Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comparative CPU Benchmarks From 1995 to 2004

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the difference-engine dept.

Hardware 320

Lux writes "The guys over at Tom's Hardware Guide have been busy recently! They've compared over a hundred different architectures dating all the way back to the Pentium 1 in one huge benchmarking effort. Looking to upgrade an older system? Unlike most benchmarks, which compare modern systems to other modern systems, these charts can help you figure out if the cost of upgrading is worth the speedup or if you should hold off for a bit longer."

cancel ×

320 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First 404 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11210571)

404 File Not Found
The requested URL (articles/04/12/29/1733229.shtml?tid=137&tid=1) was not found.

If you feel like it, mail the url, and where ya came from to pater@slashdot.org.

Wow! 8 day old news! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11210575)

Thanks Slashdot!

Wow (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11210586)

I click on the link when there are 0 comments and the page still won't load. This "slashdot effect" has become too powerful.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11210631)

With the amazing technology of "subscriptions," links can now come to you pre-slashdotted. Truly, a major advance in modern science.

Re:Wow (1)

ePhil_One (634771) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210930)

I think its a measure of the true utility of the article. People are actually reading the article BEFORE posting, a rarity on Slashdot...

Upgrade (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11210588)

I currently have a 486 [wikipedia.org] with an (upgraded) 900MB hard drive, cdrom drive, and a whopping 32MB of ram. And windows 3.1 + dos. What are my upgrade options?

Re:Upgrade (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11210603)

upgrade to a nintendo gameboy

Fixed link (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11210620)

Whoops, pasted the wrong wikipedia link. The correct one is Intel 486 [wikipedia.org]

Re:Fixed link (3, Funny)

spac3manspiff (839454) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210647)

Well the clock speed of ketchup could be comparable to the 486.

Re:Fixed link (3, Funny)

LiquidMind (150126) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210705)

"Well the clock speed of ketchup..."

African or European?

Re:Fixed link (3, Funny)

mOoZik (698544) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210827)

African ketchup is non-migratory.

Re:Fixed link (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11210731)

They also have the co-processor Intel 487 [wikipedia.org]

Re:Upgrade (2, Insightful)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210627)

A 487 math co-processor will turn it into (almost) an equivelant pentium.

Actually a 486+487 still has enough juice for a homebrewed linux firewall/router, and you can get boards with chips for a buck in the throwaway bin at my local computer shop.

Re:Upgrade (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11210663)

486DX had built in co-proc. The 486SX had the co-proc disabled. There is no co-proc chip for the 486's to my knowledge.

Re:Upgrade (4, Interesting)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210847)

This site [cpu-info.com] says different, it lists:

80487 Intel 487 SX CPGA SZ494, USA

Another forum I found has this to say, which is interesting (take it with a grain of salt, I don't vouch for what "RatBoy" says)

Intel created an inferior version of the CPU in the SX, but remember they did the same thing with the 386 SX and DX. There was a nasty rumour that the 486 SX was created only because a batch of 486 chips had faulty FPUs and this was a way for Intel to sell damaged goods and still make some money on them. This rumour was helped out when Intel introduced the 487 math co-processor for the 486 SX. It turned out the 487 was really a 486 DX with one extra pin whose job it was to completely shutdown the 486 SX when you plugged the 487 into your motherboard next to the 486 SX!

Either way, there was (is) a 487.

The 487 would disable the 486sx (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11210916)

It was actually a complete replacement. The rumor was that Intel would test the 486's and if the math co-didn't work they would be modified and sold as 486sx's.
However, beware of the 486DX50 vs the 486DX250. The 486DX 50 was a true 50Mhz part whereas the DX2 were only 50Mhz internal to the chip with the bus running at 25Mhz. Same thing for 486DX2 66's. Most programs ran slower on them than a trus 486DX50 due to the slower (33Mhz) bus speed.

Re:The 487 would disable the 486sx (3, Informative)

i41Overlord (829913) | more than 9 years ago | (#11211021)

However, beware of the 486DX50 vs the 486DX250. The 486DX 50 was a true 50Mhz part whereas the DX2 were only 50Mhz internal to the chip with the bus running at 25Mhz. Same thing for 486DX2 66's. Most programs ran slower on them than a trus 486DX50 due to the slower (33Mhz) bus speed.

Yup. Then Intel had to confuse the issue by releasing the 486DX4. Just as the DX2-50 had a 2x multiplier with a 25 mhz bus and a 50 mhz core speed, you'd think the DX4-100 would have a 4x multiplier with a 25 mhz bus and 100 mhz core speed. But it was actually a 3x multiplier, with a 33 mhz bus speed. They should have caused it a DX3

486's had the coprocessor built in. (2, Informative)

i41Overlord (829913) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210934)

The 486 has had a built-in math coprocessor ever since it debuted. After the 486 was around for a while, they made a stripped down version without a coprocessor called the 486SX. The plain 486's were called 486DX.

You could get a coprocessor for the 486SX, but not the DX. From what I've heard, the original 486SX's were actually re-badged 486DX's whose math coprocessor unit was either not functional or just disabled. When you bought the 487SX "co-processor" you were actually buying a fully functional 486DX that disabled the other CPU on the board.

I see how this fits (1)

Wrexs0ul (515885) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210640)

So YOU'RE the one hosting that site. Fastest slashdot effect ever.

-Matt

Re:Upgrade (2, Interesting)

Zerbey (15536) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210698)

Put Linux on it, it'll make a perfectly decent home firewall, dns server, web server and mail server. It'll still have plenty of horsepower left over as well.

Re:Upgrade (2, Funny)

daniil (775990) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210713)

I fail to see how installing linux on it is an upgrade.

Re:Upgrade (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11210732)

i hate these "put linux on it" comments i put linux on my 2ghz and it was slower than winxp on my 100mhz

Re:Upgrade (1)

mrak and swepe (799450) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210876)

Dude; you've just said something Not Good about Linux.

The only question now remaining is do you end up as -1:Flamebait, or -1:Troll?

Answer is simple. Upgrade to WfW 3.11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11210995)

You're welcome.

Rule of thumb (2, Funny)

howlingmoki (623659) | more than 9 years ago | (#11211028)

When you see better computers than the one you're using at Goodwill/Salvation Army/St. Vincents .. it's time to upgrade.

Heat Output (5, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210589)

It's easy...if the room is getting a little too chilly for my liking, I upgrade to a faster processor. Problem solved.

Re:Heat Output (1)

deathazre (761949) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210658)

I guess you must be a pentium 4 fan then?

I too use my computer as a spaceheater, usually `emerge -auD world`. Shame it only puts out about 250w total.

Re:Heat Output (0, Offtopic)

mOoZik (698544) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210807)

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those! ;)

Re:Heat Output (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210838)

My circa-1994 Alphaserver is the hottest computer in the house.

Re:Heat Output (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11210858)

This is actually a serious problem for me being in Phoenix Arizona. It can get a little toasty in here, and as CPUs get faster and hotter (at least Intel chips anyways, AMD doesn't have as bad of a problem) theres nothing you can do as cooling solutions don't eliminate the heat, rather they just move it elsewhere. The worst part is theres nothing I can do about it.

Tom's slashdotted? (3, Funny)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210593)

A /.'ing that I can actually cheer for!

Re:Tom's slashdotted? (1)

mOoZik (698544) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210654)

No...I can still see it fine. It's actually pretty fast, too.

guys and gals (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11210594)

As a woman who helped compare over a hundred different architectures for publication in Tom's Hardware Guide, I am offended.

Boring. (-1, Offtopic)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210595)

Slashdotted....

How about this weather? It's like nice and warm out [in Ottawa].

Tom

Re:Boring. (1)

zev1983 (792397) | more than 9 years ago | (#11211018)

In the meantime the model in the holiday buying guide is hot.
http://www.tomshardware.com/consumer/2004111 5/inde x.html

Benchmarks, shmenchmarks (5, Insightful)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210596)

Artificial benchmarks tend to exaggerate minor differences in speed that aren't noticable or relevant in human time.

The best analysis of whether you should upgrade is a subjective one. Sit down at the computer. Does it do what you want or not?

Benchmarks tell me my Radeon 9800 is horribly out of date and imply its too weak to play any modern games. But I know from experience, that's bullshit.

If benchmarks perform worse than subjectivity (1)

PhysicsGenius (565228) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210825)

that doesn't mean that subjective judgement is "the best analysis", it just means that current benchmarks suck. Subjective judgement is what built the cathedrals of yore. That's because they didn't have a real "best analysis" back then. (And sure a lot of them held up, but most of the crumbled within a few years and in any case they are vastly overengineered, however aesthetic.)

Re:Benchmarks, shmenchmarks (2, Funny)

JustinXB (756624) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210853)

*sits at his Macintosh from 1984*

I can honestly say I don't want to upgrade.

Re:Benchmarks, shmenchmarks (1)

araemo (603185) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210896)

Benchmarks tell me my Radeon 9800 is horribly out of date and imply its too weak to play any modern games. But I know from experience, that's bullshit.

I'm somewhat curious what benchmarks tell you that, since the benchmarks I read(Most on www.anandtech.com) tell me my Radeon 9700 Pro is still capable of chugging out a playable FPS in most current games, and my personal experience says it's more than capable(Since I run at a slightly lower resolution than their current 'low res' benchmark. ;P)

Benchmarks are usefull tools, if they are presented and read right.

Re:Benchmarks, shmenchmarks (1)

adam31 (817930) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210900)

Totally.

I didn't see the Doom3 benchmark anywhere!

Re:Benchmarks, shmenchmarks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11210913)

Benchmarks tell me *my* Radeon 9800 pro is out of date and too weak to play modern games.
Based on my Doom3 high-detail performance, I'd tend to agree...

Well (5, Funny)

0racle (667029) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210600)

I went from a 486 to a Sempron 2500+. Unfortunatly the artical doesn't go back far enough so I can't tell if it was worth it.

Re:Well (1)

SillySnake (727102) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210676)

It depends heavily on if it was a DX or SX chip.

Re:Well (0)

0racle (667029) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210696)

486/33 DX. Nothing but the best man.

Re:Well (1)

SillySnake (727102) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210743)

It ran wing commander, what's all that mattered :)

Re:Well (1)

red_dragon (1761) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210810)

You could do a bit better and get a 486DX-50. The problem was finding a motherboard and memory that could run fast enough for the processor's front side bus. They were also quite a bit more expensive.

Re:Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11211055)

I don't understand why you are so obsessed with 486, I have only a 386 (damn those rich kids with their sound cards!!) and I can play every LucasArts adventure game or X-Wing, Tie Fighter... I don't need more than 20MHz for this.

Re:Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11210836)

Well you'll finally have the CPU to run a spellchecker so you will write ARTICLE instead of ARE-TEE-KAL.

Slashdotted (0, Redundant)

lgbarker (698397) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210602)

I wonder what hardware they're using to run Tom's site?

Re:Slashdotted (1)

The Snowman (116231) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210768)

I wonder what hardware they're using to run Tom's site?

Tom uses several of these [pair.com] . He has multiple dedicated boxes with this company (the same one I use, but I am on shared hosting). This host uses FreeBSD, so maybe his site died along with BSD? :-)

Re:Slashdotted (1)

adeydas (837049) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210951)

whatever it is, it sure isn't /. proof.

This is only covers 1999-2004 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11210604)

This seems to be the second part of a 2-part article. Does anyone have a link with the first part (1994-1999?)
I just can't find it.

Isn't this getting a little absurd? (1)

tom1974 (413939) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210607)

The articles not even up 3 minutes and its slashdotted already!

3 minutes, as i'm writing there're 2 comments. This ain't right.

No Apples? (1, Insightful)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210609)

They must've dropped them on the road on the way to the benchmarking lab. :(

would be nice (1)

ID000001 (753578) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210616)

If they incluce Cryix, VIA C3, Trans processor. Possibly event a G3 G4 or Alpha and Sun system as references to see how far Processors development have gone instead of making it strictly x86. Then again. Tom's hardware is usually just x86 site.

No Response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11210619)

Looks like Tom needs to upgrade!

Upgrade (3, Interesting)

FiReaNGeL (312636) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210652)

Back when I upgraded my 386 16 Mhz, I told myself that I'd upgrade every 10x in performance gain. I upgraded to a Pentium 90 Mhz, then to an Athlon 900 Mhz. It seems that with the recent troubles of AMD/Intel at breaking the 4 Ghz barrier that I won't keep my 'promise' anytime soon, sadly.

How will they keep their market alive if they can't upgrade the performance? Its not like CPU chips are burning easily anyhow... so why get a replacement if the performance gain is not worth it? (Especially for web browsing / text editing only folks who upgrade based on marketing ONLY... yes! 3 Ghz more will make your internet go faster! Heh)

Re:Upgrade (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11210682)

Go SMP then.

Re:Upgrade (2, Informative)

the unbeliever (201915) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210760)

Because megahertz is not totally where it's at, contrary to Intel's marketing hype. I'm currently running an Athlon XP-M 2500+ overclocked to 2.4ghz, and it performs faster than a 3.2ghz Pentium 4. An Athlon 64 3200+ runs at 2.2ghz iirc, and outperforms a 3.2ghz p4 by an even larger margin.

With multi-core chips and on-die memory controllers, the benefits of performance will be felt, even if the clock speed is constrained to 4ghz for now.

Re:Upgrade (1)

Slime-dogg (120473) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210767)

Another one of those people who think that clock speed equates to performance. :sigh:

I'd take a 1 Ghz proc that executes 5 ops/clock over a 3 Ghz proc that executes 1.5 ops/clock, if I were given a choice. Price is also a major determinating factor for me.

Re:Upgrade (2, Insightful)

jejones (115979) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210788)

Clock speed != performance, no matter what the Blue Man Group might want you to think.

Re:Upgrade (1)

ahsile (187881) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210789)

If they can't pump up the MHz they'll get you with everything else:

"Anti-Virus Projection" - AMD & NX Flag (Earlier today)
"Multi-Core chips"
"Dual processors"

etc, etc. The industry will continually find another reason for you to upgrade. And I'll keep doing it, because I like to be on the Bleeding Edge (TM).

Re:Upgrade (2, Insightful)

wfberg (24378) | more than 9 years ago | (#11211053)

Dual processor is very, very useful. Even for lowly non-server use.

You see, I have a dual cpu system, and for the longest time I thought XP must be the most stable windows OS evar!

Turns out the OS never really crashes because there's always a cpu left to bring up the ctrl-alt-del screen with, so you can kill all the OS processes on the other CPU that DID crash..

Re:Upgrade (1)

barzok (26681) | more than 9 years ago | (#11211019)

As others have pointed out, MHz isn't the only factor in speed. I don't understand the obsession with speed in the first place - if the box works, use it. If it's too slow to do what you need, upgrade it.

I went from a 486-66 to a P133 to a P2-266 (doubling clock each time), then a 1.33GHz. I don't use any "rule" based on performance gain - I just upgrade when I have the money, and I have a need. That 1.33GHz is going on 4 years old and does everything I ask of it (thankfully I spec'd it out well enough that it's never run short on RAM), but it'd sure be nice to be able to play HL2 or Doom 3. I've put exactly $100 into it for upgrades - a second hard drive, because I needed space (the 3 failed motherboards are another story, however).

turns out (1)

2MuchC0ffeeMan (201987) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210677)

turns out they left the pentium 1 in the server, so it's dead now... they'll figure out the cost of upgrading it later.

Already done (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11210680)

You can get this kind of info elsewhere [hypermart.net]

100 architectures?! (5, Interesting)

Jhan (542783) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210685)

Actually, they only benchmark one architecture, x86. A real shame, I would love to see a thorough comparison of *multiple* processor architectures over a long period of time.

Re:100 architectures?! (2, Insightful)

Kaellenn (540133) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210931)

While it might be an interesting exercise, I think it's well beyond the scope of this article. The focus is clearly on personal computers, and the (by-far) dominant architecture we've had on our desks over the past 10 years.

While the slashdot crowd might find such a benchmark informative, the general Tom's HWG user probably would not.

Re:100 architectures?! (1)

kaisyain (15013) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210941)

x86 is an instruction set architecture which is separate from a micro-architecture. They have certainly benchmarked more than one micro-architecture.

Re:100 architectures?! (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210996)

Its a real shame.

I went from a 68020 14mhz upto a p90.
I felt for a good long time that it was a step down (upgrade was through necessity rather than want).

It wasn't until I got a Duron 650 (and win98) that I felt the playing field was almost level.

I still miss my Amiga, and occasionally hammer fists at things I could do then which are still inpractical now.

Re:100 architectures?! (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 9 years ago | (#11211034)

Um, clock for clock a Duron is a heck of a lot more capable than a 68020.

Maybe you just long for the days of the happy mac on the screen during boot up?

Tom

Recently? (3, Informative)

jargoone (166102) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210691)

They haven't been busy recently. They just updated the guide they did quite some time ago. Not very much new to see here...

Slashdotting TomsHardware, yey! (0)

Man in Spandex (775950) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210710)

I feel a great joy for this event.

Interesting (1)

SillySnake (727102) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210715)

It seems the server that hosts the /cpu/(stuff) died.. the main site is accessable, as are other parts of it.. Maybe /. should have posted motherboard reviews instead!

linux on 486 :-) (1)

Crass Spektakel (4597) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210750)

The last time I looked there where more distributions available for 68030 than for 486. Just take a look, most distribution except Linux-from-Scratch and variations like Linux-nearly-from-Scratch are build to run on a minimum of Pentium.

The title of this newspiece is misleading! (5, Interesting)

chaoskitty (11449) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210771)

"Comparative CPU Benchmarks From 1995 to 2004"

I only see x86 CPUs. What about the PowerPCs, SPARCs, MIPS, Alphas, ARMs, and so on?

For instance, the m68060 was the first consumer level processor with branch prediction and branch folding, superscalar dispatch, and real-world throughput of more than one instruction per clock cycle. Except for floating point where it performed only modestly, the m68060 seriously outperformed the Pentium in spite of only having a 32 bit data bus as compared with the Pentium's 64 bit bus. Isn't this significant in illustrating the influences in processor architecture?

http://www.sixgirls.org/ is an m68060 Amiga running NetBSD 2.0. Still very useful after all this time. Where are all those Pentium 60 machines?

Re:The title of this newspiece is misleading! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11210957)

Text of sixgirls.org:

reva.sixgirls.org is back online! Now running NetBSD 2.0!

Seems amazingly useful to me! :P

Why Jesus... Why not force Coralization on /.? (4, Informative)

Mike626 (70084) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210772)

Part 1: http://www.tomshardware.com.nyud.net:8090/cpu/2004 1220/index.html
Part 2: http://www.tomshardware.com.nyud.net:8090/cpu/2004 1221/index.html

Re:Why Jesus... Why not force Coralization on /.? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11210970)

What happens when Coral can't get in either ?

Error: 503 Service Unavailable

www6.tomshardware.com: Connection refused

Server CoralWebPrx/0.1 (See http://www.scs.cs.nyu.edu/coral/) at 192.170.103.21:8090

mirrored on Coral (1)

atlaz (31278) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210777)

the article [nyud.net]

another article killed by slashdot instead of linking to the coral version, or creating their own mirror.

how many more times does this have to happen?

Am I the only one who thinks this is crazy that this site built a backbone for itself and then uses its traffic to kill sites it links to?

"All AMD CPUs ever made" (1)

SteeldrivingJon (842919) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210781)

ever.

So says the title of a chart they post.

Note that the CPUs in the chart start at 600MHz. Who knew the old AMD 286's ran so fast!

AMD made 286 processors? (2, Interesting)

gotr00t (563828) | more than 9 years ago | (#11211023)

I'm not too clear on this, but given that I have in my hands a 286sx processor labeled "(c) Intel/AMD 1982", and it follows logically that AMD and Intel were at some point in history combined in some way.

Though that was before my time, I do know for sure that AMD made processors way before they got the clock speed to 600MHz, so you're right about that.

Standard Benchmarks? (1, Informative)

basscomm (122302) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210803)

I can't get to the article, so I have to wonder what kind of benchmarks they used that were consistant on all those platforms. Old benchmarks tend to freak out [crummysocks.com] on newer hardware, and I can't imagine newer benchmarks running properly on older hardware.

Toms hardware site is staggering under load (1)

sundru (709023) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210813)

I think toms site is going under with all the traffic from /.

takes a couple of minutes for a page to load ..
I was first there peeps :) lemme read ..

software anyone (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11210815)

Would be nice if they included what software was available at each level. For example, I had XENIX (from Microsoft and SCO) on an early 386 and it rocked (full 32-bits), but Microsoft didn't do 32-bits on the desktop until Win95 (10 years later), and didn't migrate to a full 32-bit O/S until Win2K and XP (nearly 15 years after the 386 came out).

8mb card for PCI? (4, Insightful)

jensen404 (717086) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210820)

Why did they use an 8mb video card for the older motherboards that don't support AGP?

Matrox Mystique G170
Memory: 8 MB SD-G-RAM

They should use the fastest availible video card if they are testing CPU speed. My 200mhz pentium pro with a 16mb TNT card ran Quake 3.

Re:8mb card for PCI? (1)

chaoskitty (11449) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210893)

Yeah, you know how a slow CPU can be sped up to insane speeds by putting in a fast video card!

Sarcasm aside, why would they put in a >2000 year card in a 2000 year computer? That's not representative.

Re:8mb card for PCI? (1)

caino59 (313096) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210914)

what?!?!

please pass me some of what you're smoking.

graphics cards dont do shit for CPU speeds tests.

Re:8mb card for PCI? (1)

icebones (707368) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210946)

but they sure can help / kill the results when your measuring the FPS in openGL. I'm running a K6-2/533 w. 32mb geforce2 and it ran QIII and RTCW. but their's didn't. hmm..

My results (2, Informative)

freelunch (258011) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210834)

The article is a bit slashdotted but it looks like it doesn't go back all that far.

Just a teaser, I have been running a collection of benchmarks since the Pentium 90.

At the time, I was involved in a huge UNIX engineering workstation benchmark. I felt we needed something more constant than the applications to compare performance (the engineering apps constantly change). So I quickly assembled everything I could find that could be easily run. These are mostly 'toy' benchmarks, but the results are still interesting.

For these int benchmarks, higher is better:

c4.s c4.64 dhry21 hanoi heapsort nsieve nsieve TOTAL
Kpos/sec Kpos/sec MIPS mvs/sec high High Low
MIPS MIPS MIPS
P 90 92.7 94.2 68.6 51.2 43.55 111.0 33.3 494.6
md64b 4050.1 4167.8 4914.3 2708.8 3333.7 3333.7 610.4 21782

Float: Higher is better, except for the fft's.
flops20 fft tfftdp
MFLOPS MFLOPS MFLOPS MFLOPS TOTAL time time
(1) (2) (3) (4)
P 90 13.3 12.8 18.1 23.8 68.0 3.07 16.81
amd64 1120.9 1004.3 1480.9 1834.7 5440.8 0.04 0.42

The P90 was running RedHat. The AMD64 is my new desktop, a 90nm 3000 OC'd to 2430 Mhz. My data also includes systems from DEC, HP, IBM, Sun and SGI. I also ran 10 matrix multiply benchmarks as part of the effort.

I have never gotten around to publishing the results or the collection of benchmarks.. Maybe it is time.

Re:My results (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11210947)

So is it cooler to post in code font now days on slashdot?

But... (4, Funny)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210837)

I bought my computer in 1982... how will I know if it's worth upgrading if the data only goes back to 1995?

Exciting? (5, Informative)

SpinningAround (449335) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210883)

As I recall, they claimed that part one of the article took something like 300 hours to put together. Seems like a lot of work to tell me that processors have become a lot faster in the last 10 years.


Actually I shouldn't give Tom's Hardware a hard time (like everyone else seems to). As articles go, the reviews of high-end ink-jets [tomshardware.com] , the 8-channel RAID6 card [tomshardware.com] and the Viewsonic media center [tomsnetworking.com] were quite interesting (and a lot more recent than the CPU round-up too).


These days though, my favourite reviewer is Dan [dansdata.com] (who posts here now and then). Dan seems to understand that a million graphs showing you the statistically insignificant difference between the latest mobos / graphic cards / processors / ram sinks don't really make a great site.

not exactly fair to older systems (1)

icebones (707368) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210898)

Alot of the benchmarks have the bottom 4 or 5 at zero, ie quake III and RTCW. What specifically got my attention was the K6-2+ 500. This is almost exactly what I'm running (don't laugh) and I've played both of these games on it quite well. They may not be at max graphics settings, but they look pretty good to me. and yes I am planning on upgrading, but I'm waiting on the nforce 4 mb'sso I won't have to upgrade the next time I want a new graphics card.

Not necessarily a dup, (1)

nbert (785663) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210905)

but I'm sure that I read a similar article at tom's this year comparing x86 CPUs from ~386 to recent systems.

IIRC they decompressed zip files and encoded video stuff among other things. It's quite impressive to see a fairly modern CPU performing the same task in minutes which used to take several hours on one of those 'antiques'.

Did they recompile? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11210921)

You know you get much better results if your CFLAGS are matching your hardware.

THG Upgrade (1)

Dacmot (266348) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210922)

I think Tom's Hardware servers need an upgrade...

Geeky Urges (1)

Ryan Huddleston (759930) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210963)

Does anyone else have the sudden urge to run off to Kinko's and get the giant master benchmark charts printed off as posters?

...Or is that just me? : - )

Stock Intel PPro CPUs did not have MMX! (1)

Richard Steiner (1585) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210987)

If you installed Intel's PII Overdrive for Socket 8 mommyboard you could obtain MMX, but that was the only way.

Maybe time to upgrade the server? (1)

seafortn (543689) | more than 9 years ago | (#11210991)

Looks like they should look at the chart themselves and decide whether to upgrade the 8086 they have running the webserver...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?