3 ms·
You’re not wrong, since the 4.5x number comes from a comparison with the rPi 1. The rPi 4 is over 10x faster than the 1. The original article points out that
by tass 3y ago
You’re not wrong, since the 4.5x number comes from a comparison with the rPi 1.
The rPi 4 is over 10x faster than the 1.
The original article points out that the raspberry pi 400, with the benchmark targeting 64 bits, was about 80x Cray for the same benchmark which was 4.5x for the rPi 1.
Raspberry Pi 5 advertises a 2-3x performance gain over earlier versions, though this wasn’t benchmarked in these tests.
- postmodest 3y agoAren't these also in FLOPS? The rpi isn't exactly a floating-point monster. Hell, until the Pentium, Intel CPU's weren't guaranteed to even have an FPU. As to ARM in general, here's a post about how ARM-1 compared to the 387: https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/24826/did-the-arm-1-really-outperform-the-387 https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/24826/did...
- justin66 3y ago> Hell, until the Pentium, Intel CPU's weren't guaranteed to even have an FPU. 80486
- peterfirefly 3y ago486SX
- justin66 3y agoThe 80486SX was introduced two years after the 80486 and did not have an FPU (unless it was purchased as an option). I think the meaning of my comment was clear: the 80486 was the first Intel CPU guaranteed to have an FPU. I didn't say all the Intel CPUs which came afterward were guaranteed to have them...
- postmodest 3y agoMy first "my own purchase" PC was a 486sx. So as a _line_, "the 486" wasn't guaranteed to have an FPU.
- justin66 3y agoI guess that's true. I never really thought of them as the same thing. Looking over some old info about the "i486" (I swear I had completely forgotten about the i) was a treat. It's only barely believable but I think the sheer annoyingness of Intel's marketing and market segmentation might have actually peaked three decades ago.