentally damaging. Thin clients can remain in service longer and ultimately produce less surplus computer hardware than an equivalent thick client installation.
http://www.neoware.com/product...e/thin_client_e140.php
Sun has some good thin clients, and Sun hardware runs Windows now:
http://www.sun.com/desktop/index.jsp?tab=1
And:
http://www.devonit.com/?gclid=...8bmXmY8CFQw3YQodFSVvfA
And, by the way, you do have to sort of admire the skanky skater mod....and remember Steves Jobs and Wozniak startted out "hacking" the phone system, and developed some of their hardware and software skills experimenting on the AT&T network....
HTH
NXIL
Nice post, NXIL - deserves a 
Particularly liked the "Fanless Thin Clients" and "All-in-One Thin Clients" for reducing detatchable/moving parts.
Particularly liked the "Fanless Thin Clients" and "All-in-One Thin Clients" for reducing detatchable/moving parts.
I considered thin clients years ago and was recommended not because all the software run are games.
Arkaign
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2006
- 20,736
- 1,379
- 126
Yeap, considering the usage (games), you'll be best served by MicroATX boxes (best performance/usable lifespan per dollar), in a protected environment. Another thing to think about : if you live in a metro area, you should be able to find a closeable/lockable Rackmount closet that you can put in the corner, and run the KVM extensions from there to the various locations to set up the interface/display. Used racks, even really nice ones (Dell w/Door & Ventilation) can be found for under $300. Then you can just use either real rack-mount cases (not very $$), or just put MicroATX boxes on shelves. Another option is to just look for little PC desks that have lockable cabinets for the towers, just make sure ventilation is decent (or customize it so it is). With all the kids banging on these things, it might also be worth picking up a pallet of used kb/mice, you can probably get 500 of each for $100.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter