flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > 86 Mac Plus Vs. 07 AMD DualCore. You Won't Believe Who Wins

Goto page 1, 2  Next

What do you think of this?
Wow, this blows my mind!!!
8%
 8%  [ 1 ]
Interesting, I always suspected this ...
66%
 66%  [ 8 ]
Bah, they're stretching the truth too far!
8%
 8%  [ 1 ]
No big deal, who cares?!
16%
 16%  [ 2 ]
Total Votes : 12

Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
http://hubpages.com/hub/_86_Mac_Plus_Vs_07_AMD_DualCore_You_Wont_Believe_Who_Wins

Quote:

For the functions that people use most often, the 1986 vintage Mac Plus beats the 2007 AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+: 9 tests to 8! Out of the 17 tests, the antique Mac won 53% of the time! Including a jaw-dropping 52 second whipping of the AMD from the time the Power button is pushed to the time the Desktop is up and useable.

We also didn't want to overly embarrass the AMD by comparing the time it takes to install the OS vs. the old Mac. The Mac's average of about a minute is dwarfed by the approximately one hour install time of Windows XP Pro.

Is this to say that the Mac Plus is a better computer than the AMD? Of course not. The technological advancements of 21 years have placed modern PCs in a completely different league of varied capacities. But the "User Experience" has not changed much in two decades. Due to bloated code that has to incorporate hundreds of functions that average users don't even know exist, let alone ever utilize, the software companies have weighed down our PCs to effectively neutralize their vast speed advantages. When we compare strictly common, everyday, basic user tasks between the Mac Plus and the AMD we find remarkable similarities in overall speed, thus it can be stated that for the majority of simple office uses, the massive advances in technology in the past two decades have brought zero advance in productivity.

And that's just plain crazy.
Post 26 Jun 2007, 02:38
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
LocoDelAssembly
Your code has a bug


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 4633
Location: Argentina
LocoDelAssembly
Voted second option. I have the example on my own house. My Cyrix Cx586 with 12 MB RAM boots Windows 95 faster than my Athlon64 1 GB RAM with WindowsXP. Well, perhaps the wellcome screen comes faster but the system is not really usable after some seconds after you log on (unless you let the wellcome screen stay for a while).

The software of nowadays is so, so bloated Sad Look at Acrobat Reader, I bet whatever you want that my PentiumMMX with Acrobat Reader 5.0 outperforms my Athlon64 with Acrobat Reader 8 very easily.

Mandatory fuckings to bloat software corporation!!
Post 26 Jun 2007, 03:01
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
Well, first of all, don't use Acrobat, try using Foxit Reader instead. Usually you can "get by" with older versions for simple tasks (e.g. HHsed, Xgrep) and only use newer, bloated things (e.g. GNU sed, grep) when you "really really need to". Wink
Post 26 Jun 2007, 03:42
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
The software of nowadays is so, so bloated


Agreed. That's why i'm all up in a big storm about trying to get ASM advertised. I don't care if people use ASM, i just want them to at least look at it instead of writing crappy code thinking the compiler's going to make it any better.

Quote:
Mandatory fuckings to bloat software corporation!!


Acrobat, Java, Flash... Want me to continue? Hell, to some degree in the US myspace is a requirement, but the IM isn't, but still the im is 5 megabytes, but the sad part is that it uses DLLs to do some of the work... I updated IE before i realized my flash problem was a registry issue. Now i regret it. The new IE is bloated like you wont' believe. It takes 15 to 30 seconds to open up, and you can thank the other bloated software on my computer for that. AIM is bloated (aim is practically a requirement in this country), My other IM program (trillian) is bloated. I should do something about trillian one of these days... But alot of the games are also bloated. I'm sick of it, cause not everyone can get the parts they need. Luckily, in a few years i'll be living alone and can buy the stuff, but i shouldn't have to buy new hardware. 256 MB is alot more than any of my programs will ever use. More than they'll use if i run them 10 times over at once!
Post 26 Jun 2007, 06:26
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
LocoDelAssembly wrote:
Voted second option. I have the example on my own house. My Cyrix Cx586 with 12 MB RAM boots Windows 95 faster than my Athlon64 1 GB RAM with WindowsXP. Well, perhaps the wellcome screen comes faster but the system is not really usable after some seconds after you log on (unless you let the wellcome screen stay for a while).


The Cyrix CPUs boot stuff faster than just about anything, not limited to AMD CPUs. My sister got one second-hand.. the box had 32 megs of EDO RAM and most boxes out there at the time were 700 MHz Pentium IIIs with SDRAM so I thought the buy was a very bad idea... but the thing booted up windows in just a cupple of seconds, no P3 I know of came even close.

Of course you'll be happy to know that Cyrix is not entirely gone after Intel pushed it off the market with that un-disablable Thermal Throttling trick. According to my info, the company which then brought Cyrix was recently acquired by AMD, and their technology used with the Geode chips, as well as the future ones with integrated graphics cores (Cyrix was working on exactly this by the time they dissapeared).
Post 26 Jun 2007, 09:37
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Bloated software and crappy hardware. Then, you have intentionally slow computers, then everyone's despirate to get better junk so their computer isn't slow, and you have a marketing technique that'll make you lots of money for a looooooooong time. Think about it, if we made more of our own junk, perhaps we wouldn't end up screaming at our computers like i have a tendancy of doing. Lately i've been getting bored of the old phrase, so i'm using a new one; "What the f@!# is it doing now!?"
Post 26 Jun 2007, 09:50
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
HyperVista



Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 691
Location: Virginia, USA
HyperVista
Post 26 Jun 2007, 14:32
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
DOS386



Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 1901
DOS386
Quote:
the 1986 vintage Mac Plus beats the 2007 AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800


NOT surprised Very Happy

But surprisingly, since this 1986 model, MAC did change the CPU to an other incompatible (!!!) type 2 times (or even 3 times Question ) ... and now the latest Intel MAC's have CPU's incompatible to the 68000 this "good old" MAC had, but compatible to 80386, competitor of 68000 at that time, considered as "badly designed" by MAC freaks, and even worse, to the 8086 as well, considered as "desperately obsolete" already at that time Shocked Shocked
Post 28 Jun 2007, 01:14
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
It's because they love to use "faster" as a marketing technique.
Post 28 Jun 2007, 01:29
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
hckr83



Joined: 12 Nov 2006
Posts: 86
Location: usa
hckr83
I don't really think it's the CPU designers fault, it's the software's fault..

It's because everyone thinks "Well I can do this without optimizing, the CPU makes it a reasonable speed"
It's that everyone just doesn't care about speed enough to work exclusively on it(well, most of the time)

btw, why are DLLs so bad? I think the windows system for DLLs is horrible, but the idea in general is good...well, then again, there is overhead with each call to a DLL...so...
Post 30 Jun 2007, 17:09
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
Just for the record my VT100 boots fastest!

"...beep!"
Post 02 Jul 2007, 00:47
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
It's because everyone thinks "Well I can do this without optimizing, the CPU makes it a reasonable speed"


I was talking to one guy about it. He thinks that as long as it works it's good. He dosn't care about speed, so i started giving him some runtime figures of programs running on my computer. He had nothing to say.

Quote:
It's that everyone just doesn't care about speed enough to work exclusively on it(well, most of the time)


Indeed true. My computer is not "up to date" so it is running really slowly with all the AOL, Trillian, Myspace IM, IE7 (thanks to rug i can escape IE most of the time but not always), and other junk.

Quote:
I don't really think it's the CPU designers fault, it's the software's fault..


I still say a little of both. Since faster is a marketing technique, i wouldn't expect it to not cross over to hardware designers as well. I've heard some names of video cards which are mearly the same thing as their future or previous versions, only their clockign changed. Different name and prices, same placement of all hardware.
Post 02 Jul 2007, 01:20
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
kohlrak wrote:
Quote:
It's that everyone just doesn't care about speed enough to work exclusively on it(well, most of the time)


Indeed true. My computer is not "up to date" so it is running really slowly with all the AOL, Trillian, Myspace IM, IE7 (thanks to rug i can escape IE most of the time but not always), and other junk.

Quote:
I don't really think it's the CPU designers fault, it's the software's fault..


I still say a little of both. Since faster is a marketing technique, i wouldn't expect it to not cross over to hardware designers as well. I've heard some names of video cards which are mearly the same thing as their future or previous versions, only their clockign changed. Different name and prices, same placement of all hardware.


Think more low-level. That Penitum 4 we were discussing in another thread has a feature that creates a second, virtrual CPU durring cache misses... because cache misses are happening all the time and durring them the CPU does absolutely nothing!

If the software were designed to carefully time it's memory requests to the lifestyle of the memory interface, there wouldn't be any cache misses and most CPUs out there would run at at least twice the speed.

As for the hardware... well... I've mentioned it before, there are some "improovements" there that made stuff run slower and nobody noticed.
Post 02 Jul 2007, 11:01
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
That Penitum 4 we were discussing in another thread has a feature that creates a second, virtrual CPU durring cache misses...


That sounds really efficient (sarcasm)...

Quote:
If the software were designed to carefully time it's memory requests to the lifestyle of the memory interface, there wouldn't be any cache misses and most CPUs out there would run at at least twice the speed.


Which seldom happens. I often find, though, that alot of my problem is that the thing ends up getting cached to disk all the time. The problem is with many of the bloated software (i say that term all the time thanks to this post) is that it's usually image happy, feature happy, and happy everything else. My slowest programs have a custom task bar at the top. Instead of using the standard blue bar at the top and standard things in the program, they have to kill their program with images and pointless features, along with bad algorithems.

Quote:
As for the hardware... well... I've mentioned it before, there are some "improovements" there that made stuff run slower and nobody noticed.


Indeed. The idea is to make people do what i do every 5 minutes and scream at our computers, vainly asking why the heck nothing is happening. Then, they can advertise stuff that's "faster," because everyone's despirate to stop fighting with their computer, so they will go for it since everything is faster as soon as you get a clean installation of anything. Heck, if we wanted to get our programs advertised, all we have to do is say "Our program is faster... No really, it is." That would be a great slogon. More secure and safe is the second most used slogon, but almost everything is faster than it's rivals.
Post 02 Jul 2007, 22:08
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
DustWolf wrote:
That Penitum 4 we were discussing in another thread has a feature that creates a second, virtrual CPU durring cache misses... because cache misses are happening all the time and durring them the CPU does absolutely nothing!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperthreading - doesn't just happen during cache misses, and it made sense on the Pentium4 architecture. Not as great as dualcore, and some applications does slow down a tiny bit with HT enabled, but overall it did give better processor utilization and system responsiveness.
Post 03 Jul 2007, 09:40
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
f0dder wrote:
DustWolf wrote:
That Penitum 4 we were discussing in another thread has a feature that creates a second, virtrual CPU durring cache misses... because cache misses are happening all the time and durring them the CPU does absolutely nothing!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperthreading - doesn't just happen during cache misses, and it made sense on the Pentium4 architecture. Not as great as dualcore, and some applications does slow down a tiny bit with HT enabled, but overall it did give better processor utilization and system responsiveness.


As I recall it also made some servers underpreform with HT enabled. Of course it makes sense with the P4 architecture (statistically, anyway), just pointing out of that kind of thing does make sense than all in all, it's a complete dissaster. P4 is not alone here.
Post 03 Jul 2007, 10:22
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
As I already said, yes, some applications do slow down with HT enabled. Your OS needs to be aware that it's on a HT system and not a regular SMP system, otherwise you're in for performance disaster.

I'm not saying the P4 was a supersmart architecture, but it's better than some people give it credit for, you just have to program it careful. And if it wasn't hindered by the x86 frontend, well...
Post 03 Jul 2007, 10:32
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Personally, i find that it's a bit deeper than just pointing fingers at intel. The apps do use alot of memory, and some other hardware can be responsible for things, as well. You have to remember (from what i'm told) that that little processor is pretty much the guy controling every peice of hardware in your system from the HD to sending info to and from cards, keyboards, and other devices as well. It only has one little bus to do that on, and just about everything is fighting for the cycles, except the ram which is where the programs usually get stored by default from what i've been told. So, not only does it have to read in opcodes from the ram, but it has to read in other things to send to other parts of our friendly little machine as well. The little guy's bridge to the other components is a bit over worked, especially when it's relying on the RAM to send it stuff to send to everything else. Reading and writing to memory has always been a problem for the intel and other CPUs, especially when you have the jmp in the stuff constantly interupting that stream and telling it to start grabbing instructions all over again. Whenever we talk about memory, all we ever do is talk about how much we have in it, not how efficient it is. Few programs, anymore, effectively remember that everything to and from the ram and other hardware is through that one small little 32bit (or now 64bit) line. It'd be nice if things like the sound card and the video card worried about the compression algorithems for decompressing images and things like that to take the weight off the processor and the RAM. The problem is not the size of the bus, so we really didn't need the 64 bit processors, but the issue happens to be that there's only 1 bus. To me, the big problem is that this is a chain game. Everything ends up waiting on something, and the chain is as strong as the weakest link. The programs these days are resource happy, over working that little bus. The way i see it, intel would be better off intergrating two seperate CPUs with 2 busses than 1 cpu with 2 cores and 1 bus.
Post 03 Jul 2007, 16:46
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
kohlrak: I advice you to do a little research on How Stuff Works[sup]TM[/sup] before you make statements like that Smile

You could read up on bus widths, the ever-increasing data rates and how RAM has evolved (edo, sd, ddr{1,2,3}, rambus, ...), PCI and PCI-e bus mastering, DMA transfers, the AGP hack, et cetera.

But sure thing, there's a lot of situations where RAM is the bottleneck. Thus, read up on caching, techniques like strip-mining, et cetera.

kohlrak wrote:

The way i see it, intel would be better off intergrating two seperate CPUs with 2 busses than 1 cpu with 2 cores and 1 bus.

Problem is that each CPU does need to be able to access *all* the memory in the system, so even though you might have two RAM buses with separate memory (google for NUMA), you still need some interconnect. This is somewhat complicated to program for, since you now have the notion of "fast" and "slow" ram, not to mention that the CPU caches need to be synchronized.

A lot of people have flamed the core2 architecture for using a shared cache scheme instead of separate-per-core cache, but imho the scheme is pretty smart, at least theoretically (I haven't looked at how the implementation affects things).
Post 03 Jul 2007, 22:52
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
kohlrak: I advice you to do a little research on How Stuff Works[sup]TM[/sup] before you make statements like that

i second this advice, and not just for this topic Smile
Post 03 Jul 2007, 23:00
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.