• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is it true???

E

eLiTeGoodGuy

Golden Member
I read in one of these posts that SETI is a cache hog. Could that be the reason why my K6-2 400 put's out twice as many as my Athlon 900?


I know my K6-2 has 2mb cache (I know case I put it all together)
and my Athlon, I'm not sure 🙂 but I know it's not near 2mb

The K6-2 if I remember right did 1 WU in 10-11 hours
The Athlon does it in 24 hours
 
wow, im no SETI guru but your times should be 1/2 of that! did you disable the screensaver?? try using the CLI version
 
that WU you got that complete in 1 hour was a fluke.....they do happen where they complete even shorter, but they're excedingly rare. I bet your K6 would normally take over 14 hours to complete.
 
eLiTeGoodGuy1; See this thread for some real world times.

You are new to the forum, have you joined Team AnandTech yet?

Here is the thread with some recent times / cpu

Click Here
 
With the Command Line 3.3 client, a K6-2 400Mhz will average between 22 and 24 hours per WU. An Athlon 900 should average about 8 or 9 hours. It looks to me like you have your times backwards... 😉
 
no I didn't I remember. I ran SETI for a while right when I got my K6-2 built, when I got my 900 I did 2 WU's and I didn't remember it taking as long as it did. So I looked it up and my total average per WU was 12 hours. Now it's upto 24 hours avg., cause the 900 takes it longer than 24 hours. I don't know what's up. I have the Screensaver disabled, and when i run it in Linux I can get it down to 14 hours. But it's still no where near the K6-2.
 
There's also the fact that current clients, though "optimized", do a LOT more work than the old ones. Comparing old clients to knew ones isn't very fair.....
 
I may be completely wrong but that's what I remember the K6-2 taking (I still have it I could run a couple of WU's on it to make sure) And I know the 900 is extremely abnormal. ohh well sucks to be me 🙂
 
The K6-2 processor doesn't have two meg of cache - your motherboard may have that amount! I've seen a number of boards with 1meg of cache, but that's not the same as the cache on the chip. The AMD K6-2 processor has 64k of L1 cache; your SETI time was either a fluke or the result of an improperly over-clocked chip - we have seen that happen before.


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top