Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

The Mother of All CPU Charts

CowboyNeal posted more than 8 years ago | from the head-to-head-to-head dept.

Intel 176

||Plazm|| writes "Tom's Hardware has an entertaining read on the latest offerings from processor makers Intel and AMD. Not only does it contain a plethora of benchmarks on the latest Dual core CPU's, but it also includes benchmarks from over 60 other legacy processors. Better yet, they let the benchmarks speak for themselves and let you draw your own conclusions. You may want to fill up your 44oz mug before sifting through this one, though."

cancel ×

176 comments

old news :( (-1, Flamebait)

chalkoutline (854917) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110333)

Saw this on digg daaaaaays ago!

Why is this still news? (0, Redundant)

Leroy_Brown242 (683141) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110342)

Tom's hardware makes the list.
It's a massive undertaking to create it.
That's news.

Is it really news every time they update the list?

Re:Why is this still news? (1)

||Plazm|| (76138) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110358)

If you're interested in seeing how the newest technologies, dual core CPU's in this case, stack up to the rest of the bunch, then I suppose its news.

Re:Why is this still news? (1)

Leroy_Brown242 (683141) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110369)

I guess I have more of a problem with old being presented as new then.

But, I also like to gripe. :)

Re:Why is this still news? (1)

ciroknight (601098) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110406)

In all good fun, go read Digg. Their "news" is super-up-to-date and all their users know how to do is gripe and moan and spit around incorrect information. It's a lot like slashdot used to be ;). Thank goodness for mature readers.

Re:Why is this still news? (3, Funny)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110435)

It's a lot like slashdot used to be

You must be new here

Re:Why is this still news? (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110493)

I read my comment again and it doesn't really make sense.
I think i tried to hard at being Funny.

Anyways, I think the main difference between /. now and then is that the not so good folks from TrollKore and GNAA have gone away.

Re:Why is this still news? (1)

Leroy_Brown242 (683141) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110845)

Slashdot needs more Grub [slashdot.org] too!

AMD wins every result except... (5, Interesting)

strider44 (650833) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110354)

Summary: AMD wins every single result except the synthetic Sandra benchmarks, which Intel wins quite convincingly (all except one test). Something tells me there's something slightly wrong with that benchmark.

Easy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14110367)

AMD must have cheated in the other tests :D

Re:Easy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14110449)

Or perhaps is it that they actually make decent CPUs? The achitecture of Intel's latest offerings plain sucks all-around. Sucky netburst based junk cores, bad dual core design, high power consumption, need to push clocks speeds WAY up to get average performance, poor implementation of 64 bit extensions, etc. All of it sucks. I can't wait for them to turn around and make some decent alternative - something less sucktastic.

I do have a couple Intel systems, but I don't kid myself that they're as nice as AMD's current offerings. (oh, I do have a few AMD boxes too)

Re:AMD wins every result except... (5, Interesting)

ciroknight (601098) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110391)

This seems very odd to me. Intel's usually at least competitive, now it seems that Intel has almost stopped competing in raw performance entirely. This isn't because they can't build fast chips; everyone remembers how heated those battles used to get (both metaphorically and physically).

But in all seriousness, where is Intel? Parts of me think they've almost entirely abandoned the race with AMD simply out of spite the Pentium 4 didn't work out as well as they had hoped, or that they're trying to move everyone into Mobile computing mode with their new chips which have been on the burner for the better half of the new century.

When were the latest chips released by each company? It seems Intel's gone into hibernation mode kind of like they did right before releasing the Pentium 4 in the first place. (Allowing the P3 [and now P4?] market(s) to stagnate and die off?) Come on Intel, what are you up to???

Not that I don't love AMD winning; it just seems AMD does their best when they're pushed excessively by Intel to produce. Now AMD doesn't even make chipsets and their mobile offering is still quite the joke in the face of the Pentium M.

Eagerly awaiting the speed wars to start back up.. I'm ready for some bargains!

Re:AMD wins every result except... (5, Informative)

macshit (157376) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110467)

Now AMD doesn't even make chipsets and their mobile offering is still quite the joke in the face of the Pentium M.

From what I've heard, the new AMD mobile chip ("Turon" I think) has pretty much caught up with the Pentium M, and is far better than the old AMD mobile junk.

The Pentium M has a much bigger L2 cache, but the Turon has AMD's typically better memory interface, amd64 mode, etc.; the reviews I saw seemed to basically call it a wash (i.e., the results can go either way depending on which benchmark you use). In any case, AMD's clearly back in the mobile game.

Re:AMD wins every result except... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14110569)

The comment wasn't that the Turion was junk, it was that, compared with the performance of the Pentium M, it wasn't all that good.

And he's right.

The Pentium M beats the Turion in power usage hands down, while being similar in speed (if not slightly faster).

Re:AMD wins every result except... (5, Informative)

Logicdisorder (686635) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110547)

Have a read of this
http://www.mobilityguru.com/2005/08/30/the_turion_ 64_inside_story/index.html [mobilityguru.com]
http://www.mobilityguru.com/2005/09/06/the_turion_ 64_inside_story_part_ii/index.html [mobilityguru.com]

It gives a good handle on the AMD chips for laptops. All in all it holds it own with the Pentium M, where the Pentium M has a good lead is in power saving.

Also the AMD flagship laptop chip is 64bit so you would see a big jump in performace if you were to run a 64bit OS/Apps as you would except.

I like the look of the AMD chips over all and feel that Intel has drop the ball on the x86 market and put the eggs in the Intamin basket. And that ship is going down faster than Kate Mose can do a line :P

Re:AMD wins every result except... (2, Interesting)

krygny (473134) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110552)

Isn't it a violation of the DMCA to publish benchmarks? Intel will just sue.

Re:AMD wins every result except... (0, Troll)

Bilestoad (60385) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110459)

Please remember! Tom's Hardware publishes entertaining articles because it is a site made up of pure entertainment. Don't EVER believe anything you read on Tom's Hardware unless you also read some reputable second and third sources.

Question in relation to the parent poster's point about AMD winning almost everything - can you find any AMD advertising on Tom's Hardware? Hmmm!

Re:AMD wins every result except... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14110722)

For me, it's quite simple. If I like what I see, then it's a good and objective source of information. If I don't, then it's only entertainment that I should not believe.

Re:AMD wins every result except... (1)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110814)

According to the article regarding the Sandra benchmarks:
"Part of its draw is that users receive a performance rating for their computers within seconds. Since this is a synthetic benchmark, it sometimes yields results that seem out of touch with reality."
I'm reading that as Tom's Hardware's way of saying, "Look, we know that these results don't match up with every other real-world test we conducted, and we suspect that it's the test that's wrong, not the real-world results. The only thing that confuses me is that if AMD's processors are cheaper, faster, and run cooler, how is Intel still selling any processors at all? Are that many people diehard Blue Man Group [wikipedia.org] fans?

The floppy (2, Interesting)

afaik_ianal (918433) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110363)

From TFA: "One stalwart component has survived through all of these innovations: the 3.5" floppy. [...] The floppy is the only component that still remains in use today".

Do people actually still have floppy drives in their PCs? I haven't owned one in many years, and wouldn't have a clue where to get floppy disks even if I had one.

Re:The floppy (1)

ReformedExCon (897248) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110373)

1. Yes.

2. Office Depot

Re:The floppy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14110377)

Last time I had the idea to leave it out was when I got confronted with trying to install Windows 98 without the proper CD drivers... Meh

Re:The floppy (1)

Leroy_Brown242 (683141) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110383)

Oddly enough, people do.

The school I work at requires all students have a USB thumb drive of at least 512MB though. It's nice to see a school environment devoid of floppies.

Re:The floppy (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110711)

I haven't used one in months; the classes in which I use PCs let me use a USB drive too, and my PC has no floppy drive. It does have a floppy-drive-sized space, but I have a digital cam that uses the small SD cards, so I might fill that space with a card reader (or not, and buy a Dell 2405FPW [google.com] with its readers, since I seem to read at least 2 more good reviews of it every day and I'd like me some flat HDness anyway).

Re:The floppy (2, Interesting)

unbeatable73 (726493) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110385)

Hell yes. Ever tried to copy some 1 meg network drivers from your networked computer to your test machine? Can't burn it(you could, if you were rich, but then you would have to burn one disc everytime you discovered your previous driver wasn't the correct one), so you use a floppy disk. Thoguh I now prefer USB keys for that job, sometimes the driver you need is FOR the usb, so obviously that wouldn't work. Floppys are still handy little buggers.

Re:The floppy (1)

joe90 (48497) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110448)

Can't burn it(you could, if you were rich, but then you would have to burn one disc everytime you discovered your previous driver wasn't the correct one)


Enter the CDRW - problem solved!

Re:The floppy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14110703)

You don't even need CDRWs. As far as I know, all the standard CD buring software out there lets you burn "sessions," without finalizing the disc, so you can re-use CDs. That's what I do for copying drivers (or any "one-time" kind of data). I have two or three "driver" CDs lying around, and I just grab one and re-use it.

Re:The floppy (1)

baryon351 (626717) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110774)

Sessions is exactly what I use too, and have done exactly that onto CD for using with machines that need certain drivers.

On top of that, blank CDs are WAY cheaper than blank floppies here, and have been for the last few years.

Re:The floppy (1)

unbeatable73 (726493) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110938)

Hmm, maybe thats my problem. I have hundreds of floppys around here....

Re:The floppy (1)

-kertrats- (718219) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110402)

Every college bookstore I've been in has had floppy disks. Any electronics store (Best Buy, Circuit City...) has them easily. And the vast majority of pre-packaged boxes (anything from Dell or Gateway, the ilk, not homebuilt ones and possibly not the $300 Walmart special) have drives. It's still by far the easiest way for technologically illiterate people to transfer files-easier than burning to CD, doesnt use a different system like email, and less expensive than a USB drive.

Re:The floppy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14110423)

When I was trying to install the SATA drivers for a new HD I purchased recently, I met with (first experience for me) the Windows XP install screen that says "If you need to install 3rd party RAID drivers, hit F6 now"

And the only way to load those drivers once you've pushed F6 is... from a floppy drive.

USB doesn't work before, tada!, XP is installed.

Probably the lamest problem I've ever encountered. Literally had to buy a floppy drive to get the drivers in and have the RAID drive function as my C:\ drive.

Anyone saying "switch to [another] OS" I say - no. I'm quite happy with Windows XP.

Re:The floppy (1)

ottothecow (600101) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110979)

My friends slightly-smaller-form-factor computer currently has the floppy drive installed inside of the case facing backwards in a harddrive slot.

You need a floppy to install windows onto a computer with an SATA drive and we decided it might be needed again...it was an ugly-assed drive without a bezel that was going into a fairly pretty case so we stuck it in backwards. All you have to do is slide off the side of the case and you can insert a disk (if it is ever actually needed again).

The utility of the floppy (1, Interesting)

Wilson_6500 (896824) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110415)

We had a little optics lab "image processing" computer with: no active ethernet connection (within reasonable cord distance), no usb ports, and no CD burner.

Aside from bodily moving the CPU (don't want to do that when it needs to be near the microscope), there wasn't really any other convenient way to get modestly sized images and text files off it than through floppies. The next challenge was to find a machine in the department that: was connected to the school's intranet, had a floppy drive, and wasn't behind a locked door.

Of course, when we started needing to move movie files, well, we had the shop techs wire us up a very long cord. Just one more thing to trip over in the dark.

Sure, they're not fast, but for just one or two small files nothing really beats them in price and ease of use, especially when you have some machines that are still running Win 95 or 98. Besides, the FDD chunking sound is soothing.

Re:The floppy (0, Offtopic)

earnest murderer (888716) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110424)

If you indend to install Microsoft Windows to a SATA drive you must install the drivers from a floppy disk.

Re:The floppy (1)

afaik_ianal (918433) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110463)

Hmm - I didn't need to. Are you sure it wasn't the Raid drivers that you needed (In which case your point still stands)? I can't remember which chip my Sata runs off, but XP Pro installed no problems

Re:The floppy (1)

rkcallaghan (858110) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110489)

If you indend to install Microsoft Windows to a SATA drive you must install the drivers from a floppy disk.

This got modded up solely because it says something bad about Windows.

I personally have a recently (well, a year ago, I know that is a lifetime in the computing world.) built machine that contains a SATA drive and I installed Windows flawlessly without anything other than the legit Windows install CD.

Relavent System Stats:

Proc: AMD Athlon 64 3000+
Mobo: MSI K8N Neo4 Platinum SLI
HD: Seagate Barracuda SATA 150 (Model: ST3250823AS)
SW: Microsoft Windows XP x64 Edition

There isn't a floppy drive in the whole house, and it didn't take any goofy net configuration or reburning the disc, either.

~Rebecca

Re:The floppy (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14110509)

Will you marry me?

Re:The floppy (1)

kesuki (321456) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110697)

I actually have about 5 or 6 floppy drives in my house but 2 of them are 5 1/4" ;) now in my current desktop PC i have none installed.

not to mention that if you perform the install from 'within windows' you can go online to check for an 'updated installer' which should copy over drivers, but that's probably a moot point since if you have windows, you might not need to install windows.

btw, if you're the R K Callaghan i think you are i know where you live ;)
but i could be wrong, and it's no big deal..

Re:The floppy (4, Funny)

rkcallaghan (858110) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110750)

btw, if you're the R K Callaghan i think you are i know where you live ;)

That just might be the creepiest reply I've ever gotten on Slashdot. Though, all the same, feel free to send your guess to my userid at gmail.com :) ~Rebecca

Re:The floppy (1, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110767)

You seem to have fallen prey to the alpha geek mentality. The implication of your post amounts to:

"It works for me. If it doesn't work for you, you must be stupid".

There are people with drives out there that have had to install hard disk drivers using a floppy drive. A floppy drive is a very cheap piece of equipment to add to your PC, even if it's just as a contingency. It makes no sense to save $10 on a computer that might cost anywhere from $400 to $4000, when there might be situations you might need that $10 piece of equipment.

For the record I've also seen mouse drivers and other hardware come only on a floppy disk. Granted most of the time you can download from the net, but compared to pushing a disk that came with your product into a drive it's more work.

What I'd like to see is all hardware and software manufacturers stop distribution of their drivers and software on floppy. It really is an ancient piece of technology that should be dead by now. Sadly it's not.

Re:The floppy (1)

plover (150551) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110910)

This got modded up solely because it says something bad about Windows.

Negative. This got modded up because it's true. SATA drivers are the only thing I've had to use a floppy for since installing Windows XP. The reason you had success is that you were installing a newer version of Windows (x64 edition is much newer) and it already included the SATA drivers in the distribution.

I remember the exact same situation was true trying to install SCSI drivers under Windows NT 4.0. We had to interrupt the installation process to insert a floppy to load the SCSI drivers. XP64 may even have a similar pause-point in its install.

XP was released in 2001. SATA wasn't available in the consumer world when these discs were cut. I haven't tried it with a current retail box copy of XP SP2 -- it's possible they've included updated SATA drivers in the latest shipped versions. Remember, people don't run out and buy a new copy of XP everytime one is released, or when they build a new box, or even upgrade an old one. They carry the old CDs and licenses forward to the new gear. It can't magically add drivers for new hardware to the old distro discs.

Re:The floppy (1)

ottothecow (600101) | more than 8 years ago | (#14111008)

The guy up there said that it was XP-64 which I would assume included the SATA drivers (I own the very first retail Athlon-64 board and it definately has SATA...and it definately came out a LONG time before XP-64)

Every time I have had to install windows with a SATA drive, it has definately needed the disk. Even my slipstreamed SP2 disk (created not to long after SP2 so it IS missing updates) wont install without the driver wich HAS to be on a floppy disk

The floppy you wish you never had. (1)

OneArmedMan (606657) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110516)

this is correct for most 3rd party disk controllers, im talking IDE / SATA / SCSI and all the RAID subsections of.

oh and even if you think that your nice new W2k3 server install has all the right drivers just cause it detected your SCSI card fine ...

it doesnt.

just try and install a SCSI tape drive and watch it fail to detect the device. you still have to get the latest drivers from the manufacture ( for both the controller and the tape drive ) .

The single best thing MS could do to facilitate the installtion of their OS, is make it so you can have 3rd party drives on a CD / network share / Flash disk ANYTHING!

just give us a God Dam option that isnt a fkn floppy disk!

Re:The floppy (1)

weapon (783054) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110540)

not all sata drives require the floppy disk, i know from expericence that nForce4s dont need the disk but the via 8237 southbridge (comes with the via 600 northbridge) does

Re:The floppy (1)

InvalidError (771317) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110561)

I did not need a floppy to install on my 200GB SATA drive with my i845 chipset... so I guess that requirement depends on circumstances.

Worst case, many modern BIOSes can map flash readers or a USB Flash drive as the floppy. My PC came with a multi-format reader but other than BIOS flashing, I have little to no use for flash memory so I temporarily plug a floppy drive whenever I need to flash since my desktop's case has no external 3.5" bays... I even had to buy an HDD-to-floppy power splitter because the PSU had no FDD plug. Can't have everything in an SFF-style micro-ATX case.

Re:The floppy (1)

aetherspoon (72997) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110628)

No, you don't. Throw them on the install CD to begin with like most Windows Admins [should] do, using something like nLite.

Flash BIOS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14110477)

I guess you never had to flash bios. Just curious; who makes your mobo's that don't require flashing.

Re:Flash BIOS (1)

afaik_ianal (918433) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110867)

Most BIOSes I have had in the past few years let you flash the bios from windows. For linux boxen, I just make a bootable freedos cd [ibiblio.org] .

Re:The floppy (1)

ajpr (921401) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110634)

I still have my 9 year old floppy drive in my current desktop. I've upgraded over the years from a cyrix 200 MHz to a p4 3.2 GHz via a p3 700 MHz and a Athlon 1700+. It works like new! Best thing I ever got!!

Re:The floppy (1)

ZakuSage (874456) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110737)

I still have a floppy, but then this PC is a few years old now.

Re:The floppy (1)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110790)

Book publishers and agents still require you to snail mail your book on floppy. (I'm not talking AW or ORA, I'm talking publishers who do novels, and such.-

Re:The floppy (1)

afaik_ianal (918433) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110881)

Is there any reason why they would not support CDs? It seems to me that CDs would be a lot safer to mail (CDs tend to be more resiliant to environmental effects than floppies).

Re:The floppy (1)

ShaunC1000 (928875) | more than 8 years ago | (#14111018)

I used floppies to image PCs at a elem. school I used to worked for. The majority of the machines were older and couldn't boot of a thumb drive... and not all of them had CDROM drives.. and many of them didn't work :)

If that's the mother of all CPU charts (0)

eclectro (227083) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110370)


Then whose it's daddy???

Thank you, I'll be here all week.

Re:If that's the mother of all CPU charts (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110419)

It's daddy? That'd be [H]ard|OCP

(Tom's Hardware and the [H] have a rivalry that goes pretty far back
Its funny if you remember their mini-flame wars)

Sorry, 44oz doesn't cut it (2, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110404)

I personally use an Extreme Gulp [everything2.com] .
At 52 ounces, It convienently holds 4 x 12oz sodas + ice
and it will stay cold as long as you could want.

Even long enough for you to click through Tom's Hardware un-printer-friendly website.

and i thought this was funny too:
I Am Extreme
Yesterday at work I drank an Extreme Gulp [7-eleven.com] while doing some Extreme Programming [extremeprogramming.org] , and then I went home and ate Extreme Duritos [doritos.com] while watching Extreme Sports [go.com] on cable.

Today every muscle in my body aches.

Posted on May 01, 2002
http://www.defectiveyeti.com/archives/000192.html [defectiveyeti.com]

Re:Sorry, 44oz doesn't cut it (2, Funny)

Buddy_DoQ (922706) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110430)

That's not Xtreme enough. You're not really Xtreme until you lose the E.

Re:Sorry, 44oz doesn't cut it (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110471)

lol, true nowadays, but the Extreme Gulp came out 6 or 8 years ago. I've had mine since it came out, which was well before you had to be 'Xtreme' to be extreme.

On a side note, you can get away with filling up it from the Slurpee machine.. talk about your brain freeze.

Soon to be released.... (2, Funny)

woja (633458) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110417)

Toms Hardware chart that compares CPU's which double as heaters!! Wow - that will be great for those cold winter nights reading slashdot.

Re:Soon to be released.... (1)

dookus (891928) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110558)

Don't laugh, I overclocked my Athlon to heat this room.

Dual cores slower than single? (3, Interesting)

boingyzain (739759) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110444)

Does anyone else find it odd that in practically all the benchmarks, the single core processors beat out the dual core processors? Each core in the dualies has the same processor as a single core, so why would that be?

Re:Dual cores slower than single? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14110588)

Because the benchmarks are pretty much single threaded, so only one core is actually being used, so on these particular benchmarks a dual core CPU won't show any benefit, it might even suffer a little, if the fact of it being dual core allowed a small background task that might have otherewise stalled to run and was therefore fighting for the cache.

Re:Dual cores slower than single? (1)

dirtyhippie (259852) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110589)

Simple: Dual core processors are clocked slower so that heat dissipation is manageable due to having two cores in the same physical space.

Re:Dual cores slower than single? (2, Insightful)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110660)

"Does anyone else find it odd that in practically all the benchmarks, the single core processors beat out the dual core processors?"

No more odd than say a pickup truck beating a sports car in a race to move from one apartment to another.

Price comparison too needed (3, Insightful)

Barkley44 (919010) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110446)

I'd like to see a comparison of average cost against the speed, since the real question is what's the fastest speed I can get for the money.

Cute chart, but... (0, Offtopic)

Hamster Of Death (413544) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110450)

Where are the Motorola and PowerPC chips? hehe

Re:Cute chart, but... (1)

interiot (50685) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110469)

Where are my PIC and Scenix chips, eh?

Moore's Law (2, Interesting)

dirtyhippie (259852) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110464)

Processor speeds haven't increased much in the past 2-3 years... Are we hitting the end of Moore's law, or just taking a detour as CPU makers decide dual-core is more important? I've been wondering about this for awhile, but haven't seen much discussion of this. Do we have to wait for quantum computers before we can get more single-thread performance?

Re:Moore's Law (3, Informative)

cide1 (126814) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110520)

Processor throughput has increased tremendously. Clock speed has not increased. Issue widths are wider. Larger, faster, and more effective caches are being used, in addition to the introduction of trace caches. Branch prediction continues to gets better, along with speculation techniques. More physical registers and larger lookahead windows allow modern CPUs to pull more parallelism out of single threaded programs than ever before.

Features like hyper-threading and dual cores give a much greater system wide speedup than simply raising the clock rate, and avoid all the problems of power consumption. Even on single thread performance, having another core to run the OS, so your not constantly context switching, can make a differance.

Reading this article made me sick, because they equate speed with clock rate. This is patently false, as the last two years of computer architecture have shown us.

Re:Moore's Law (3, Insightful)

dirtyhippie (259852) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110573)

I didn't say that clock speed = performance, however, an increase in clock speed on the same architecture does indicate a probable increase in performance. I'm also sure you know that it is arguable at best that hyperthreading increases performance.

I'm also not sure where you got the impression that the article equated speed with clock rate - if they did, why did they bother with all those benchmarks?

As an example of the stagnation of the past few years, I have some code whose critical loop is unparallelizable (each instruction relies on the result of the previous instruction). My dual core Opteron running in 64 bit mode performs only about 15% better than my dual Athlon MP system from about 3 years ago. Synthetic benchmarks show a little more improvement, but largely only when memory access becomes a factor.

I'm not talking about servers, where parallelism is a necessity, or even general computing, I'm talking about unparallelizable, single threaded code. In this area, progress has been very slow. I'll grant you that the market is not as important in the scheme of things, but it is still there. Given how obsessed Intel in particular has been with clock speed to this point, it makes me wonder if they have gone to dual cores and such because they couldn't get more clock speed, which raises the question of whether we are hitting the physical limits of miniaturization.

Re:Moore's Law (2, Interesting)

timeOday (582209) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110945)

No, the last 2-3 years have been a disappointing let-down in cpu development.

Dual core processors cannot be equated with single core. You can always make highly parallel tasks faster by throwing more CPUs at them, so what? There's a reason we didn't go to multi cores until single-core development stalled. If you want to compare dual-core, compare them to an SMP single-core system.

Now look at the benchmarks. For instance, on the 3dMark05 Futuremark, the fastest single processor is the Athlon 64 FX 57 with a score of 6058. Now scroll down to the P4 3.0 with a score of 4613. That's a lousy 30% improvement in the last 3 years! Awful. And the fastest dual core system is a mere 10% faster than that.

Re:Moore's Law (1)

joelito_pr (931211) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110538)

IIRC, Moore's law is about the density of the processors, not necessarily the clock speed, so, this Multi Core trend is part of Moore's law.

Just a differernt approach. And we also have 64bit registers(Or is it registrers, oh whatever english it's not my main language) wich I think are part of the Law...

Re:Moore's Law (1)

dirtyhippie (259852) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110584)

Heh. Nothing is part of Moore's law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_Law [wikipedia.org] . It's just an observation that's generally held true - clock speed tends to double every 1.5 years. What is "more of a law" is that there has to be a point when Moore's observation stops being the case, as we hit the hard limits implied by a single atom, electron, etc.

Why Toms Hardware (0, Flamebait)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110466)

why Toms Hardware plugged so often on Slashdot when they're just a mouthpiece for MS/Intel?

Re:Why Toms Hardware (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14110613)

are you kidding me?! Tom's actually got blackballed by Intel before for publishing stuff that didn't make Intel look good, and Tom's was pretty much the guys which demonstrated the flaws in the first 1+Ghz P3s, leading to Intel being forced to recall the chips!

Not only that, Toms were the first guys I read that actually went to TIME the FSB frequencies on various motherboards, thereby discovering some manufacturers were cheating by "pre-overclocking" their boards so they'd look better on benchmarks against others!

Re:Why Toms Hardware (1)

TheHawke (237817) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110640)

Actually turn that around.. It's Slashdot being Tom's mouthpiece. The way I see it, things were slowing down and they need the holiday dough, soo they spammed Slashdot with this little compilation.

Why do I get the feeling that they have put out similar comparison charts about the same time of the year?

Re:Why Toms Hardware (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110804)

Why don't you direct us to a more comprehensive CPU benchmark comparison then.

Re:Why Toms Hardware (1)

Frogbert (589961) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110805)

If they were really a mouthpeice for Intel why do the AMD processors come out on top in nealy every test they run? And why do they recommend AMD as a gaming processor?

disappointing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14110485)

I was really hoping to see who some of the older CPUs, stacked up. The lowest on this list is still acceptable for most people. What about 486 and before? The would give us oldies a clue how far the PC has come (with power consumption to match).

what? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14110488)

i don't get it explain it to me

Tom's still pushing deathstars? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14110495)

Is Tom's still promoting deathstars by using them in benchmark testing, and refusing to acknowledge problems with these drives severe enough to result in a class action lawsuit and the moniker "deathstar"?

Check Tom's archives against other hardware review sites. More than a year after deathstar news first came out from what I remember (and since I was calling sites on their use of deathstars in benchmarks and rave reviews about a year after the news first came out, about a year or more is what I recall.) Tom's was promoting the drives as great performance, and continuing to use them in benchmark testing of other hardware.

How much, exactly, does it take to buy you, Tom's Hardware?

Certainly not ALL (2, Interesting)

msbsod (574856) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110518)

It looks like the author has a bit of a limited focus. This chart hardly covers all CPU's. Where are the Alpha processors? Someone else mentioned Motorola. Or take the Cray processor. People would be surprised to see how slow PC processors are! This chart even does not cover all AMD and Intel CPUs. For example, processors like the AMD 29K, Intel i860, i960 and the Intel Itanium are missing. But maybe the narrow view of Tom's Hardware Guide is what PC users want, no?

And how about the good old Intel 4004? January 1971! :-)

perhaps it's time for an upgrade... (1)

mumrah (911931) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110521)

when your newest cpu isn't on any of the lists.

wow, only 55 comments so far (1)

Rellik66 (596729) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110527)

people must still be reading that monstrosity of an article.

Re:wow, only 55 comments so far (1)

msbsod (574856) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110548)

It's the turkey's fault.

Reading the article? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14110667)

You must be new here. Welcome.

Benchmars (1)

toetagger1 (795806) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110542)

I'm in the process of building my "media center" PC, and I know that processors can become a bottle neck if there are more than 1 or 2 capture cards running, as well as live playback or other activity.

Is anyone up to speed with which processor to go with for this, but more importantly, which capture cards to use?

Thanks.

Re:Benchmars (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110700)

Usually in such a setup I/O performance determines whether you can do anything at all with the system, especially PCI implementation. Practically the only ones workable with one PCI hungry capture/editing cards are Intel and SiS, I wouldn't be surprised if the case was the same with few "normal" capture cards.

Of course only if you'd want to do few things at one time.

Honestly...I don't see a reason, so not much of a difference if you'd have only one capture card.

You call that a list? *this* is a list. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14110590)

Heh, you call that a list?

SPECcpu beats this hands down. THG is great and all, but SPEC are a non-profit organization *dedicated* to measuring the performance of computing systems. Believe me when I say their "CPU 2000" benchmark is not only the standard benchmark, but the *best* standard benchmark out there. It's cross-platform: Windows, Linux, HP-UX, AIX, whatever: you name it, it's been tested. It's cross-compiler: GCC, Intel ICC, AMD/Pathscale, IBM xlC, they're all here.

Here's the list. It's big. [spec.org]

Enjoy.

CPU's (0, Offtopic)

dirtsurfer (595452) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110601)

Hey guy's did you hear? Now apostraphe's go in any word that end's with an S!
Ye's, thi's i's fabulou's new's.

Re:CPU's (1)

dirtsurfer (595452) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110608)

And in form befitting a true grammar nazi, I spelled "apostrophe" incorrectly.
Uh, yeah. I meant to do that.

Re:CPU's (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14110763)

Damn! And I had my "Hey Doap, Karnt U Spel?" line ready to go...

Re:CPU's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14110626)

No. Only possessive's and plural's get apostrophe's

words that end in S naturally like news, yes, is or fabulous don't require them.

The same for GPU's? (1)

blankoboy (719577) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110741)

What I'd like to see is the grand daddy of benchmark comparisons going from the present day Geforce 7800 series/Radeon X1800 all the way back to the Voodoo1.

Mostly I would like to know how my Radeon 9700 Pro stacks up against the current series and the Geforce 6x00 series. They stop at 9800XT =(

Reminds me of Bill Hicks (2, Funny)

noz (253073) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110755)

"You may want to fill up your 44oz mug before sifting through this one, though."
Station operator> Do you want the 32oz or the large?
Bill> How big is that large?
Station operator> You're gonna wanna pull your truck up out back. I'm gonna go start the pump.
Bill> Shit that sounds like a lot of coffee man. I don't know if I wanna be awake that long in Tennessee.

No Pentium-M?!? (1)

Nelson (1275) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110819)


It's a nice list. Seems really lacking without the Pentium-M line though. THat's where intel is going.

Re:No Pentium-M?!? (1)

illusoryphoenix (933763) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110855)

That's because Tom's Hardware is a bunch of AMD fanboys. Check out this article that started it: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/200008281/index.ht ml [tomshardware.com] I haven't read an unbiased review from them in a long time. Every piece seems opinionated and biased, it's really puzzling...

Re:No Pentium-M?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14110995)

No No No, you got it all wrong. They are bought by Intel, didn't you know?

So what the heck is wrong with them finding an error in an Intel CPU?

Where is the F--KING CHART? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14110966)

Five hundred and twenty pages later and I still havent' ogtten to the stupid chart! WTF???

I would call this spam!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...