Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Mother of All CPU Charts

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the head-to-head-to-head dept.

||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."

12 of 176 comments (clear)

  1. AMD wins every result except... by strider44 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:AMD wins every result except... by ciroknight · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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!

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    2. Re:AMD wins every result except... by krygny · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

      --
      Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
    3. Re:AMD wins every result except... by toddestan · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I would agree. Have a look at this page. Scroll down, and notice that there is a group of about 14 AMD processors essentially got the same score. These processors range from a Sempron 2500+ all the way an Athlon 64 3700+. Go up a bit an there is a simular group of about 18 Intel processors that get essentially the same score, where the processors range from the P4 2.4Ghz to a P4 EE 3.4Ghz. What gives?

  2. The floppy by afaik_ianal · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:The floppy by unbeatable73 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      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.

  3. Sorry, 44oz doesn't cut it by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I personally use an Extreme Gulp.
    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 while doing some Extreme Programming, and then I went home and ate Extreme Duritos while watching Extreme Sports on cable.

    Today every muscle in my body aches.

    Posted on May 01, 2002
    http://www.defectiveyeti.com/archives/000192.html
    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  4. The utility of the floppy by Wilson_6500 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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.

  5. Dual cores slower than single? by boingyzain · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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?

  6. Moore's Law by dirtyhippie · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Moore's Law by timeOday · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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.

  7. Certainly not ALL by msbsod · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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! :-)