i wonder if good ol' MS is going to make their next OS run on it. i know that is far fetched considering they wouldn't support the itanium. and speaking of compilers, if they don't provide the performance, well, the Cell will go the same route as the itanium.
ironic that that he was popular with communists, since they are the biggest racket of all, when defined as what the general population thinks is not what is really going on, and that the great communist regimes have slaughtered uncountable lives to give the small, "inside" group power.
here is a list i compiled by checking out many different benchmarks. in general the faster cards are on top, the slower ones below. since i am concentrating on affordable cards, i haven't placed many expensive cards above the nvidia 6600GT and radeon X1600XT, so there are many high-end ones available now that are not on this list. if you see a few cards back-to-back with an equal sign (=) in front, that means they are very similar in performance to the ones next to it that also have the "=" sign.
N/A = discontinuted
or Not Available
FASTER CARDS N 6800 Ultra $400-500 N 6800 GT R X800 Pro ~$250
R X1600 XT ($170)best price/performance N 6600 GT ($140) best price/performance
MSI & BFG = quiet
R 9950 ultra N 6800 LE (LE=slower) R X700 XT (N/A) R X700 PRO($125,135) N 5900U/5950 Ultra($250) R 9800 PRO(~$140) N 6600 ??? =R 9700 pro =R 9800 ($90??) =N 5900/5950 R 9700 ($110) R X1300 PRO($105) N 5800 ultra (3GHz) N 5700 Ultra (N/A) R 9500 Pro ($95 used) yes it beats 9600pro! =R 9600 pro/XT ($100) =R X600 PRO/XT ($100) N 6200 non-tc($70 AGP) N 5600 pro/Ultra N 5800 N 5700/5750 R 9800 SE(128 bit) =N 5600 =R 9500/9550/9600 R X300 non-hc??? N 5700 LE (MINE) N GF4 Ti 4600 !!! N 5200 ULTRA N 5600 XT (XT=lower) R 9600 SE
this last group of expansion cards is equal to the current generation of integrated onboard graphics ***very slow***
N 5200/5500 N PCX 5300 N 6200 Turbocache R 9200 R X300 SE Hypermemory
by the way, these next three are the current generation of integrated onboard graphics chipsets, and they all have 3D gaming performance roughly equal to each other:
that reminds me of the FIA. for marketing purposes they would calculate how many times during the year that someone might have seen part of a race, and say that Formula One had like 100 Billion viewers (i can't remember the exact number they used, but it was way over the world's population). at first i thought that they had a misprint, till the color commentary explained it, with a chuckle.
here is a list i compiled by checking out many different benchmarks. in general the faster cards are on top, the slower ones below. since i am concentrating on affordable cards, i haven't placed many expensive cards above the nvidia 6600GT and radeon X1600XT, so there are many high-end ones available now that are not on this list. if you see a few cards back-to-back with an equal sign (=) in front, that means they are very similar in performance to the ones next to it that also have the "=" sign.
N/A = discontinuted
or Not Available
FASTER CARDS N 6800 Ultra $400-500 N 6800 GT R X800 Pro ~$250
R X1600 XT ($170)best price/performance N 6600 GT ($140) best price/performance
MSI & BFG = quiet
R 9950 ultra
N 6800 LE (LE=slower)
R X700 XT (N/A)
R X700 PRO($125,135)
N 5900U/5950 Ultra($250)
R 9800 PRO(~$140)
N 6600 ??? =R 9700 pro =R 9800 ($90??) =N 5900/5950
R 9700 ($110)
R X1300 PRO($105)
N 5800 ultra
(3GHz)
N 5700 Ultra (N/A)
R 9500 Pro ($95 used)
yes it beats 9600pro! =R 9600 pro/XT ($100) =R X600 PRO/XT ($100)
N 6200 non-tc($70 AGP)
N 5600 pro/Ultra
N 5800
N 5700/5750
R 9800 SE(128 bit) =N 5600 =R 9500/9550/9600
R X300 non-hc???
N 5700 LE (MINE)
N GF4 Ti 4600 !!!
N 5200 ULTRA
N 5600 XT (XT=lower)
R 9600 SE
this last group of expansion cards is equal to the current generation of integrated onboard graphics ***very slow***
N 5200/5500 N PCX 5300 N 6200 Turbocache R 9200 R X300 SE Hypermemory
by the way, these next three are the current generation of integrated onboard graphics chipsets, and they all have 3D gaming performance roughly equal to each other:
nah, tha's not bad, i was disapointed when the newer 939 64bit 3200+ didn't do better, but it's frequency dependant. also, what other progs you have running can really effect it. for example, just me being online, on dialup(!) can slow it down ten percent, and thats when i'm not even downloading anything.
try temporarily disabling everything under msconfig for just one boot, then see how much faster it computes 100000! btw, anything under 90 seconds is pretty fast.
that's twice as fast as the top scores i've seen so far. what version of windows are you running? is it the 64-bit version?
and sometimes dual core does speed it up, sometimes only one core is used, don't know why.
of course, mathmatica or rolling your own will be magnitudes faster. windows calculator is REALLY slow. that is kinda why i do the factorial: to see how much bloatware slows things down.
a very simple perfomance check i love to run on every computer i come across:
put windows calculator in scientific mode (yes, mathmatica or maple will do factorials in a fraction of the time, but try to post windows scores for comparison purposes....)
type in 100,000
hit the n! button
ignore the warnings that it will take a long time, don't even bother clicking on "Continue", because the calculation is still going.
and report how long it takes to complete a factorial of 100,000
please report what CPU you have
(btw, Hyper-Threading might speed things up 2x sometimes)
and i find that the calculator runs faster on win98 than XP...
neural networks is where it's at! that's pattern recognition for ya, whereas digital, logical programs have huge problems with patterns. neural nets also handle degraded and incomplete data, and can learn by example.
i forget what my sig is cause i have sigs turned off, hell i completely forget that slashdot has sigs at all. i guess i'm being hypocritical or something to have a sig and never see it or other's.
and it's prolly hard as hell to find a post by it's number anyway. (sorry)
shit, during the last few hours sittin here surfin, i've been listening to a few dozen Skinny Puppy songs, over a nice set of Cambridge Soundworks speakers. i keep finding myself turning up the volume every few minutes, until someone IMs me and the damn.wav blows my eardrums out. someone dumped a few albums of slayer and sepultura onto my flash drive the other day, and by the time i finished that off, my ears felt like i had just left a freakin concert. i almost wish i had a shitty sound system so that i coulnd't turn it up so loud, but i get too zoned out, and want to be pounded in the chest.
now everyone has so much music always available, in the car, on the computer, personal players, etc, i don't know how we can still hear anything. maybe that's good, cause i notice that i can't hear the annoying high pitch transformers anymore....
of course. well, HOW much does moving textures around really affect games? woudn't you like to know? and there is PLENTY of demand for PCI cards. the vid card makers charge a LOT MORE for them. yes, there are shitloads of systems shipped in the recent years with only onboard AGP. yes, i'm savy enough to make sure i don't get in that situation, and obviously you are savy enough too, but what do you tell that sweet innocent girl you like that the computer she just bought herself with the money she saved up from her first job is shit? when she starts playing something more intensive than the Sims, and you want to give her one of your AGP cards, and she doen'st even know what that is, so when you pop the case open, do you say "sorry darling, you're fucked cause you bought a Dell"? no, you try and get a PCI card. but try and find a review. the sites review fucking onboard graphics all the time. and they review bargain cards that prolly perform worse than the the best PCI cards. i say prolly cause well never know WHAT the performance is.
Slashdot Mirror
ha, i got labled a +1 troll. i guess some want to deny the stalincaust. or what happened in china in the name of making all men equal.
i wonder if good ol' MS is going to make their next OS run on it. i know that is far fetched considering they wouldn't support the itanium. and speaking of compilers, if they don't provide the performance, well, the Cell will go the same route as the itanium.
and 44%? sheesh, that number is so low as to be unbelieveable, considering the circumstances. i expected maybe 400%, or 4000%, or at LEAST a doubling.
ironic that that he was popular with communists, since they are the biggest racket of all, when defined as what the general population thinks is not what is really going on, and that the great communist regimes have slaughtered uncountable lives to give the small, "inside" group power.
if 200$ gets you 40 fps that's $5 a frame, not fiddy cent
here is a list i compiled by checking out many different benchmarks. in general the faster cards are on top, the slower ones below. since i am concentrating on affordable cards, i haven't placed many expensive cards above the nvidia 6600GT and radeon X1600XT, so there are many high-end ones available now that are not on this list. if you see a few cards back-to-back with an equal sign (=) in front, that means they are very similar in performance to the ones next to it that also have the "=" sign.
N/A = discontinuted
or Not Available
FASTER CARDS
N 6800 Ultra $400-500
N 6800 GT
R X800 Pro ~$250
R X1600 XT ($170)best price/performance
N 6600 GT ($140) best price/performance
MSI & BFG = quiet
R 9950 ultra
N 6800 LE (LE=slower)
R X700 XT (N/A)
R X700 PRO($125,135)
N 5900U/5950 Ultra($250)
R 9800 PRO(~$140)
N 6600 ???
=R 9700 pro
=R 9800 ($90??)
=N 5900/5950
R 9700 ($110)
R X1300 PRO($105)
N 5800 ultra
(3GHz)
N 5700 Ultra (N/A)
R 9500 Pro ($95 used)
yes it beats 9600pro!
=R 9600 pro/XT ($100)
=R X600 PRO/XT ($100)
N 6200 non-tc($70 AGP)
N 5600 pro/Ultra
N 5800
N 5700/5750
R 9800 SE(128 bit)
=N 5600
=R 9500/9550/9600
R X300 non-hc???
N 5700 LE (MINE)
N GF4 Ti 4600 !!!
N 5200 ULTRA
N 5600 XT (XT=lower)
R 9600 SE
this last group of expansion cards is equal to the current generation of integrated onboard graphics
***very slow***
N 5200/5500
N PCX 5300
N 6200 Turbocache
R 9200
R X300 SE Hypermemory
by the way, these next three are the current generation of integrated onboard graphics chipsets, and they all have 3D gaming performance roughly equal to each other:
-- Intel GMA 900/950
-- Geforce 6100/6150
-- ATI xpress 200
that reminds me of the FIA. for marketing purposes they would calculate how many times during the year that someone might have seen part of a race, and say that Formula One had like 100 Billion viewers (i can't remember the exact number they used, but it was way over the world's population). at first i thought that they had a misprint, till the color commentary explained it, with a chuckle.
here is a list i compiled by checking out many different benchmarks. in general the faster cards are on top, the slower ones below. since i am concentrating on affordable cards, i haven't placed many expensive cards above the nvidia 6600GT and
radeon X1600XT, so there are many high-end ones available now that are not on this list. if you see a few cards back-to-back with an equal sign (=) in front, that means they are very similar in performance to the ones next to it that also have the "=" sign.
N/A = discontinuted
or Not Available
FASTER CARDS
N 6800 Ultra $400-500
N 6800 GT
R X800 Pro ~$250
R X1600 XT ($170)best price/performance
N 6600 GT ($140) best price/performance
MSI & BFG = quiet
R 9950 ultra
N 6800 LE (LE=slower)
R X700 XT (N/A)
R X700 PRO($125,135)
N 5900U/5950 Ultra($250)
R 9800 PRO(~$140)
N 6600 ???
=R 9700 pro
=R 9800 ($90??)
=N 5900/5950
R 9700 ($110)
R X1300 PRO($105)
N 5800 ultra
(3GHz)
N 5700 Ultra (N/A)
R 9500 Pro ($95 used)
yes it beats 9600pro!
=R 9600 pro/XT ($100)
=R X600 PRO/XT ($100)
N 6200 non-tc($70 AGP)
N 5600 pro/Ultra
N 5800
N 5700/5750
R 9800 SE(128 bit)
=N 5600
=R 9500/9550/9600
R X300 non-hc???
N 5700 LE (MINE)
N GF4 Ti 4600 !!!
N 5200 ULTRA
N 5600 XT (XT=lower)
R 9600 SE
this last group of expansion cards is equal to the current generation of integrated onboard graphics
***very slow***
N 5200/5500
N PCX 5300
N 6200 Turbocache
R 9200
R X300 SE Hypermemory
by the way, these next three are the current generation of integrated onboard graphics chipsets, and they all have 3D gaming performance roughly equal to each other:
-- Intel GMA 900/950
-- Geforce 6100/6150
-- ATI xpress 200
nah, tha's not bad, i was disapointed when the newer 939 64bit 3200+ didn't do better, but it's frequency dependant. also, what other progs you have running can really effect it. for example, just me being online, on dialup(!) can slow it down ten percent, and thats when i'm not even downloading anything. try temporarily disabling everything under msconfig for just one boot, then see how much faster it computes 100000! btw, anything under 90 seconds is pretty fast.
Kano,
curious as to the clock speed of your 3000+...
also, what socket is it?
i'll add it to my list, thanks.
yes, you are right, i meant:
athlon 64 3200+ (2.0GHz socket 939, venice)
91 seconds
instead of athlon XP
sorry
also, is your 3700+ socket 754 or 939? the socket 754 3700+ was the last/most powerful chip for that socket.
that's twice as fast as the top scores i've seen so far. what version of windows are you running? is it the 64-bit version? and sometimes dual core does speed it up, sometimes only one core is used, don't know why.
true. this is just a quick and dirty benchmark that can be done on ANY machine that has windows on it, so it makes interesting comparisons easy.
of course, mathmatica or rolling your own will be magnitudes faster. windows calculator is REALLY slow. that is kinda why i do the factorial: to see how much bloatware slows things down.
here is my list (so far) of factorial times for "100,000!"
look at the XPs running at 2.0GHZ and notice how it is frequency dependant
P4 3.2GHz
81 seconds
athlon XP 3200+ (2.2GHz socket A, barton)
81 seconds
P4 3.0GHz (laptop)
90 seconds
athlon XP 3200+ (2.0GHz 939 venice)
91 seconds
athlon XP 2400+ (2.0GHz)
93 seconds
athlon XP 2100+
106 seconds
athlon XP 2000+ (1.67GHz)
121 seconds
athlon mobile XP 1800+ (1.52GHz)
122 seconds
celeron 2.7 GHz (northwood core)
130 seconds
celeron 1.4GHz (tualatin)
205 seconds
celeron 800MHz (win98)
333 seconds (5min 33sec)
celeron 800MHz (XP pro)
373 seconds
PIII 800 (XP pro)
474 seconds
PIII 450MHz (underclocked coppermine)
490 seconds
PII 333MHz
686 seconds
PII 300MHz
760 SECONDS
P 166MHz
2417 seconds
a very simple perfomance check i love to run on every computer i come across:
put windows calculator in scientific mode (yes, mathmatica or maple will do factorials in a fraction of the time, but try to post windows scores for comparison purposes....)
type in 100,000
hit the n! button
ignore the warnings that it will take a long time, don't even bother clicking on "Continue", because the calculation is still going.
and report how long it takes to complete a factorial of 100,000
please report what CPU you have
(btw, Hyper-Threading might speed things up 2x sometimes)
and i find that the calculator runs faster on win98 than XP...
celeron 800MHz (coppermine): 333 seconds (5min 33sec)
1.4GHz celeron (tualatin) does it in 205 seconds
P4 3.2Ghz and Athlon 3200+ both do it in about 80 seconds....
neural networks is where it's at! that's pattern recognition for ya, whereas digital, logical programs have huge problems with patterns. neural nets also handle degraded and incomplete data, and can learn by example.
i've scoured all the igp benchmarks for years, and currently these three chipsets are roughly equal:
GMA 900/950
Geforce 6100/6150
ATI xpress 200
AND, to put them into perspective, they all just barely beat a discrete FX5200 card, which is good news, i guess....
again, no one will read this as it is posted a whole three days later....
huh? shit, i guess i might as well toss that .45 round that i scratched my name onto that i keep in my pocket....
i forget what my sig is cause i have sigs turned off, hell i completely forget that slashdot has sigs at all. i guess i'm being hypocritical or something to have a sig and never see it or other's. and it's prolly hard as hell to find a post by it's number anyway. (sorry)
that is an excellent idea. i've done it before, i need to do it again. that fucking door slamming really sucked when i forget to turn the volume down.
and easily amused... i read slashdot
shit, during the last few hours sittin here surfin, i've been listening to a few dozen Skinny Puppy songs, over a nice set of Cambridge Soundworks speakers. i keep finding myself turning up the volume every few minutes, until someone IMs me and the damn .wav blows my eardrums out. someone dumped a few albums of slayer and sepultura onto my flash drive the other day, and by the time i finished that off, my ears felt like i had just left a freakin concert. i almost wish i had a shitty sound system so that i coulnd't turn it up so loud, but i get too zoned out, and want to be pounded in the chest.
now everyone has so much music always available, in the car, on the computer, personal players, etc, i don't know how we can still hear anything. maybe that's good, cause i notice that i can't hear the annoying high pitch transformers anymore....
of course. well, HOW much does moving textures around really affect games? woudn't you like to know? and there is PLENTY of demand for PCI cards. the vid card makers charge a LOT MORE for them. yes, there are shitloads of systems shipped in the recent years with only onboard AGP. yes, i'm savy enough to make sure i don't get in that situation, and obviously you are savy enough too, but what do you tell that sweet innocent girl you like that the computer she just bought herself with the money she saved up from her first job is shit? when she starts playing something more intensive than the Sims, and you want to give her one of your AGP cards, and she doen'st even know what that is, so when you pop the case open, do you say "sorry darling, you're fucked cause you bought a Dell"? no, you try and get a PCI card. but try and find a review. the sites review fucking onboard graphics all the time. and they review bargain cards that prolly perform worse than the the best PCI cards. i say prolly cause well never know WHAT the performance is.