3 ms·

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel-haswell-icelake&num=7 https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel-ha... Check out where

by aksss 5y ago

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel-haswell-icelake&num=7 https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel-ha... Check out where the broadwell and haswell procs are on this plot relative to a 10th gen processor. You probably couldn't spreadsheet faster on an 11th gen, but you could have more workbooks open, drive a couple large hi-res monitors, do VC with OBS in the middle, while screen sharing, while running several other apps, and add in a few VMs/containers and an IDE on an 11th gen platform (e.g. XPS 9310), all of which you absolutely could not do on a Broadwell or even Skylake platform - I've tried. It's all about what your workload/requirement is, right?

Delk 5y ago
You're not wrong about there being substantive performance improvements in recent CPU generations, or that workloads matter. However, the leaps in the 90's were great enough that you wouldn't have been able to run even the latest OS (or apps written for it) on mid-range 7-year-old hardware, at least not with any kind of comfort. I would have been almost outlandish to even try. Windows 95 should have theoretically run on a 386 from the early 90's, but I'm not sure it would have really been usable. In the late 80's you might have got a 286 -- not much luck running Windows 3.11 four or five years later on that. If you got a Pentium circa 1995, good luck running Windows XP or even Windows 2000 on it. Looking at the charts in the Phoronix article, the overall performance (geometric mean) approximately doubled from Broadwell to 10th gen. That's more than I would have expected based on how incremental the generation-to-generation changes appear, and it's certainly substantial if your workload involves any kind of heavy lifting. However, in the 90's, performance would have doubled every couple of years or so. Within a time frame similar to Broadwell to 10th gen, it would probably have more than quadrupled.

by aksss 5y ago

Delk 5y ago

You're not wrong about there being substantive performance improvements in recent CPU generations, or that workloads matter. However, the leaps in the 90's were great enough that you wouldn't have been able to run even the latest OS (or apps written for it) on mid-range 7-year-old hardware, at least not with any kind of comfort. I would have been almost outlandish to even try. Windows 95 should have theoretically run on a 386 from the early 90's, but I'm not sure it would have really been usable. In the late 80's you might have got a 286 -- not much luck running Windows 3.11 four or five years later on that. If you got a Pentium circa 1995, good luck running Windows XP or even Windows 2000 on it. Looking at the charts in the Phoronix article, the overall performance (geometric mean) approximately doubled from Broadwell to 10th gen. That's more than I would have expected based on how incremental the generation-to-generation changes appear, and it's certainly substantial if your workload involves any kind of heavy lifting. However, in the 90's, performance would have doubled every couple of years or so. Within a time frame similar to Broadwell to 10th gen, it would probably have more than quadrupled.