3 ms·
I miss those dramatic performance leaps in the 80s. 10x in 5 years, give or take. Now we get like 2x in a decade (single core).
by lysace 1y ago
I miss those dramatic performance leaps in the 80s. 10x in 5 years, give or take.
Now we get like 2x in a decade (single core).
- rasz 1y agoThere was no performance improvement clock for clock between 286 and 386 when running contemporary 16 bit code https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?t=46350 https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?t=46350
- lysace 1y agoOk. I'm speaking of e.g. the leap between the IBM PC in 1981 and the Compaq 386 five years later. Or between that and the 486 another five years later or so.
- vnorilo 1y agoI wrote blitters in assembly back in those days for my teenager hobby games. When I could actually target the 386 with its dword moves, it felt blisteringly fast. Maybe the 386 didn't run 286 code much faster but I recall the chip being one of the most mind-blowing target machine upgrades I experienced. Much later I recall the FPU-supported quadword copy in 486dx and of course P6 meeting MMX in Pentium II. Good times.
- lysace 1y agoAs did I :). Imagine how it felt going from an 8086 @ 8 MHz to an 80486SX (the cheapo version without FPU) @ 33 MHz. With blazingly fast REP MOVSD over some form of proto local bus Compaq implemented using a Tseng Labs ET4000/W32i vga chip.
- to11mtm 1y agoYou're 100% right that the 386 had a huge amount of changes that were pivotal in the future of x86 and the ability to write good/fast code. I think a bigger challenge back then was the lack of software that could take advantage of it. Given the nascent state of the industry, lots of folks wrote for the 'lowest common denominator' and kept it at that (i.e. expense of hardware to test things like changing routines used based on CPU sniffing.) And even then of course sometimes folks were lazy. One of my (least) favorite examples of this is the PC 'version' (It's not at all the original) of Mega Man 3. On a 486/33 you had the option of it being almost impossible twitchy fast, or dog slow thanks to turbo button. Or, the fun thing where Turbo Pascal compiled apps could start crapping out if CPU was too fast... Sorry, I digress. the 386 was a seemingly small step that was actually a leap forward. Folks just had to catch up.
- magicalhippo 1y agoI was programming in Turbo Pascal at the time, which was still 16-bit. But when I upgraded my 286 to a Cyrix 486, on a 386 motherboard[1], I could utilize the full 32-bit registers by prefixing assembly instructions with 0x66 using db[1]. This was a huge boost for a lot of my 3D rendering code, despite the prefix not being free compared to pure 32-bit mode. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrix_Cx486DLC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrix_Cx486DLC [2]: http://www.c-jump.com/CIS77/ASM/DataTypes/T77_0030_allocation_directives.htm http://www.c-jump.com/CIS77/ASM/DataTypes/T77_0030_allocatio...
- Grosvenor 1y agoWell, that's not at all true. The 286 in the benchmark was using 60ns Siemens ram, and a 25mhz unit which virtually no one has ever seen in the wild. 286's that people actually bought topped out at 12mhz. The 386 in the test was using 70ns ram. Lets see them both with 60ns ram.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- forinti 1y agoIn the 90s, every time you got a new computer it would have at least twice the RAM, sometimes 4x.
- mrheosuper 1y agoMy upgrade path kind of following the same pattern even at modern time. My 4th gen intel haswell machine had 8gb of ram, then i upgraded to amd zen2 with 16gb ram. After that i upgraded to zen3+ with 32gb ram, and currently my laptop is zen4 with 64gb of ddr5 ram.