Slashdot Mirror
Today's Best CPUs Compared... To a Pentium 4
Dr. Damage writes "How do current $74 CPUs compare to the $133 ones? To exclusive $1K Extreme Editions? Interesting questions, but what if you took a five-year-old Pentium 4 at 3.8GHz and pitted it against today's CPUs in a slew of games and other applications? The results are eye-opening." Note that this voluminous comparison is presented over 18 pages with no single-page view in sight.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/18448/18 is the page with the conclusion
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I had a job keeping my eyes open at all, reading that over-long, poorly structured article with no useful conclusion.
I've been using a Pentium 4 3.0GHz-powered box as a MythTV frontend/backend for more than four years. It often records four high-definition over-the-air or FireWire MPEG-2 streams while playing back another.
For the first three years I used an Nvidia video card with Xv output to play the recordings at very good quality with 50-70% CPU usage. A year ago I moved to VDPAU, which gives me even better playback with under 5% CPU usage, and will do the same with h.264 recordings (generated by the Hauppauge HD-PVR, for example). Thanks to VDPAU, there's every possibility I'll be able to use the Pentium 4 box for another four years.
And its constantly growing. check it out: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?b=2&c=1
Speaking as a PS3 dev, the SPUs are very different to program for than a normal multi-core cpu (and you only get to use five and a half of them anyway, not 7).
On the flip side, everything based on UE3 (which is most big cpu-hungry multi-platform titles these days) is multithreaded to two or three significant threads: Game, rendering, and possibly physics (depending on physics engine used). None of them are SPU threads (though they may use the SPUs for some tasks), so PS3 performance isn't generally as good as the 360's, but in most games it's a non-issue as both platforms go over the 30 fps cap.
On PC, most UE3 games will run best on two cores, with anything above that being unnecessary.
Isn't this what the article summary gets at ? I couldn't find anywhere in the conclusion how the P4 actually compares to present day processors.
I'm not about to read through 17 pages of all of that just to open my eyes.
Oh, and for CPU comparisons, I usually use:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php
It's quite reliable for my choices. I just need everything to boil down to a number these days. Too much choice out there. Was simpler when you could just look at Ghz and know which is better. Now a P7700 and T8600 (examples I just made up..) could be at the same clock speed, be called Core 2 Duo and have totally different performance numbers. Confusing!
Did anyone else notice how the Q9550 and Q9650 are absent from this article?
Probably the last thing Intel wants is these previous generation (and attractively priced) chips appearing in the "overall performance per dollar" chart on "Page 17 - The value proposition". Instead, we get a graph where only the i5 and i7 chips appear to perform well beyond any of the older options, but it's a carefully crafted illusion because the faster (and attractively priced) versions of those older chips weren't tested.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
As somebody working in the gaming industry, let me correct you on each of your points.
1) A great many game-related problems can be parallelized quite well. It differs by genre, but most games today could easily split graphics, audio, input processing, game logic and AI into separate threads. Some gaming engines have started to do this. AI is one area that really benefits from multiple threads of execution, so that we can simulate several different outcomes at a time.
2) This was true in the 1970s. We've come a long way since then. From compiler-assisted technology like OpenMP to a variety of higher-level approaches and techniques, multithreaded programming doesn't have to be difficult. Even just making your data immutable, like functional programmers have been trying to teach us for decades, removes many of the IPC woes you mention.
3) This isn't a problem at all. Aside from netbooks, most consumer laptops and virtually all consumer desktops sold since 2006 have had at least two cores. Intel's Core i7 has been out for over a year now, and has seen very good adoption rates. The average number of virtual CPUs (ie. physical, cores or threads) on the average gaming PC today is roughly 2.7. Besides, games shouldn't care how many CPUs are present. They adapt to the available resources. If you have one CPU, we do everything on it. If you have 8, we'll distribute the load appropriately.
4) Where did you hear this from? Again, this was true in 2003, but things have changed a lot since then. Virtually every engine written since then, by a half-decent team, has included mulitprocessor support.
Because not everyone has multiple cores so PC games have to go for some version of the lowest common denominator
Which is honestly quite strange, because most games I know require you have the latest uber-$500 graphics card to run properly. I would argue that there is something else involved (eye candy important, multi-core not) in the design process.
You need your hyperbole license revoked until you can use some semblance of realism. BioShock 2 literally came out less than a week ago and it runs at a full 60fps at 1920x1080, all graphics settings at their highest, on a Radeon 4870 -- a $200 graphics card when I got it a YEAR ago.
Brian Fundakowski Feldman