Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Comparative CPU Benchmarks From 1995 to 2004

Posted by timothy on from the difference-engine dept.

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."

5 of 320 comments (clear)

  1. Recently? by jargoone · · Score: 3, Informative

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

  2. Why Jesus... Why not force Coralization on /.? by Mike626 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

    --
    http//injoke.org -- Culling The Interesting
  3. Exciting? by SpinningAround · · Score: 5, Informative
    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, the 8-channel RAID6 card and the Viewsonic media center were quite interesting (and a lot more recent than the CPU round-up too).


    These days though, my favourite reviewer is Dan (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.

  4. Re:The 487 would disable the 486sx by i41Overlord · · Score: 3, Informative

    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

  5. Re:AMD made 286 processors? by Mr+Z · · Score: 3, Informative

    AMD was a second-source for Intel CPUs up through the 286 era. I believe this arose out of IBM's requirement to have a second source for whatever CPU it picked for its PC. It appears Wikipedia corroborates my story.

    --Joe
    --
    Program Intellivision!