3 ms·
This was my 3rd year as a one man team. All the historic results and my source code can be found online. I'm not sure what else I could do to prove anything. E
by 16s 14y ago
This was my 3rd year as a one man team. All the historic results and my source code can be found online. I'm not sure what else I could do to prove anything.
Efficiency is just so under-appreciated these days and many people (even experienced programmers) don't realize just how easy it is to crack some password hashes (nt, md4, etc). It's so easy, that with a smart approach, even a Celeron can do it adequately.
- spitfire 14y agoI'm not sure about now, but back in the day a Celeron was just a Pentium with 2nd level cache disabled. So if your algorithm wasn't memory access intensive (like, say password cracking) it was just as fast as a Pentium at a fraction of the price. I'm sure now a Celeron/Atom/Pentium/Core-whatever are all differentiated by more than just cache and core counts.
- Klinky 14y agoActually the Pentium & Celeron brands aren't really whole lot different than their higher end counterparts like Core i3/i5/i7. The main difference still is core count, cache and clock. Minor things also apply now such as hardware threads & TurboBoost, but the underlying architecture is quite similar. The Celeron 430 used in the tests is based off the Conroe core which is what Core/Core2 products used. Just with less cache and slower front side bus. I think the point was that a CPU which retailed for $50 5 years ago, beat out a bunch of exotic and more costly setups.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- spitfire 14y agoI do remember at one point the celeron had a very locked (like 66mhz while the good stuff was 133mhz) front side bus. But again, if you don't need FSB performance, it's not actually a loss but a net gain - same calculations for less money.
- Klinky 14y agoYeah the original Celeron was absolutely horrible without any L2 cache and the slower bus. Once the Celeron 300A hit the scene, it became pretty respectable.
- PakG1 14y agoI think mostly because that thing was so easily overclockable. I remember running my dual 366A on an Abit BP6 to 550, perfectly stable on Windows XP with stock cooling.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- spitfire 14y agoWell, you could also put them on slot-1 cards and solder them up to do dual processor. Saving yourself a few hundred bucks in the processes. For the money they weren't that bad a deal.
- joshu 14y agoIIRC Atom is a very different internal architecture.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]