Expaiin these benchmarks!!!

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by Donald McTrevor, Aug 7, 2005.

  1. Cyrix MII AMD
    K6-2
    Benchmark name CPU 1 CPU 2
    Dhrystone 2.1 (VAX MIPS) 172.64 348.92 ( 102.1%)
    Whetstone (KWIPS) 0.48 113.81 (
    61.5%)
    Linpack 100x100 (MFLOPS) 23.79 35.86 ( 50.7%)
    Sandra Dhrystone (MIPS) 624 635 (
    1.8%)
    Sandra Whetstone (MFLOPS) 181 359 ( 98.3%)
    Sandra MultiMedia Integer (it/s) 620 1678 (
    170.6%)
    Sandra MultiMedia Floating Point (it/s) 129 2054 ( 1492.2%)
    Doom 1.9s high detail (FPS) 60.97 86.45 (
    41.8%)
    Doom 1.9s low detail (FPS) 102.74 135.68 ( 32.1%)

    I am not too sure what they mean in 'real life'.
    What does it all mean? Will it play somoe video (.wmv .avi)
    which I curently have problems with.
    Will I be able to play online poker on two tables easier?
    Currently is struggles if the game is being played quickly and
    it is hard to switch to the other table.
    It is always at 100% CPU on two tables, ~50-80% on one
    table (sometimes a bit lower if from a fresh boot and without
    opening explorer).
    I would say I will see a noticible immprovement anyway I hope.

    My new AMD K6-2 processor cost me the princely sum of 99 pence!!
    Thats £1.45 including postage :O)
    A new computer for less than the cost of a pint of beer!!
     
    Donald McTrevor, Aug 7, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Donald McTrevor" <> wrote in message
    news:YUrJe.22874$...
    >
    >
    > Cyrix MII

    AMD
    > K6-2
    > Benchmark name CPU 1 CPU 2
    > Dhrystone 2.1 (VAX MIPS) 172.64 348.92 ( 102.1%)
    > Whetstone (KWIPS) 70.48 113.81 (

    61.5%)
    > Linpack 100x100 (MFLOPS) 23.79 35.86 ( 50.7%)
    > Sandra Dhrystone (MIPS) 624 635 (

    1.8%)
    > Sandra Whetstone (MFLOPS) 181 359 ( 98.3%)
    > Sandra MultiMedia Integer (it/s) 620 1678 (

    170.6%)
    > Sandra MultiMedia Floating Point (it/s) 129 2054 ( 1492.2%)
    > Doom 1.9s high detail (FPS) 60.97 86.45 (

    41.8%)
    > Doom 1.9s low detail (FPS) 102.74 135.68 (

    32.1%)
    >
    > I am not too sure what they mean in 'real life'.
    > What does it all mean? Will it play somoe video (.wmv .avi)
    > which I curently have problems with.
    > Will I be able to play online poker on two tables easier?
    > Currently is struggles if the game is being played quickly and
    > it is hard to switch to the other table.
    > It is always at 100% CPU on two tables, ~50-80% on one
    > table (sometimes a bit lower if from a fresh boot and without
    > opening explorer).
    > I would say I will see a noticible immprovement anyway I hope.
    >
    > My new AMD K6-2 processor cost me the princely sum of 99 pence!!
    > Thats £1.45 including postage :O)
    > A new computer for less than the cost of a pint of beer!!


    Reformatted
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    Donald McTrevor, Aug 7, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Donald McTrevor

    kony Guest

    On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 17:54:00 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >
    > Cyrix MII AMD
    >K6-2


    <snip>
    )
    >
    >I am not too sure what they mean in 'real life'.


    In real life they mean that all this time you're spending
    would be best put towards semi-modern parts instead of
    towards an old platform which (IIRC) only has 64MB cachable
    limit on Fastpage or EDO memory.

    >What does it all mean? Will it play somoe video (.wmv .avi)
    >which I curently have problems with.


    Unknown. It will be "more likely" to play them ok, since
    there was a small performance increase. That's no
    guarantee, only that they come closer to the goal.
    Why ask instead of just trying it?

    >Will I be able to play online poker on two tables easier?


    Where was the bottleneck?
    Your entire system is relatively slow even by 8-year-old
    system standards. I'm not trying to urge you to spend $400
    for a box to play online poker but to be realistic, you're
    spending hours on something that will have quite diminishing
    return.

    >Currently is struggles if the game is being played quickly and
    >it is hard to switch to the other table.


    Google for some software that monitors CPU utilization and
    note if it's a bottleneck during gaming.

    >It is always at 100% CPU on two tables, ~50-80% on one
    >table (sometimes a bit lower if from a fresh boot and without
    >opening explorer).
    >I would say I will see a noticible immprovement anyway I hope.
    >
    >My new AMD K6-2 processor cost me the princely sum of 99 pence!!
    >Thats £1.45 including postage :O)
    >A new computer for less than the cost of a pint of beer!!


    Consider the time spent. Someone might grow their own
    grains and brew their own beer if time were to be ignored.
     
    kony, Aug 7, 2005
    #3
  4. "kony" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 17:54:00 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >
    > > Cyrix MII

    AMD
    > >K6-2

    >
    > <snip>
    > )
    > >
    > >I am not too sure what they mean in 'real life'.

    >
    > In real life they mean that all this time you're spending
    > would be best put towards semi-modern parts instead of
    > towards an old platform which (IIRC) only has 64MB cachable
    > limit on Fastpage or EDO memory.


    Not sure what u mean by than, it currently has 128MB of EDO
    memory in it, maximum is 256MB but the 4 X 64MB simms
    are very rare.

    >
    > >What does it all mean? Will it play somoe video (.wmv .avi)
    > >which I curently have problems with.

    >
    > Unknown. It will be "more likely" to play them ok, since
    > there was a small performance increase. That's no
    > guarantee, only that they come closer to the goal.
    > Why ask instead of just trying it?


    Well I have not recieved the processor yet, I paypalled for
    it today so hopefull I will have it early next week.

    >
    > >Will I be able to play online poker on two tables easier?

    >
    > Where was the bottleneck?


    Not entirely sure, although it does go to 100% CPU
    however I am a little unsure why because the 'graphics'
    are pretty minimal compares to a proper modern
    'shoot em up' video intensive game. Also there is a 'dealers'
    voice which my use some CPU.
    I really don't see why it should be so slow with two tables,
    but it almost seems to lock up at times which is rather worrying
    if you have a few quid in a £20 pot as you only get about 20
    seconds to play and if you time out you automatically fold
    your cards. This doesn't usually happen, it more likely you
    miss your turn on a new hand which costs you nothing.
    Its rare to get two 'playable' hands anyway and I take care
    get out of a game I have no chance of winning if I look like
    winning a big pot on the other table.


    > Your entire system is relatively slow even by 8-year-old
    > system standards. I'm not trying to urge you to spend $400
    > for a box to play online poker but to be realistic, you're
    > spending hours on something that will have quite diminishing
    > return.


    Well I will be getting a new system as well, however I see no harm
    in 'maxing out' the system I have to make it more useable.
    I am planning on spending £400-£500 on it ($800-$1000??).

    >
    > >Currently is struggles if the game is being played quickly and
    > >it is hard to switch to the other table.

    >
    > Google for some software that monitors CPU utilization and
    > note if it's a bottleneck during gaming.
    >
    > >It is always at 100% CPU on two tables, ~50-80% on one
    > >table (sometimes a bit lower if from a fresh boot and without
    > >opening explorer).
    > >I would say I will see a noticible immprovement anyway I hope.
    > >
    > >My new AMD K6-2 processor cost me the princely sum of 99 pence!!
    > >Thats £1.45 including postage :O)
    > >A new computer for less than the cost of a pint of beer!!

    >
    > Consider the time spent. Someone might grow their own
    > grains and brew their own beer if time were to be ignored.


    I don't mind the time spent as I have learned quite a bit and I
    have much more confidence with the hardware now, jobs
    which seemed daunting as realitively simple second time around.

    Anyhow if get upto 14 time better multimedia/graphics the
    benchmarks show I will be more than happy.

    I guessI will find out whrn the chip is delivevred.
     
    Donald McTrevor, Aug 7, 2005
    #4
  5. Donald McTrevor

    kony Guest

    On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 20:43:42 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
    <> wrote:


    >> In real life they mean that all this time you're spending
    >> would be best put towards semi-modern parts instead of
    >> towards an old platform which (IIRC) only has 64MB cachable
    >> limit on Fastpage or EDO memory.

    >
    >Not sure what u mean by than, it currently has 128MB of EDO
    >memory in it, maximum is 256MB but the 4 X 64MB simms
    >are very rare.


    Many socket 7 chipsets had a cachable memory limitation due
    to the tag ram for the l2 cache. You'd have to investigate
    your chipset and motherboard to determine this possibility.

    >
    >>
    >> >What does it all mean? Will it play somoe video (.wmv .avi)
    >> >which I curently have problems with.

    >>
    >> Unknown. It will be "more likely" to play them ok, since
    >> there was a small performance increase. That's no
    >> guarantee, only that they come closer to the goal.
    >> Why ask instead of just trying it?

    >
    >Well I have not recieved the processor yet, I paypalled for
    >it today so hopefull I will have it early next week.


    It's not a bad deal to upgrade the box for a buck if you
    need it faster, but at the same time putting hopes on such
    an old box is kind of like buying 5 lottery tickets for a
    $20 jackpot... even if you win the payout is low.

    >
    >>
    >> >Will I be able to play online poker on two tables easier?

    >>
    >> Where was the bottleneck?

    >
    >Not entirely sure, although it does go to 100% CPU
    >however I am a little unsure why because the 'graphics'
    >are pretty minimal compares to a proper modern
    >'shoot em up' video intensive game. Also there is a 'dealers'
    >voice which my use some CPU.
    >I really don't see why it should be so slow with two tables,
    >but it almost seems to lock up at times which is rather worrying
    >if you have a few quid in a £20 pot as you only get about 20
    >seconds to play and if you time out you automatically fold
    >your cards. This doesn't usually happen, it more likely you
    >miss your turn on a new hand which costs you nothing.
    >Its rare to get two 'playable' hands anyway and I take care
    >get out of a game I have no chance of winning if I look like
    >winning a big pot on the other table.
    >


    It would be much easier to just get a more modern system.
    Newer systems are being thrown away, it's all a matter of
    looking for them if you want something as cheap as possible.


    >
    >> Your entire system is relatively slow even by 8-year-old
    >> system standards. I'm not trying to urge you to spend $400
    >> for a box to play online poker but to be realistic, you're
    >> spending hours on something that will have quite diminishing
    >> return.

    >
    >Well I will be getting a new system as well, however I see no harm
    >in 'maxing out' the system I have to make it more useable.
    >I am planning on spending £400-£500 on it ($800-$1000??).


    Perhaps no harm, but if it'll be replaced anyway then was
    there any real benefit? Part of my point is that your CPU
    "might" be the primary bottleneck for the one described use,
    but even if it were, the memory, video, and (presumably,
    unless you'd added a drive controller card) the hard drive
    are all quite slow too. It seems there was a certain point
    of system performance necessary to be able to do the basic
    things without any lags, and IMO, you're still a little
    below that level even after the CPU upgrade.



    >> Consider the time spent. Someone might grow their own
    >> grains and brew their own beer if time were to be ignored.

    >
    >I don't mind the time spent as I have learned quite a bit and I
    >have much more confidence with the hardware now, jobs
    >which seemed daunting as realitively simple second time around.


    Yes learning is good, but think of how much better if the
    details of it were more applicable to more modern systems.


    >
    >Anyhow if get upto 14 time better multimedia/graphics the
    >benchmarks show I will be more than happy.
    >
    >I guessI will find out whrn the chip is delivevred.
    >


    14 times better? Floating point performance will be better
    but the more simple a benchmark, the more deceiving the
    reported performance difference because it doesn't factor in
    the other system bottlenecks, areas which do not improve by
    only changing the CPU.
     
    kony, Aug 7, 2005
    #5
  6. "kony" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 20:43:42 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > >> In real life they mean that all this time you're spending
    > >> would be best put towards semi-modern parts instead of
    > >> towards an old platform which (IIRC) only has 64MB cachable
    > >> limit on Fastpage or EDO memory.

    > >
    > >Not sure what u mean by than, it currently has 128MB of EDO
    > >memory in it, maximum is 256MB but the 4 X 64MB simms
    > >are very rare.

    >
    > Many socket 7 chipsets had a cachable memory limitation due
    > to the tag ram for the l2 cache. You'd have to investigate
    > your chipset and motherboard to determine this possibility.


    Not sure what that means 'tag ram'?
    Manual says 0-512KB cache.
    Could I deduce form this statement
    "Many modern PCs, for example, are configured with a 256K L2 cache
    and tag RAM that is 8 bits wide. This is sufficient for caching up to 64 MB
    of main memory."
    That I have 128 MB?
    Euther way the more memory the merrier.

    >
    > >
    > >>
    > >> >What does it all mean? Will it play somoe video (.wmv .avi)
    > >> >which I curently have problems with.
    > >>
    > >> Unknown. It will be "more likely" to play them ok, since
    > >> there was a small performance increase. That's no
    > >> guarantee, only that they come closer to the goal.
    > >> Why ask instead of just trying it?

    > >
    > >Well I have not recieved the processor yet, I paypalled for
    > >it today so hopefull I will have it early next week.

    >
    > It's not a bad deal to upgrade the box for a buck if you
    > need it faster, but at the same time putting hopes on such
    > an old box is kind of like buying 5 lottery tickets for a
    > $20 jackpot... even if you win the payout is low.



    Well if it works it will be money well spent, I imagine I will have
    to buy some thermal compound which will cost twice as much as
    the processor, which is shocking!! Doubling the speed for $3
    just has to be worth it.
    >
    > >
    > >>
    > >> >Will I be able to play online poker on two tables easier?
    > >>
    > >> Where was the bottleneck?

    > >
    > >Not entirely sure, although it does go to 100% CPU
    > >however I am a little unsure why because the 'graphics'
    > >are pretty minimal compares to a proper modern
    > >'shoot em up' video intensive game. Also there is a 'dealers'
    > >voice which my use some CPU.
    > >I really don't see why it should be so slow with two tables,
    > >but it almost seems to lock up at times which is rather worrying
    > >if you have a few quid in a £20 pot as you only get about 20
    > >seconds to play and if you time out you automatically fold
    > >your cards. This doesn't usually happen, it more likely you
    > >miss your turn on a new hand which costs you nothing.
    > >Its rare to get two 'playable' hands anyway and I take care
    > >get out of a game I have no chance of winning if I look like
    > >winning a big pot on the other table.
    > >

    >
    > It would be much easier to just get a more modern system.
    > Newer systems are being thrown away, it's all a matter of
    > looking for them if you want something as cheap as possible.


    Maybe but I will still have this system which is probably unsellable
    so I may as well make the most of it.

    >
    >
    > >
    > >> Your entire system is relatively slow even by 8-year-old
    > >> system standards. I'm not trying to urge you to spend $400
    > >> for a box to play online poker but to be realistic, you're
    > >> spending hours on something that will have quite diminishing
    > >> return.

    > >
    > >Well I will be getting a new system as well, however I see no harm
    > >in 'maxing out' the system I have to make it more useable.
    > >I am planning on spending £400-£500 on it ($800-$1000??).

    >
    > Perhaps no harm, but if it'll be replaced anyway then was
    > there any real benefit? Part of my point is that your CPU
    > "might" be the primary bottleneck for the one described use,
    > but even if it were, the memory, video, and (presumably,
    > unless you'd added a drive controller card) the hard drive
    > are all quite slow too. It seems there was a certain point
    > of system performance necessary to be able to do the basic
    > things without any lags, and IMO, you're still a little
    > below that level even after the CPU upgrade.


    Well I will find that out next week, apart from anything else
    it will be interesting to see what effect the new processor has.
    In one benchmark it is a staggering 1492.2% in another a miniscule
    1.8%. It seems to be in the graphical/multimedia area where the
    bottle neck is, perhaps, and that is the area which shows the
    greatest improvements.

    >
    >
    >
    > >> Consider the time spent. Someone might grow their own
    > >> grains and brew their own beer if time were to be ignored.

    > >
    > >I don't mind the time spent as I have learned quite a bit and I
    > >have much more confidence with the hardware now, jobs
    > >which seemed daunting as realitively simple second time around.

    >
    > Yes learning is good, but think of how much better if the
    > details of it were more applicable to more modern systems.
    >

    Well some knowledge is transferable and I would rather fry this
    heap of junk than a new system :O)
    >
    > >
    > >Anyhow if get upto 14 time better multimedia/graphics the
    > >benchmarks show I will be more than happy.
    > >
    > >I guessI will find out whrn the chip is delivevred.
    > >

    >
    > 14 times better? Floating point performance will be better
    > but the more simple a benchmark, the more deceiving the
    > reported performance difference because it doesn't factor in
    > the other system bottlenecks, areas which do not improve by
    > only changing the CPU.


    Well I don't expect get anywhere near 14X in reality but it might
    just be enough to do some of the things my system curently struggles
    with. For example it is just not quick enough to play some .wmv
    files, I have to convert them to .mpeg with TMPGEnc, the only
    free program I could find, but that takes ages, upto and over an hour.
    Anyway it will be interesting to see what effect it has and I hope to
    do some 'benchmark tests' myself before I try the new CPU out.
    I am much encouraged by this comment from a recent post in this
    group "2000: AMD K6/2 333 mhz system from Medialand Systems
    in Concord. I loved this PC (blazingly fast compared to the Cyrix)"
    Of course that was a completely new system and I will be happy if
    it is half "blazingly fast " :O)




    >
     
    Donald McTrevor, Aug 8, 2005
    #6
  7. Donald McTrevor

    kony Guest

    On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 23:21:00 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
    <> wrote:


    >
    >Not sure what that means 'tag ram'?
    >Manual says 0-512KB cache.


    Google search for the cachable limit for your motherboard
    and it's chipset. There might be help here,
    http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=155

    >Could I deduce form this statement
    >"Many modern PCs, for example, are configured with a 256K L2 cache
    >and tag RAM that is 8 bits wide. This is sufficient for caching up to 64 MB
    >of main memory."
    >That I have 128 MB?


    No you cannot determine it from that statement. However, it
    is still possible that your cacheable limit is 128MB.

    Google for "tag ram cacheable limits" and apply it to the
    chipset and tag ram on your particular board.
     
    kony, Aug 8, 2005
    #7
  8. Donald McTrevor

    GT Guest

    "Donald McTrevor" <> wrote in message
    news:YUrJe.22874$...
    > My new AMD K6-2 processor cost me the princely sum of 99 pence!!
    > Thats £1.45 including postage :O)
    > A new computer for less than the cost of a pint of beer!!


    An excellent price, but I wouldn't drink that beer - its was openned about 5
    years ago. It is long since gone flat and someone has stubbed out a
    cigarette in it! Still a good price - however a CPU on its own won't do
    anything - you need a few more parts yet before you can call it a computer!
     
    GT, Aug 8, 2005
    #8
  9. "kony" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 23:21:00 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > >
    > >Not sure what that means 'tag ram'?
    > >Manual says 0-512KB cache.

    >
    > Google search for the cachable limit for your motherboard
    > and it's chipset. There might be help here,
    > http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=155
    >
    > >Could I deduce form this statement
    > >"Many modern PCs, for example, are configured with a 256K L2 cache
    > >and tag RAM that is 8 bits wide. This is sufficient for caching up to 64

    MB
    > >of main memory."
    > >That I have 128 MB?

    >
    > No you cannot determine it from that statement. However, it
    > is still possible that your cacheable limit is 128MB.


    Indeed it is according to your link (SiS/5598 Chipset).

    >
    > Google for "tag ram cacheable limits" and apply it to the
    > chipset and tag ram on your particular board.
    >
    >
     
    Donald McTrevor, Aug 8, 2005
    #9
  10. Donald McTrevor

    JP Guest

    I assume the poker game uses flash graphics? Flash is typically high on
    processor demands, particularly for graphics with lots of detail.
    Sometimes right mouse button on the flash part lets you set quality to low,
    which can speed things up lots. Also making sure there isn't any more flash
    displaying on web pages or unnecessary
    things running can help.
    I would imagine faster processor upgrade would make things noticably better,
    obviously!
    -JP
     
    JP, Aug 8, 2005
    #10
  11. "JP" <> wrote in message
    news:4EPJe.5462$...
    > I assume the poker game uses flash graphics? Flash is typically high on
    > processor demands, particularly for graphics with lots of detail.
    > Sometimes right mouse button on the flash part lets you set quality to

    low,
    > which can speed things up lots.


    That doesn't seem to work, so it may not use 'Flash' graphics just
    'flashy' graphics (same thing I guess) however that gave me the idea
    of changing to 256 colours from 16 bit colour, which did seem to have
    a noticable effect, the CPU usage seemed to drop from about 80% for
    one game, to about 50% or less. It's still almost 100% for two games
    but it does seem a lot more responsive. I then tried changing back
    to 16 bit colour however the colours on the the poker game stayed
    in 256 colours.
    It doesn't look quite as good in 256 colours but as long as I can see what
    is
    happening that doesn't matter. Also it might work even better with a reboot
    when I switch colours (which is an option).
    I was not actually playing at the tables when I tested, just watching so I
    will have to try a live test later. Also I normally play from a fresh reboot
    which seems to help as I have/had several explorer windows open and OE
    as I did the test.
    I am not sure if playing too tables is better though, you get more choice of
    hands to play but its much harder to get a 'feel' for the players at the
    table
    (although sometimes that ain't a bad thing, as some can be very deceptive!!)
    But thanks for that idea.

    > Also making sure there isn't any more flash
    > displaying on web pages or unnecessary
    > things running can help.



    > I would imagine faster processor upgrade would make things noticably

    better,
    > obviously!


    Well let's ****ing hope so :O)

    > -JP
    >
    >
     
    Donald McTrevor, Aug 9, 2005
    #11
  12. Donald McTrevor

    kony Guest

    On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 20:54:24 GMT, "JP"
    <> wrote:

    >I assume the poker game uses flash graphics?


    Generally, no they don't use flash for card games.
     
    kony, Aug 9, 2005
    #12
  13. "Donald McTrevor" <> wrote in message
    news:czRJe.13446$...
    >
    > "JP" <> wrote in message
    > news:4EPJe.5462$...
    > > I assume the poker game uses flash graphics? Flash is typically high on
    > > processor demands, particularly for graphics with lots of detail.
    > > Sometimes right mouse button on the flash part lets you set quality to

    > low,
    > > which can speed things up lots.

    >
    > That doesn't seem to work, so it may not use 'Flash' graphics just
    > 'flashy' graphics (same thing I guess) however that gave me the idea
    > of changing to 256 colours from 16 bit colour, which did seem to have
    > a noticable effect, the CPU usage seemed to drop from about 80% for
    > one game, to about 50% or less. It's still almost 100% for two games
    > but it does seem a lot more responsive. I then tried changing back
    > to 16 bit colour however the colours on the the poker game stayed
    > in 256 colours.
    > It doesn't look quite as good in 256 colours but as long as I can see what
    > is
    > happening that doesn't matter. Also it might work even better with a

    reboot
    > when I switch colours (which is an option).
    > I was not actually playing at the tables when I tested, just watching so I
    > will have to try a live test later. Also I normally play from a fresh

    reboot
    > which seems to help as I have/had several explorer windows open and OE
    > as I did the test.
    > I am not sure if playing too tables is better though, you get more choice

    of
    > hands to play but its much harder to get a 'feel' for the players at the
    > table
    > (although sometimes that ain't a bad thing, as some can be very

    deceptive!!)
    > But thanks for that idea.
    >
    > > Also making sure there isn't any more flash
    > > displaying on web pages or unnecessary
    > > things running can help.

    >
    >
    > > I would imagine faster processor upgrade would make things noticably

    > better,
    > > obviously!

    >
    > Well let's ****ing hope so :O)


    Yes lowering the resolution works wonders even when playing at
    the table, the £38 I won last night is testemant to that.
    Might just be luck though ;O)
    Anyway I could switch tables with easy, a major problem before.

    Anyway my new processor has arrived but I am going to try and
    do some benchmarks so I can measure any performance increase.
    >
    > > -JP
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    Donald McTrevor, Aug 9, 2005
    #13
  14. Donald McTrevor

    The One Guest

    "Donald McTrevor" <> wrote in message
    news:NgtJe.32730$...
    >
    > "Donald McTrevor" <> wrote in message
    > news:YUrJe.22874$...
    > >
    > >
    > > Cyrix MII

    > AMD
    > > K6-2
    > > Benchmark name CPU 1 CPU 2
    > > Dhrystone 2.1 (VAX MIPS) 172.64 348.92 ( 102.1%)
    > > Whetstone (KWIPS) 70.48 113.81 (

    > 61.5%)
    > > Linpack 100x100 (MFLOPS) 23.79 35.86 ( 50.7%)
    > > Sandra Dhrystone (MIPS) 624 635 (

    > 1.8%)
    > > Sandra Whetstone (MFLOPS) 181 359 (

    98.3%)
    > > Sandra MultiMedia Integer (it/s) 620 1678 (

    > 170.6%)
    > > Sandra MultiMedia Floating Point (it/s) 129 2054 (

    1492.2%)
    > > Doom 1.9s high detail (FPS) 60.97 86.45 (

    > 41.8%)
    > > Doom 1.9s low detail (FPS) 102.74 135.68 (

    > 32.1%)
    > >
    > > I am not too sure what they mean in 'real life'.
    > > What does it all mean? Will it play somoe video (.wmv .avi)
    > > which I curently have problems with.
    > > Will I be able to play online poker on two tables easier?
    > > Currently is struggles if the game is being played quickly and
    > > it is hard to switch to the other table.
    > > It is always at 100% CPU on two tables, ~50-80% on one
    > > table (sometimes a bit lower if from a fresh boot and without
    > > opening explorer).
    > > I would say I will see a noticible immprovement anyway I hope.
    > >
    > > My new AMD K6-2 processor cost me the princely sum of 99 pence!!
    > > Thats £1.45 including postage :O)
    > > A new computer for less than the cost of a pint of beer!!

    >
    > Reformatted
    > >


    A new computer for less than a pint of beer, or is it a years old useless
    piece of hardware for less than a pint of beer.
     
    The One, Aug 9, 2005
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. RObErT_RaTh

    Benchmarks, you know ya wanna post em ;)

    RObErT_RaTh, Sep 14, 2005, in forum: Hardware
    Replies:
    115
    Views:
    5,302
    Jyoti Ballabh
    Nov 26, 2009
  2. Silverstrand
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    697
    unholy
    Sep 29, 2005
  3. Silverstrand

    FEAR - real world gameplay benchmarks at bit-tech

    Silverstrand, Oct 25, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    699
  4. Peter C. Bogert

    Help understanding video benchmarks

    Peter C. Bogert, Jan 15, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    531
    Peter C. Bogert
    Jan 16, 2004
  5. Andrew Watiker

    Graphic Card Benchmarks

    Andrew Watiker, Oct 19, 2003, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    18,518
    derek / nul
    Oct 19, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page