What's the deal with the huge margins on each bar? They are twice as high as they should be and 4x as high as they could be.

Also anandtech.com/PostNewComment.aspx is titled 'Untitled Page'.

Reply

I agree; there's a lot of wasted vertical space. I'd like to see it tightened up.

Otherwise: great feature, I'm glad to see it, please keep it updated! It's the only thing you guys were missing vs. other places like THG.

Reply

IE, Desktop 35/45watt cpu's from intel and Amd in reduced speed modes (like 1ghz) to compare against dual core atoms, and or high speed 1.8 - 2.0 ghz single core atoms?

As for old p4's? meh... I would be more interested in the single-core Core-dou variants, Core based Celerons and single core Semprons for budget builds or for cheap office pc builds running data entry/records processing/word/etc.



Reply

http://www.easylawyers.co.uk/resources/freehold-property.php
http://www.easylawyers.co.uk/resources/leasehold-property.php
http://www.easylawyers.co.uk/resources/buying-property.php
http://www.faqts.com/knowledge_base/view.phtml/aid/70607

Reply

additional thought, could there be a set of check boxes in the "comparison section" indicating the winner of the category, and if possible by what % it out performed the opposition...

Reply

I really like that idea. I had a little bit of trouble looking "at a glance" which processor "won" any particular benchmark - mainly because for some benchmarks, you want lower numbers, and for others higher. Percentages are nice, too. - you can use the slower of the comparison as the "baseline" and show the percent improvement of the second one. That would give me a great idea just how much percent increase in performance moving to a "newer" processor would be.

However, I do like this quite a bit. Someone complained about the margins - they're really not as bad as people claim.


Reply

Yes that's a nice idea. The percentages could be green text when the first chip wins and red when it loses.

Reply

I'd like to see an Opteron 165 or something along those lines. And maybe a low end hyperthreaded P4.

Reply

Definitely would like to see some Opteron scores in there.

Reply

The Northwood 2.4C or 3.0C would be great baselines.

Reply

I also vote for the P4 3.0C Northwood

Being as I am currently still running it in my main rig, I would LOVE to see how much of a boost I'm going to get when I build me a new rig after 6+ years this xmas.

Reply

How about P4 Prescott? I still have one in my PC.. and would like to see some benchmarks with it :)

Reply

Prescott ~ Nortwood + some heat. No need to rerun the same numbers besides Pentium D 900 series.

Also some Gallatin score would be interesting :)

Reply

I'd be more interested in seeing the highest clock single core P4 (3.8 or 4GHz?). That and a dual core P4 should be enough to get a good understanding of the performance at the time. I don't actually know anyone who bought a dual core P4, but if you have one laying around you might as well.

Reply

All hail the new list :)
Plz do the same with GPU's, THG's list is utter faeces. (Look it up)

Greetings from the land og the midnight sun, Norway :-D

Reply

Thank goodness, at least on the GPU side. Been a rash of comparisons like this one http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3553&p=3 lately. While I'm sure the numbers are valid, not everyone is upgrading his video card every three months and is up on every last refresh. Maybe they bought their card 2-3 years/generations ago, and want to know just how much improvement they'll get going to a newer one.

So yeah, being able to see older scores in the same graph with newer ones is a huge benefit for some of us. Likewise, how often do the games used to benchmark GPUs really need to change? Keep a couple of old popular games for consistency, WoW, whatever, so I know the relative increase in power between the old card and newer ones. There are some sites *cough* that do have performance charts that have a meaningful history length, and it's very appreciated.

Keep at least a couple of representative cards from each generation shown, with more complete listings from the current gen. And if benchmark games aren't picked in a faddish fashion (Age of Conan? GRID? Really?) then it could be set up where exact old cards are selected from a drop-down box to minimize visual clutter in the presentation.


Reply

Couldn't agree more.

I upgrade my GPU every 1.5-2 years and would love to see how it stacks up to the newer ones and how much potential performance improvement I'll be getting.

Same goes for CPU's, although my tastes have been quenched (currently have a Core 2 Duo 6850 3GHz and was happy to see the bast improvement that a new 8600 3.33GHz would bring to the table).

I wouldn't mind seeing an HT 3.2 GHz P4 in there just for giggles if you have one laying around, just to see how it would stack up to the latest and greatest Core 2's with their insane cache levels nowadays.

Can't wait for the GPU's to hit!

Thanks for setting this up, Anand. Greatly appreciated!

Reply

I'd like to have some veterans included, which are still used as light-duty working / surfing stations. I'd think along the lines of Athlon XP 2400+ or P3 1.0 GHz. And if you still have a P2 or P1 that would be fun ;)
(no, I'm not just too lazy to write Phenom)

MrS

Reply

Well, I'd like to second an Athlon 2400+ to 2600+ for a feeling of speed. My old desktop which I used untill about a year and a half ago was around that speed, and some of the computers in my company are Athlons 2200-2500+ as well, so that would be a really nice comparision. If Atom can run as well as one of those, or even bet them - I'll be sold!

Reply

Thanks for providing this very useful comparison tool. I hope it becomes permanent and is very regularly updated.

Reply

I'd love to see some more Athlon 64 X2 and Core 1 Duo data, since I'm still running those after 3 or 4 years, and I think it's reasonable to expect that others are as well.

This is a great tool though! It would be a great novelty to see every processor you could get your hands on, but that's of course not practical.

Reply

Core Duo was only in laptops, so would require different chipsets and motherboards and is probably not in too many desktops. A few of the older AthlonXP/A64/A64 X2 would be useful for comparison though.

Maybe a summer intern to go through all the old tests/articles and enter numbers into the bench.

Reply

i love it ... except for ONE small thing:

build 819 of x264 is pretty old... there have been quite a few peryn, phenom (i and ii), and nehalem optimizations since then. if you're looking for NO optimizations across them, it's too new.

as of 5/5, me posting to another site, the following builds had optimizations to all of the aforementioned architectures:

commit a5ac6a5b8688915553fe6fccee09f1272f3788ac r1019
commit 83baa7fdd2edf3e2f9522fc8b79e0826bcf190fc r1028
commit f9dba8bb274dffb19394db20912823464efcb8e1 r1030
commit e1013e8152254614696bbc9d92959bc9705d98b1 r1035
commit 77028cd3671de855affb02ffefe6bbd99ac7816e r1048
commit 00cef64dd3fff5d4b5b9b0e63314c11bfb7d33e0 r1067
commit 2dca5f5413051a26cbba4e20f3c77ff69b694ba3 r1122
commit 10d6ef07409ebe38b5f1e8e4516155a2fe66d4c6 r1125

(see changelog at http://x264.nl/x264/changelog.txt )

Reply

i just upgraded from a p4C 3.0ghz to an i920, I would love to see my old processor included in Bench

Reply

I think it would be great to throw a VIA C7 and some of the Nano models. The Nano is the real competition.

Reply

Me, too.

Reply

definitely Nano is a good call :)



Reply

Would it be possible to include these parameters as well? Obviously atom will be smoked by just about everything, but it's the low power consumption that makes it so attractive.

Reply

The Atom 230 comes out on top against the Atom 330 in the majority of the benchmarks when I compare them.

Maybe a data entry error?

Reply

I think you're seeing the 230 bar as larger than the 330 bar, but many of those tests are "Lower is better".

Reply

For some people seeing data for P4 era chips is still relevant. My boss still runs a P4 2.8Ghz Northwood (B I think) non Hyperthreading model. Of course if you do a Pentium I'm sure somebody will want to see data for an Athlon XP.

Reply

Yes.

Actuall I feel it much more relevant that havin 5 different Sempron-LE from the ssame generation ...

I would go for at least one result from the:
Coppermine (i.e. 1Ghz/100)
Thunderbird (i.e. 1GHz/266)
Throughbred (i.e. 2GHz/266)
NetBurst-ed Celeron 3Ghz/400/128k -> this score is VERY important for many BFU's ...
Northwood C (i.e. 3GHz/800)
Pentium D (i.e. 840/940 - 3GHz/800)
A64 754 (i.e. 2GHz/512k)
A64 939 (i.e. 2GHz/1M)
A64 X2 939 (i.e. 3800+)
Conroe 2GHz/2M
Banias 1.5GHz/400
Dothan 2Ghz/533
...

Simply said, every major CPU line since PIII/Athlon days shall have ist numbers.



Reply

I'd like to see how the Pentium III @ 1 GHz does because I have a strange feeling that even that might beat the Atom. I think there were also some Celerons based on the P III at over 1 GHz.
If you could compare it to the 1 GHz CPUs of the old , the P III and Athlon that would be very cool.

Reply

The Atom 230 is said to be comparable to a Celeron 900. I'd like to see that tested, as well as a selection of other old CPUs for comparison.

(Specifically, I've got a Pentium MMX 233, a Celeron 450, and a 500MHz UltraSparc IIe that I'd like to see it compared to.)

Reply

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/

So I'm guessing this will be similar to the interactive charts available at Tom's Hardware?

Any chance you could through in the best of Netburst architecture as a comparison point. ie. the 3.73GHz Pentium Extreme Edition 965 and the 3.73GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition. It'd be good to bring out the old top-of-the-line 2.8GHz Athlon 64 FX-57 as well.

Reply

I like the idea and the exhaustive list of benchmarks, but it'd be nice to be able to whittle down the number of processors to view. For example, an option to show only Core2 Duo processors would be extremely useful if I already have a motherboard to use. Sorting by manufacturer would also be welcome for less specific situations. I realize that there is already a button to hide individual processors, but that's a little impractical with the size of this list, which will only continue to grow.

Yes, the results will be more telling if you're deciding between two different microarchitectures rather than different clock speeds. I also know that others will know what's what by simply looking at the product number (E#### vs. Q####). For those of us who don't follow that closely but still have a general idea of the improvements between platforms, it's about real-world practicality. I may not need to see the results of Ion vs. Atom mixed in with P4 vs. Athlon. Having a way to sift through the growing amount of data quickly will make this a better tool for the casual-interest crowd.

Similar to an article that details the performance gains of i7 over its predecessors, I'd like to be able to have the option to see just that data presented in Bench rather than the raw numbers for everything ever tested. If I want to see those results a couple years from now, I want to look it up without having to search through all the old articles in full detail. I might just not need the full article after a quick glance at Bench.

Reply

I would like to see some laptop benchmarks added, considering most people are buying laptops nowadays to replace their old desktops. This would give people an idea of what kind of performance to expect out of a laptop CPU versus a desktop CPU that they may be familiar with.

Reply

If not, that was a pretty popular chip for a long time.

Reply

I'd actually prefer to see a ~3GHz Prescott instead of a Northwood. From where I'm sitting, the most interesting comparison is between Intel's last real attempt at MHz-centric long pipe spaceheating and its current adventures with super high efficiency.

Reply

Nice work!

Reply

bench the nano

Reply

Can we have:

- Possibly a couple more benchmarks that measure purely single-threaded performance? Other than Sysmark (which tangles single-thread and multi-thread) and games (which are heavily affected by GPUs)

- Some sort of notes on the platform a CPU was tested on? Granted the difference may be small between 975X and X48, but we're looking at very granular list of CPUs. I think it'd also be relevant, especially if you add power consumption figures. It's not likely anyone will mate E2140 with an X48 board.

- At least one or two Netburst CPUs in the list? There are many folks with P4's and P-D's, and it'll help them to know what to expect. (Believe it or not, people still buy white-boxes with P4's and P-D's)

Regardless, it's an excellent tool overall and I applaud you guys for a great job.

Reply

I'd like to see the top and bottom Proc from each previous major architecture. That way we could get a good feel for historical performance data.

Reply

could you throw in a pentium-m? banias and dothan

Reply

I'd like to see maybe a couple of AthlonXPs in the mix too. Thought totally understand that this may be too much work, as you guys are probably busy enough.

Reply

Perhaps something really old like a 486 or Pentium 1 just to see how all the new stuff stacks up in comparison. Be kind of interesting, I think.

Reply

i'm just looking at it and it feels nice. the horizontal height of the bars seems to be a little too big tough.

about the CPUs, i would sugest something like the 2.4ghz or 3.0ghz Northwood cores P4 (no HT) and some Athlon 64 3200+ single cores. IF (and this is a big if) possible, add a high-end dual-core P4 (like the Pentium-D 950 or 960) and some of the very first Banias CPUs (Pentium M variants).

that would be nice, because the older CPU's are very common in countries other than the USA. I for example, have 2 computers: a C2D e7200 for me and a Pentium-D 945 for my girlfriend. I just bought my C2D and gave her my old Pentium-D to replace an even older Athlon64 3200+ (that was the replacement for an even OLDER Duron 2400+, who came after a OLDER-THAN-OLDER Pentium3 800mhz...) Well, you got the point.. hehe

Reply

Seems it might be helpful to have the option to see the results as percentages, if that is an easy thing to do.

A Pentium D 3.0 might be nice to have in there since CPUs seem to have more or less topped off at that speed.

Is there a Via Nano in there? I did not notice. It may not be worth it, dunno.

Reply

This is a great quick scan tool. I know that I tend to favor older hardware since it still works for many applications. How about adding few older items just for a relative comparison? i.e. a P3 Tualatin (1.13GHz) or an Athlon MP 1800+ or maybe in a dual or quad arrangement. Maybe it would help people let go of the older tech or give them a reassurance that maybe some of it is still good enough (especially when it really cheap or free)

Reply

Great feature. I was wondering, not if you could retest everything for folding performance but rather if you knew which of the tests that are used is the most useful for judging folding performance (in Standford's folding@home clients)?

Reply