Today's Best CPUs Compared... To a Pentium 4 354
Dr. Damage writes "How do current $74 CPUs compare to the $133 ones? To exclusive $1K Extreme Editions? Interesting questions, but what if you took a five-year-old Pentium 4 at 3.8GHz and pitted it against today's CPUs in a slew of games and other applications? The results are eye-opening." Note that this voluminous comparison is presented over 18 pages with no single-page view in sight.
Re:Eye-opening? (Score:3, Interesting)
The conclusion I made is that liberal arts majors have no business trying to convey technical information. (Jump to the conclusions page to verify that the author was a liberal arts major.)
P4 and MythTV (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been using a Pentium 4 3.0GHz-powered box as a MythTV frontend/backend [gossamer-threads.com] for more than four years. It often records four high-definition over-the-air or FireWire MPEG-2 streams while playing back another.
For the first three years I used an Nvidia video card with Xv output to play the recordings at very good quality with 50-70% CPU usage. A year ago I moved to VDPAU [mythtv.org], which gives me even better playback with under 5% CPU usage, and will do the same with h.264 recordings (generated by the Hauppauge HD-PVR [mythtv.org], for example). Thanks to VDPAU, there's every possibility I'll be able to use the Pentium 4 box for another four years.
Re:And the answer is... (Score:5, Interesting)
...and the fastest modern CPU is still not fast enough for another 2%.
"...no single-page view in sight" (Score:4, Interesting)
There's an easy way to thwart that advertising blackmail for users of Firefox: the AutoPager extension. Antipagination would probably still work for older versions of Firefox.
Re:Games don't use multiple cores? (Score:5, Interesting)
Speaking as a PS3 dev, the SPUs are very different to program for than a normal multi-core cpu (and you only get to use five and a half of them anyway, not 7).
On the flip side, everything based on UE3 (which is most big cpu-hungry multi-platform titles these days) is multithreaded to two or three significant threads: Game, rendering, and possibly physics (depending on physics engine used). None of them are SPU threads (though they may use the SPUs for some tasks), so PS3 performance isn't generally as good as the 360's, but in most games it's a non-issue as both platforms go over the 30 fps cap.
On PC, most UE3 games will run best on two cores, with anything above that being unnecessary.
P4 is quite enough...? (Score:2, Interesting)
All these multicores barely give any real advantage to a regular gamer/desktop user at the moment.
something missing.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Did anyone else notice how the Q9550 and Q9650 are absent from this article?
Probably the last thing Intel wants is these previous generation (and attractively priced) chips appearing in the "overall performance per dollar" chart on "Page 17 - The value proposition". Instead, we get a graph where only the i5 and i7 chips appear to perform well beyond any of the older options, but it's a carefully crafted illusion because the faster (and attractively priced) versions of those older chips weren't tested.
My old work computer (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm still using a HP zd7000, a P4 laptop from several years ago as my main PC. The battery has long since died, but it's still perfect for general use with the docking station.
I've considered plunking down $300 for a modern laptop, but it never seemed to be an issue. This laptop is still "good enough".
Re:Games don't use multiple cores? (Score:3, Interesting)
> Jeez, the pedants are out in force today...
Well, if you're wrong, you're wrong. Don't blame us since the bit you got wrong is pivotal to the discussion.
> Let me try again: SGI always had multi CPU machines available for running Performer
Well, I'm sure they[1] did since they made the things. Customers, on the other hand, did not. Heck, there were several games for SGI that ran on single CPU systems just fine.
> PC games not using multiple CPUs is completely separate from SGI machines running Performer
Well, again, that's irrelevant. My point is that, if SGI can do it, then "PC games" can too - ie there's no necessity to always code for the lowest common denomitor.
[1] I say 'they', when I should say 'we' - I worked there and my specialty was Onyx2 and OpenGL Performer and I used it mostly on single CPU systems since otherwise I would have to go into a lab.
Re:Other factors (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Games don't use multiple cores? (Score:5, Interesting)
I work on flight simulators and we DEPEND on multiple core processors to get everything done at once. What used to take multiple racks of computers can now be done on a single computer with dual quad-core CPUs.
You think IPC is slow on a single machine? Try using reflective memory across multiple computers. Of course we have to handle a bit more than your typical video game since we have to handle hundreds of buttons and switches from multiple crew member stations, night vision, FLIR and day TV cameras, as well as out the window displays.
Re:P4 and MythTV (Score:3, Interesting)
I have the same idea. The slowest CPU on the market is way fast enough for almost anything, unless you have very specific needs. The CPU speed issue is solved and done with. I lost interest some 10 years ago, and started to get more interested in what we are actually doing with it: the software that runs on it, and user interfaces.
Re:More interesting question: Pentium M vs Atom et (Score:3, Interesting)
Definitely!
What OS do you run?
If Linux, what WM/DM do you use?
If KDE 4, which is faster?
When compiling stuff, which of them is faster?
What is your overall feeling about their relative responsiveness?
Anything else I missed and you deem important :)
The most interesting part of the review: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is this little jewel on page 14:
This to me is the most telling thing in the review. The bloat that has crept into the software made the same cpu take twice as long to render the same scene. This is why we have machines now that make the machines we used 10 years ago look stupid by the numbers, while they don't really offer that much of an improvement in experience due to the incredible amounts of software bloat eating all the extra resources available. This one little paragraph should make the people involved with POVray bow their heads in shame.