3 ms·

I would be interested in a benchmark of a 2004 Pentium 4 3GHz HT against the single core performance of a 2016 i7 3 GHz. (To make it compareable, the memory mod

by frik 11y ago

I would be interested in a benchmark of a 2004 Pentium 4 3GHz HT against the single core performance of a 2016 i7 3 GHz. (To make it compareable, the memory modules have to be as slow as in the 2004 era, also the hdd.)

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
redtuesday 11y ago
Yeah, that would be interesting. I would not be surprised if some people did that already with Cinebenchs single thread mode.
- redtuesday 11y ago
  Since I can't edit my post anymore - the closest thing I could find was Cinebench R10 32 Bit (Single Core) comparisons (unfortunately without deactivated turbo boost and adjusted clock and RAM speeds): Intel Pentium 4 660 - 3.60 Ghz - 2245 Points AMD Athlon X2 6000+ - 3.00 Ghz - 2848 Points Intel Core2 Duo E8400 - 3.00 Ghz - 3647 Points AMD Phenom II X6 1075T - 3.00 Ghz - 3820 Points AMD FX 8320E - 3.20 Ghz - 4056 Points Intel Core i7 950 - 3.06 Ghz - 4353 Points Intel Core i7 3930 - 3.20 Ghz - 6268 Points Intel Core i7 5960X - 3.00 Ghz - 6950 Points It's sad to see that AMD could compete in single core performance until Sandy Bridge (i7 3930) came along. Would be nice if Zen can at least get Sandy Bridge numbers paired with good efficiency so we get more competition in the x86 space again. Numbers taken from: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Desktop-CPUs-best-Overall-Performance-4311159?col0=cinebench-10-32-single http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Desktop-CPUs-best-Overall-Performanc...
  - bubuga 11y ago
    > It's sad to see that AMD could compete in single core performance until Sandy Bridge (i7 3930) came along. Well, an AMD FX 8320E sells for less than 110€, while the Intel Core i7 3930 sells for over 500€. Sounds like AMD has a very competitive offering, both in terms of price and price/performance ratio.
    - merb 11y ago
      However the Performance to power Ratio of amd just Sucks. If you don't care that amd needs more energy than you are fine
    - redtuesday 11y ago
      Yes, absolutely the price and price/performance from AMD is good (I would compare it against the 2600k (4 core/8 threads) though, which was 300 but still faster, or even the 2500k (4 cores/4 threads) which was ~230 but still faster). Unfortunately as merb already mentioned the performance to power ratio is not really good for AMD, which I guess contributes quite a bit to AMDs lost marketshare in the server segment (plus it doesn't look good in reviews which is bad for AMDs mindshare, which already is far behind Intel and Nvidia). And until Mantle/Vulkan/DX12 the performance in quite a few games was noticable behind Intel because AMDs single core performance was not on par which was bad because DX11 is basically single threaded. [1] Overall I guess AMDs biggest problem is the mindshare. Wheras Intel or Nvidia can allow themselves one or two not so great generations, AMD tanks as soon as they have problems. AMDs HD 5000 generation was out sooner than Nvidia, faster and more energy efficient, but it only helped them gain 5% marketshare (around 45% at the time). AMDs 7000 generation could compete with Nvidia, but used more energy and bang, Nvidia regained more than the 5% percent that they lost, and that continued with Maxwell (they now have ~75% marketshare even though AMDs cards can compete on performance). [2] The same with Intel, when AMD could compete, and even beat Intel in performance and efficency over many years, they gained not that much marketshare (in part because of Intels shady manipulation, but in part probably also because of mindshare). Intels Conroe could regain some of the marketshare Intel lost thanks to its Pentium 4 (which reduced AMDS ~48% to 35%). Then came Bulldozer, which was underwhelming outside of multithreaded tasks and late in part thanks to GloFos 32nm problems and now AMD has aroun 20% marketshare). In the server space it's even worse for AMD with less than 1% marketshare compared to 25% around 2006-2007. [1] http://www.littletinyfrogs.com/article/460524/DirectX_11_vs_DirectX_12_oversimplified http://www.littletinyfrogs.com/article/460524/DirectX_11_vs_... [2] http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Nvidia-AMD.png http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Nvidia-AM...
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
rostigerpudel 11y ago
Well this isn't exactly a fair comparison, still it seems to indicate that overall (not for specific applications eg. graphics acceleration), the performance improvement is not that massive: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=1081&cmp[]=1074&cmp[]=2503 http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=1081&cmp[]=107...
- lucaspiller 11y ago
  Thats not really a good comparison as Intel was back in the game then (Core 2 processors were popular, and the Pentiums were just lower end versions of that keeping the brand alive). The Pentium 4 519K from 2004, part of the Prescott (90nm) family, would be a good comparison. I think it was the first CPU that was easily overclockable to 4GHz, or in extreme cases 6Ghz (with enough water cooling). Sadly it's not on that site (or at least I can't find it on mobile).

by frik 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

redtuesday 11y ago

Yeah, that would be interesting. I would not be surprised if some people did that already with Cinebenchs single thread mode.

redtuesday 11y ago
Since I can't edit my post anymore - the closest thing I could find was Cinebench R10 32 Bit (Single Core) comparisons (unfortunately without deactivated turbo boost and adjusted clock and RAM speeds): Intel Pentium 4 660 - 3.60 Ghz - 2245 Points AMD Athlon X2 6000+ - 3.00 Ghz - 2848 Points Intel Core2 Duo E8400 - 3.00 Ghz - 3647 Points AMD Phenom II X6 1075T - 3.00 Ghz - 3820 Points AMD FX 8320E - 3.20 Ghz - 4056 Points Intel Core i7 950 - 3.06 Ghz - 4353 Points Intel Core i7 3930 - 3.20 Ghz - 6268 Points Intel Core i7 5960X - 3.00 Ghz - 6950 Points It's sad to see that AMD could compete in single core performance until Sandy Bridge (i7 3930) came along. Would be nice if Zen can at least get Sandy Bridge numbers paired with good efficiency so we get more competition in the x86 space again. Numbers taken from: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Desktop-CPUs-best-Overall-Performance-4311159?col0=cinebench-10-32-single http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Desktop-CPUs-best-Overall-Performanc...
- bubuga 11y ago
  > It's sad to see that AMD could compete in single core performance until Sandy Bridge (i7 3930) came along. Well, an AMD FX 8320E sells for less than 110€, while the Intel Core i7 3930 sells for over 500€. Sounds like AMD has a very competitive offering, both in terms of price and price/performance ratio.
  - merb 11y ago
    However the Performance to power Ratio of amd just Sucks. If you don't care that amd needs more energy than you are fine
  - redtuesday 11y ago
    Yes, absolutely the price and price/performance from AMD is good (I would compare it against the 2600k (4 core/8 threads) though, which was 300 but still faster, or even the 2500k (4 cores/4 threads) which was ~230 but still faster). Unfortunately as merb already mentioned the performance to power ratio is not really good for AMD, which I guess contributes quite a bit to AMDs lost marketshare in the server segment (plus it doesn't look good in reviews which is bad for AMDs mindshare, which already is far behind Intel and Nvidia). And until Mantle/Vulkan/DX12 the performance in quite a few games was noticable behind Intel because AMDs single core performance was not on par which was bad because DX11 is basically single threaded. [1] Overall I guess AMDs biggest problem is the mindshare. Wheras Intel or Nvidia can allow themselves one or two not so great generations, AMD tanks as soon as they have problems. AMDs HD 5000 generation was out sooner than Nvidia, faster and more energy efficient, but it only helped them gain 5% marketshare (around 45% at the time). AMDs 7000 generation could compete with Nvidia, but used more energy and bang, Nvidia regained more than the 5% percent that they lost, and that continued with Maxwell (they now have ~75% marketshare even though AMDs cards can compete on performance). [2] The same with Intel, when AMD could compete, and even beat Intel in performance and efficency over many years, they gained not that much marketshare (in part because of Intels shady manipulation, but in part probably also because of mindshare). Intels Conroe could regain some of the marketshare Intel lost thanks to its Pentium 4 (which reduced AMDS ~48% to 35%). Then came Bulldozer, which was underwhelming outside of multithreaded tasks and late in part thanks to GloFos 32nm problems and now AMD has aroun 20% marketshare). In the server space it's even worse for AMD with less than 1% marketshare compared to 25% around 2006-2007. [1] http://www.littletinyfrogs.com/article/460524/DirectX_11_vs_DirectX_12_oversimplified http://www.littletinyfrogs.com/article/460524/DirectX_11_vs_... [2] http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Nvidia-AMD.png http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Nvidia-AM...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

rostigerpudel 11y ago

Well this isn't exactly a fair comparison, still it seems to indicate that overall (not for specific applications eg. graphics acceleration), the performance improvement is not that massive: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=1081&cmp[]=1074&cmp[]=2503 http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=1081&cmp[]=107...

lucaspiller 11y ago
Thats not really a good comparison as Intel was back in the game then (Core 2 processors were popular, and the Pentiums were just lower end versions of that keeping the brand alive). The Pentium 4 519K from 2004, part of the Prescott (90nm) family, would be a good comparison. I think it was the first CPU that was easily overclockable to 4GHz, or in extreme cases 6Ghz (with enough water cooling). Sadly it's not on that site (or at least I can't find it on mobile).