Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
fir

reliable pc benchmark

This topic is 2048 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

(sory if im writing unclear, my head aches a bit today)

 

i would like to get some reliable benchmark for the pc machines

on the historic course (386, 486, .. pentium 1, 2, 3, 4 .. sandy, ivy, etc)

is there somethink like that ? I alwaty need that but cannot find that,

 

thing like time of compression of the files like winrar do (vaguely remember)

could be ok, or something like that ,- though test should be fair i mean 

the same binary run, or the same source run with best avaliable compiler in each cases not 'tendentious' tweaks - something fair - is there something like that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
There can't be a benchmark that fairly compares the features of a modern CPU to a 386-era CPU.

SIMD instruction sets, changes in superscalar pipeline architecture, cache sizes, and even die processing resolution can all have dramatic effects on CPU performance. You also need to consider the fact that much work in CPU design in the past decade has gone into power consumption reduction rather than outright speed of computation.

Benchmarks have changed almost as much as CPU hardware has changed in the past 20 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There can't be a benchmark that fairly compares the features of a modern CPU to a 386-era CPU.

SIMD instruction sets, changes in superscalar pipeline architecture, cache sizes, and even die processing resolution can all have dramatic effects on CPU performance. You also need to consider the fact that much work in CPU design in the past decade has gone into power consumption reduction rather than outright speed of computation.

Benchmarks have changed almost as much as CPU hardware has changed in the past 20 years.

 

If you have some binary for win32 that calculates a pi digits or something like that and you run this on whole set of pc machines i mention - i would call and understand it as fair test (and just this im searching)

 

it is fragmentaric and not complete (becouse newer machines offer new instruction sets and other possible optymizations),

but just search for the weaker kind of 'fair' 

 

(the other thing you say i can call superfair and this could be

impossible but i need just the first kind (i mean where test values

are unchanged or clearly stated etc, and maybe yet described to see what fragment of the soft thing they compare)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


it is fragmentaric and not complete (becouse newer machines offer new instruction sets and other possible optymizations),
but just search for the weaker kind of 'fair' 

 

So what's the point of the benchmark then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


it is fragmentaric and not complete (becouse newer machines offer new instruction sets and other possible optymizations),
but just search for the weaker kind of 'fair' 

 

So what's the point of the benchmark then?

 

 

made more complete view using a whole set of fragmentaric benchmarks or just made a fragmentaric view

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Testing only a single thing such as computing digits of pi won't satisfy many people's needs. I could have a superfast CPU, and a really crappy bus, and it would compute pi fine but suck at everything else.

Composite benchmarks have the opposite problem - your score can be nerfed by a single slow result.

I'm interested in benchmarks which perform all combinations - individual and composite tests. This gives you much more insight to how the computer behaves in all usage patterns. Edited by Nypyren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Testing only a single thing such as computing digits of pi won't satisfy many people's needs. I could have a superfast CPU, and a really crappy bus, and it would compute pi fine but suck at everything else.

Composite benchmarks have the opposite problem - your score can be nerfed by a single slow result.

I'm interested in benchmarks which perform all combinations - individual and composite tests. This gives you much more insight to how the computer behaves in all usage patterns.

 

Im interested too, so if someone know some links i would like to see it (i did not extensive search in google recently but ,maybe someone was interested in the thing before and know some thing,

there are some kind of benchmarks seen on old system info software or in magazines but their point results were hard to

interpretation, I would like just some c or asm code benchmarks maybe)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

benchmarks should test the type of performance you're interested in (processor, I/O, graphics, etc).

 

going back to machines as old as the 386, about the only benchmarks you'll find data for are MIPS and FLOPS, bus speeds and size, and hard drive seek times - not much to go on. Moving to newer more parallel architectures, these benchmarks are not as solid as they once were. Once you get into 486's you might find old graphics benchmark software data, but its unlikely you'll find the same benchmark software data for newer PCs. And then there's stuff like WinMark for later PCs, which may or may not test what you'e interested in. PCs have sort of evolved from apples into oranges, making comparisons of older and newer architectures difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ApochPiQ is correct: no meaningful programatic comparison exists.  You could, for example write code and then make several builds, such as:

* Unoptimized

* Generally optimized (such as by the compiler)

* Highly optimized (by a human skilled in the CPU's technology)

 

But, several questions would frustrate you:

1) How can you be sure about the skill of the optimizer

2) What compilers should you use (they have changed too)

 

In reality, for what you want, a theoretical comparison will be more accurate than anything practical; you can do a better job with spec sheets, a bit of rudimentary knowledge and a pencil and paper than you can with anything in code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!