Hallo Herr Bret Johnson,
am Donnerstag, 23. März 2023 um 20:31 schrieben Sie:
>>> Even though a 350 MHz K6-2 is WAY faster than my 3.3 GHz i5? And
>>> again, I know it doesn't make any sense, but it's still true.
>>>
>>> As far as I can tell, the Emperor has no Clothes.
>>
>> I'm confused by this. You are claiming that a 350 Mhz K6-2 is "WAY" faster
>> than a 3.3 GHz i5? In what respect?
> My K6-2-350 runs about 15 times faster than a 33 MHz 386,
when executing your SLOWDOWN wasteloop
> while my 3.3 GHz i5 runs only about 10 times faster
when executing your SLOWDOWN wasteloop
> in both cases with the caches enabled.
of course. otherwise high clockspeed doesn't make any sense. at all.
> What do you not understand?
why you insist that your SLOWDOWN units are the only way (and a valid
way) to measure CPU performance.
a different way to measure the CPU performance would be to
compare the time to ZIP some big file with highest compression level
(which is mostly CPU limited) between your two mschines.
SORT <infile.txt > NUL
FIND "bsdhdfhd" BIGFILE.TXT
compile something from RAM disk (to exclude disk performance)
many more possibilities.
I'm 100% certain that the i5 will do WAY better then the K6-2.
> You can try to claim that the SLOWDOWN test I performed is somehow
> "tainted" or "unrealistic" or "unfair" or "sub-optimal" or something
> like that, but the results are very real and are simply what they
> are.
no one accuses you of cheating/lying/whatever.
just your SLOWDOWN's wasteloop isn't representative for CPU performance.
> Also, as already stated, the purpose of SLOWDOWN is not to be
> a benchmark but you can indirectly use it as a benchmark.
'benchmarks' are difficult enough. almost everybody knows this.
'indirect benchmarks' should go immediately to the trash (or to recycling
center to
recycle precious bits).
Tom
_______________________________________________
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
