Stop Microsoft

All Things Microsoft => Microsoft Hardware => Topic started by: Fett101 on 18 February 2003, 21:01

Title: Benchmark comparisons 65 CPUs, 100mhz to 3066mhz
Post by: Fett101 on 18 February 2003, 21:01: Article (http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/index.html)

Running XP and a geforce4 with a 100mhz pentium ...odd
Title: Benchmark comparisons 65 CPUs, 100mhz to 3066mhz
Post by: ForceSphere on 27 February 2003, 03:14: quote:
Theoretically, you can install Windows XP on a 486 machine, but you cannot conduct any meaningful tests.

25mhz of pure power. Quick get some ice, this poor little processor is about to blow it’s little wad.

This actually is a pretty good site for information on processors. But, unless im blind, i see no actually figures that stack up. Did these people just do some research on processors or did they benchmark them as their site implies. I may be wrong because i didnt spend much time at the site.

It would also be better to see how things stack when you have a 500mhz Linux comp vs. the new 3.06ghz Windows XP.

Oh yeah, while we are on the subject of 3.06 Have you heard the shit about the buzz word Hyper-Threading Technology? Windows XP is suppose to be so great with it, but when XP is installed w/ Hyper-Threading on it automatically loads a shit load more proggies when you start. It makes you wonder if microsoft enjoys doing gayass shit that makes no sense why. Next they're will be HyperThreading requirements on software.

P.S. although i've never used the new 3.06 i have read some reviews thats say it actualls loads shit slower than regular, WAHAHHAHAHA.
Title: Benchmark comparisons 65 CPUs, 100mhz to 3066mhz
Post by: hm_murdock on 6 March 2003, 08:54: they tested 65 processors, from 100 to 3066 MHz...

the verdict?

x86 still sucks balls
Title: Benchmark comparisons 65 CPUs, 100mhz to 3066mhz
Post by: Kintaro on 6 March 2003, 11:53: XP Could not install on a 486

Its impossible because a 486 can only take upto 32mb of ram, XP needs at least 64mb (and still runs like shit then).
Title: Benchmark comparisons 65 CPUs, 100mhz to 3066mhz
Post by: hm_murdock on 7 March 2003, 02:56: why would you want to run expee on a 486 anyway?
Title: Benchmark comparisons 65 CPUs, 100mhz to 3066mhz
Post by: cahult on 7 March 2003, 05:59: Who believes in benchmarks anyway? I cannot say if I believe in them or not, this is not my field so I
Title: Benchmark comparisons 65 CPUs, 100mhz to 3066mhz
Post by: Fett101 on 7 March 2003, 21:15: quote:
Originally posted by cahult:
Who believes in benchmarks anyway? I cannot say if I believe in them or not, this is not my field so I
Title: Benchmark comparisons 65 CPUs, 100mhz to 3066mhz
Post by: LocNar on 9 March 2003, 21:34: While on the topic of benchmarks... Does anyone here have experience with ALPHA or SPARC systems? A few years ago, I wrote a C program to distinguish between knots (input as an ordered list of coordinates of the vertices of a polygonal path). I ran the program on an SGI (don't remember what model.) Anyway, it took anywhere from a fraction of a second (for a simple overhand knot) to 15 minutes (for a knot with about 500 crossings). I did this for a research project at a university, using their equipment. Now, I'm interested in playing with the program again. My question is, does anyone have up-to-date benchmarks comparing recent SPARCS, ALPHAS, SGIs, intels, motorolas?

I did a little research on the web and found some info (a little outdated) that compared older SPARC's with Pentium III's. The benches said that for integer calculations, equivalent CPU speeds produced equivalent computation times. But, the 64-bit machines ran about 1.5 times as fast as the intels using floating-point calculations.

I'm considering picking up an older machine (Sun SPARC 5 or 20) from ebay. Will it outperform my shiny new AMD 1900+ with 512 MB memory? I suspect not. What about newer SUN's?

Thanks.
Title: Benchmark comparisons 65 CPUs, 100mhz to 3066mhz
Post by: choasforages on 10 March 2003, 18:59: depends on what you are doing, if you are messing with calculations and such, the amd chip would probably win, but if you are slinging data around the sun has a better chance. its too bad somebody doesn't pick up the alpha torch and burn the house of intel down with it. by putting it behind the nforce chipset, or the kt400. i think i heard a rumor about the kt series of processers. owell, the spirit of the alpha lives on in the athlon series of processers. quite literally actally, amd licensed the architecture to get smp working from what i heard
Title: Benchmark comparisons 65 CPUs, 100mhz to 3066mhz
Post by: mattymanx on 13 March 2003, 08:58: quote:
At 2.6 frames per second, Unreal Tournament 2003 looks like a slide show on our Pentium 100

Interesting stuff there.

funny too!
Title: Benchmark comparisons 65 CPUs, 100mhz to 3066mhz
Post by: Kintaro on 13 March 2003, 15:04: I dont belive in benchmarkings, like those ones in park bench's saying "RMS was ere 84" in old ones, there bullshit.
Title: Benchmark comparisons 65 CPUs, 100mhz to 3066mhz
Post by: KernelPanic on 13 March 2003, 20:26: quote:
Originally posted by Void Main:
I dont belive in benchmarkings, like those ones in park bench's saying "RMS was ere 84" in old ones, there bullshit.

What is this blasphemy!

U ain't Void Main.
Title: Benchmark comparisons 65 CPUs, 100mhz to 3066mhz
Post by: theangelofdeath69 on 28 April 2003, 16:21: Why would you want to install XP at all? Besides... what the hell is this HyperThreading shit? I just got a Gigabyte board with it and what did it do? It disabled it!!!
Title: Benchmark comparisons 65 CPUs, 100mhz to 3066mhz
Post by: Fett101 on 28 April 2003, 21:33: Hyper-Threading Technology is a groundbreaking innovation from Intel
Title: Benchmark comparisons 65 CPUs, 100mhz to 3066mhz
Post by: theangelofdeath69 on 29 April 2003, 00:46: Thanks. But exactly when has Intel ever innovated? Sounds lovely and all, but there actually aren't many parallel tasking operating systems out there, and you can do it with NT or *nix on a dual processor system anywayz.