Having trouble on this end. I would ignore the overall figures; they are too dependent on factors other than the CPU. The figures there are consistent with what I get for the Pi in my own tests. I don't know about the Celeron. The low and conflicting figures you are getting are probably results done using soft rather than hard floating point.
600MHz Celeron UnixBench 4.1.0 Raspberry Pi 700MHz UnixBench 5.1.3
For Dhrystone 35% better performance per clock for the Pi and 23% better for the Celeron on the Whetstone. It also shows the Pi with an overall of 53% faster for the Pi (though much of this is due to I/O performance not directly related to the CPU).
Funny the figures I have seen do not agree. The figures I have seen shown a pi @ 700MHz to be faster with integer than an 800MHz Celeron and slower when it comes to floating point. In addition the overall UnixBench figures seem to give the pi a slight edge as well
It is hard to compare apples to apples since ther are so many different Celeron models
The number of atoms of C14 isn't that great (and while the number of atoms of K40 is much greater it only contributes slightly more radioactivity due to its much longer half life) but the contribution of C14 and K40 makes more than 200,000 pCi of radiation for the human body compared to the 2000 pCi/gal mentioned in the post.
There was no such thing as "personal computers" - and commodity hardware didn't really exist until the IBM PC and Apple I came on the market. As Microsoft was an independent software company, Bill Gates' "vision" was that by de-coupling the software from the hardware, he was providing a solution to the high-priced systems that the vertically-integrated competitors were selling.
There were few personal computers before the Apple I and the market was emerging at the time. It was a significant machine, but it was by no means the first. As for the IBM PC, the personal computer was thriving before its introduction. You had both a large number of home computers and many economical business oriented personal computers. The dominant OS for business computing at the time (even though the first "killer app" for business was first introduced on the Apple ][) was CP/M and even well configured CP/M mahines were generally cheaper that the IBM 5150 (the fisr IBM PC model)
At least, that was the idea in the late 1980's, early 1990's. And it was really the truth. Your typical IBM PC, plus MS DOS, plus productivity software, was a crapload cheaper than all competitors. When competitors DID emerge, the productivity software didn't exist. And that's where the problem occurred, because that's where MS became a monopoly. The only thing that kept prices competitive was the competition in the hardware space, and the bundling deals.
Slashdot Mirror
Having trouble on this end. I would ignore the overall figures; they are too dependent on factors other than the CPU. The figures there are consistent with what I get for the Pi in my own tests. I don't know about the Celeron. The low and conflicting figures you are getting are probably results done using soft rather than hard floating point.
Also, those figures may be for using soft floating point. And the over scores can be very dependant on the I/O systems.
I don't know about the celeron figures, but the Pi figures are consistient with what I have gotten myself.
600MHz Celeron UnixBench 4.1.0
Raspberry Pi 700MHz UnixBench 5.1.3
For Dhrystone 35% better performance per clock for the Pi and 23% better for the Celeron on the Whetstone. It also shows the Pi with an overall of 53% faster for the Pi (though much of this is due to I/O performance not directly related to the CPU).
Funny the figures I have seen do not agree. The figures I have seen shown a pi @ 700MHz to be faster with integer than an 800MHz Celeron and slower when it comes to floating point. In addition the overall UnixBench figures seem to give the pi a slight edge as well
It is hard to compare apples to apples since ther are so many different Celeron models
Still basing the "quality" of the CPU on clock speed I see.
Oops 2000 pCi for the human body. Conversion error.
The number of atoms of C14 isn't that great (and while the number of atoms of K40 is much greater it only contributes slightly more radioactivity due to its much longer half life) but the contribution of C14 and K40 makes more than 200,000 pCi of radiation for the human body compared to the 2000 pCi/gal mentioned in the post.
So, you are assuming that each cell in your body contains one carbon atom????
Let's try this again:
Mass of human body: ~75kg
Carbon makeup of human body: ~18%
Ratio of C12 to C14: 1.35x10^12
which gives us ~1x10^-8 g C14 in human body or more than 4x10^14 atoms of C14.
There was no such thing as "personal computers" - and commodity hardware didn't really exist until the IBM PC and Apple I came on the market. As Microsoft was an independent software company, Bill Gates' "vision" was that by de-coupling the software from the hardware, he was providing a solution to the high-priced systems that the vertically-integrated competitors were selling.
There were few personal computers before the Apple I and the market was emerging at the time. It was a significant machine, but it was by no means the first. As for the IBM PC, the personal computer was thriving before its introduction. You had both a large number of home computers and many economical business oriented personal computers. The dominant OS for business computing at the time (even though the first "killer app" for business was first introduced on the Apple ][) was CP/M and even well configured CP/M mahines were generally cheaper that the IBM 5150 (the fisr IBM PC model)
At least, that was the idea in the late 1980's, early 1990's. And it was really the truth. Your typical IBM PC, plus MS DOS, plus productivity software, was a crapload cheaper than all competitors. When competitors DID emerge, the productivity software didn't exist. And that's where the problem occurred, because that's where MS became a monopoly. The only thing that kept prices competitive was the competition in the hardware space, and the bundling deals.
Wrong!