4 ms·
It is quite amazing to see how far we've come since the C64. Clock speed: 1827x Benchmark: 430000x Memory: 65536x Power: 0.5x Screen resolution: 130x
by schappim 6y ago
It is quite amazing to see how far we've come since the C64.
Clock speed: 1827x
Benchmark: 430000x
Memory: 65536x
Power: 0.5x
Screen resolution: 130x
Serial port rate: 1562500x
Introductory price: 6x less
Reference:
[1] https://files.littlebird.com.au/Shared-Image-2020-11-02-20-06-07-Y9OS5.png https://files.littlebird.com.au/Shared-Image-2020-11-02-20-0...
- photon-torpedo 6y agoAnd boot time? ;)
- schappim 6y agoGotta give the C64 something.
- Cthulhu_ 6y agoI did a quick google, you can get "something" to boot within seconds, like a chess game made in assembly: https://www.raspberrypi.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=56413 https://www.raspberrypi.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=56413
- forinti 6y agoRISCOS boots really fast.
- TekMol 6y agoBenchmark: 430000x Cool. That would mean performence more then doubled on a yearly basis. Unfortunately, your "reference" is just the same numbers you posted but as an image. I don't know if this counts as a "reference" :) Any links to who performed those benchmarks?
- boltefnovor 6y agoDemanding facts and methodology eh? You don’t seem to understand benchmarks.
- rbanffy 6y agoOr any meaningful benchmarks that can run on both a C64 and a modern computer.
- brucehoult 6y agoI think this one isn't bad. I've run it on everything down to 8 bit AVR. I haven't tried 6502 but it would fit no problem. http://hoult.org/primes.txt http://hoult.org/primes.txt
- rbanffy 6y agoMy concern is that almost anything that fits in a C64 will run out of the L1 cache in most modern CPUs and yield very unrealistic results compared to reasonable modern workloads.
- jerf 6y agoI think that's a valid result in its own way, though. It's not the poor C64's fault that we insist on chewing through megabytes and gigabytes just to run a chat app.
- rbanffy 6y ago> It's not the poor C64's fault that we insist on chewing through megabytes and gigabytes just to run a chat app. "Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."
- gameswithgo 6y agoEvery benchmark means something. The problem is you make a benchmark to measure the thing you are curious about. If that then indicates a result that makes something you like look bad, then you feel it is an unfair benchmark. Or if you were curious about some other kind of performance, then it is a bad benchmark. Every benchmark is meaningless or unfair to somebody.
- pvg 6y agoThat would mean performence more then doubled on a yearly basis. How do you figure? They were released 30+ years apart. 2^30 would be a billion times faster. Instead it's something under 19 doublings, nowhere close to doubling every year for 37 years.
- atonse 6y agoIsn’t Moore’s law a doubling (of density) every two years?
- pvg 6y agoThere are a lot of different ways to state it (often including constraints like price), in part because it's not really a 'law'. But the main thing is, 500k times performance does not represent 'more than doubling' performance on a yearly basis as this comment claims.
- 0-_-0 6y agoBTW it's a doubling every 1.54 years
- pvg 6y agoFor the numbers in that pic, it would be every 2-ish, which makes me wonder if the GP just flipped a reciprocal somewhere. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=37+%2F+log+base+2+%28430000%29 https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=37+%2F+log+base+2+%284...
- fcantournet 6y agoI think it's just the case of random boomer think 1980 was 20 years ago :)
- throwaway894345 6y agoI make that mistake and I'm only a boomer for the derogatory gen-z definition that includes anyone older than 25.