Slashdot Mirror
Comparative CPU Benchmarks From 1995 to 2004
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."
I currently have a 486 with an (upgraded) 900MB hard drive, cdrom drive, and a whopping 32MB of ram. And windows 3.1 + dos. What are my upgrade options?
It's easy...if the room is getting a little too chilly for my liking, I upgrade to a faster processor. Problem solved.
A /.'ing that I can actually cheer for!
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Benchmarks tell me my Radeon 9800 is horribly out of date and imply its too weak to play any modern games.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.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
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.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
Whoops, pasted the wrong wikipedia link. The correct one is Intel 486
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)
Eureka Science News - automatically updated
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.
I choose to remain celibate, like my father and his father before him.
They haven't been busy recently. They just updated the guide they did quite some time ago. Not very much new to see here...
"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?
Part 1: http://www.tomshardware.com.nyud.net:8090/cpu/2004 1220/index.html4 1221/index.html
Part 2: http://www.tomshardware.com.nyud.net:8090/cpu/200
http//injoke.org -- Culling The Interesting
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.
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.
I bought my computer in 1982... how will I know if it's worth upgrading if the data only goes back to 1995?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
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.
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.
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
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.
When you see better computers than the one you're using at Goodwill/Salvation Army/St. Vincents .. it's time to upgrade.
The primary end-result of the evolution of this commodity hardware is the fact that expensive software is now just obsolete - plain and simple. Ten years ago, there was a justified price premium associated with state of the art software algorithms. I still see these zealots for the DB companies raising these red-herring issues as to why every organization should still spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on expensive DB software. With the evolution of hardware the way it is, any credible SQL DB Engine could run almost any company. Same thing for web and application servers. How can anyone justify paying for these things when the hosting companies prove everyday for thousands of tech-savvy companies that the free solution is just as scalable and more secure. I used to maintain several Windwos servers and finally ported them to a hosted Apache solution - for about 5% of the cost. The sites are always available and the admin tools are web-based and better. And I don't have to hire these guys that want to go to the MS Marketing summit for a week every year so they can continue to administer the "low-cost MS solution approach". If you have any hesitation, make the switch. This stuff is now public domain, don't pay for this stuff. Those days are long gone. In the new model, it only makes sense to pay for software that solves industry-specific problems - not for tools that cost a fortune to maintain and invite tech companies into your business to meddle and start religous wars among the employees. www.SoftwareObjectz.com
http://www.softwareobjectz.com
But I'm talking to a bunch of gamers for whom that last 0.4% performance boost is worth more than a hot cheerleader full of X.
These are the same people that get into squabbles over which display adapter is better when A gets 150FPS (frames per second) and B gets 140FPS but with better double-dodecahedron rendering or whatever. It makes no difference to them that most human eyes cannot distinguish between 40FPS and 80FPS, let alone anything above 100. However, if the [abstract and wholly meaningless number] is higher then the product must be better. Oh, well - at least the cheerleaders are safe.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
My wife responded to my description of the SX, DX situation with "So, you want the 486DX, not the 486 Sucks, right?"
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.
Of course, then there's the other side of this issue, which was VLB: Vesa Local Bus (which is what we used for fast access to graphics cards [and sometimes IDE disk] before PCI/AGP) was only spec'd to run at 33MHz tops, and many VLB cards wouldn't run at 50 MHz. So you often had a choice: buy the 50 MHZ 486 DX to get the full 50MHz bus speed, but use an ISA graphics card, or buy the DX2/50 and use a VLB graphics card a 25MHz. The usual answer (once it came out) was the 486 DX2/66, which was a 66 MHz processor on a 33 MHz bus, topping out the local bus clock. Some things still ran faster on the 486DX/50, but games usually ran better on the DX2/66 due to the higher graphics card throughput.
Of course, the highest end graphics cards (Diamond's Viper, ferinstance) could generally handle a 50MHz clock. But most of us didn't have that kind of scratch lying around at the time.
-JDF