OT: Approx processor performance metrics

If the PCs have processors with any of those names, except for maybe Xeon, it means they're at least ~7 years old and won't be great for high performance applications; they'll be fine for the Web and youtube but for that the specifics don't really matter that much.

Find out the processors of the candidates and look here:

and pick the best...

As long as high-end graphics is not going to be used, and high BW math (FFTs and the like) are not going to be used, even a Pentium II will do nicely - WinXP SP3 seems to run well. Means that you can ignore the processor name soup then.

Simple solution is check the figure of merit on CPU benchmarks. It isn't perfect since some CPUs excel at eg video transcoding.

Hyperthreading isn't an advantage unless the application is *very* specific an extremely easy to parallelise. Most real problems go memory bandwidth limited without using all the available CPU threads.

Anything with a figure of merit 3000+ will be OK for most basic uses including small amounts of video editing - obviously the higher the better. I prefer Intel CPUs myself but that is only because of past experience with a batch of self immolating AMD ones.

As a practical matter, look first to which processors have good support for programming and debugging of hardware and software, using widely available tools of low cost, ones that won't soon disappear. The existence of a large community is also helpful, as one can get questions answered.

If one cannot program and debug, the processor speed isn't going to matter.

Joe Gwinn

I've never bothered too much with the details of the processor. Important features are cache size and memory bandwidth (version and number of memory interfaces). Remember that even when running a given single thread application, the OS is still running a number of threads and will need significant CPU time that can detract from the performance of the application. So multi-core processors (including hyperthreading) can be useful.

If memory is not a problem, please max out each configuration. If you run out of available RAM this will have the single biggest impact on processing speed. Modern browsers can be real memory hogs. So the maximum RAM configuration of a machine should be one of the main selection criteria.

I suspect the most "taxing" applications for them would be MSOffice.

I was (personally) hoping for something more along the lines of: X was developed to address this market segment; Y is like X but cheaper because this capability has been elided; Z is a die shrink of Y; Q is a power-hungry version of Z aimed at this market niche; etc. (i.e., so *I* get an education as well)

Exactly. Benchmarks really only make sense if you are *doing* exactly what is being benchmarked in exactly the same proportions!

Yikes! This (email/WWW/etc.) machine is a Core2 Duo 1.86 -- about 1100 on your chart. I've not seen any issues with things like web browsing (which, nowadays, is a piggish application). No office suite on this machine (we don't use them) but I'd imagine it would also be speedy enough for that.

I *think* their uses will be MSOffice, web browsing, et ilk. OTOH, I imagine viewing lots of (youtube) videos, Flash presentations (ahem "advertisements"), etc. They can also afford to lag behind "current" OS's (e.g., the next machines will probably get Vista or W7).

I, OTOH, am curious as to the markets (applications) targeted by each of these various flavors of CPU. Originally, it was easy to see *big* differences in product offerings (e.g., 386 being the first *practical* "big machine" architecturally). With internal FPU? Without? 16b bus? etc.

But, I long ago gave up trying to sort out where the sweet spot lies. As long as my machines are faster than *me*, I'm happy. No idea how many gazillions of opcodes get executed waiting for me to type the next line of code or decide which two pins should be connected by a particular signal, etc. (and, I don't need to sit and stare at the screen while doing a "make world" or autorouting a PCB! There's always something else that can use my time...)

Although the benchmarks are typically not that far off a few like empty for loops in the past have been gamed by clever compiler writers.

I guess it depends how much heavy CPU usage you do. Video transcoding is about the most CPU intensive thing a home user is ever likely to do.

I generally aim to have a machine that is just behind the bleeding edge and buy another whenever the speed up is more than 3x. This used to translate to a new box every third year but lately they last about 5 before it is worth the hassle of an upgrade.

Work expands to fill the time or CPU cycles available!

Win7 unless you already have free Vista licences. Vista was always a bit of a dog and although not as bad as some would have you believe it was never really all that stable. Office 2007 was much worse but got a comparatively easy ride because Vista was such an easy target.

Zork! You are in a maze of twisty little packages all alike...

Even for the esoteric low power devices there are several that have essentially the same performance to within measurement error and gratuitously different branding/part number.

High end Xeons intended for network boxes have clear architectural differences but I get the feeling the consumer end is more like the branding on flavours of cat food. I blame the marketing department.

Only a handful of the long list are really worth buying into.

(but if the kit is free gratis and for nothing from a corporate donor to benefit a charity then you may as well take what you can get and cannibalise the weakest boxes for spares)

I guess it depends how much CPU intensive stuff you need to do. My current main box is a 3770K benchmarking at 9600 or so. Its predecessor was a Q6600 at about 3000.

I wouldn't recommend anything slower than that today. YMMV

I write code, draw schematics, design FPGAs, layout boards and prepare documentation. Most of the "time" gets spent in my wetware -- I can do other things (e.g., make a cup of tea, eat dinner, bathroom break, sleep, etc.) if a machine has to do any significant crunching.

A (BSD) kernel build takes a few minutes. Rebuilding my RTOS may take a bit longer -- but still not going to eat up significant portions of my workday (unless I just sit and stare at the screen). Even the multimedia stuff spends far more time authoring the presentations than it takes to render them!

Different work habits carried over from the days where you were developing on a 1 MB/s machine (not VAX-MIPS).

Upgrade is a LOT of effort, for me. Too much software to install, reconfigure, etc. (at least on Windows crates). Sort of like moving to a new house (do I really need to keep this? does it need to be readily accessible? or, just tucked away in a corner and I'll sort it out when/if I need it?)

And desk/disk space! :<

Dunno. One gotcha is always availability of drivers, etc. *They* chose (from among a set of different offerings) the last set of machines (that I later installed/configured).

Yeah, sounds like "stereos" in the 70's... bedazzle (befuddle) the consumer with an excess of choices.

I tried doing that -- setting aside spare monitors, optical drives, etc. A few weeks later, they were all gone: "Oh, we got rid of them because we needed the closet space for stationery goods..."

I'm not keen on warehousing stuff *here*! And, the donors obviously want the stuff out of *their* facilities...

As I said, most of what I do is wetware limited. What isn't, I can address by "multitasking" so I'm not waiting on kit.

In the mid 80's, I was doing 3D CAD renderings on 386's. Roughly

In my present setup, I can move between 6 machines just by swiveling a chair (though the machines/apps aren't interchangeable). And, there's *always* a backlog on the ToDo list so it's not like I'm going to be twiddling my thumbs! :-/

strengths

specific an

limited

including

enough

prefer

batch of

imagine

"advertisements"),

these

differences in

As long

gazillions

decide

don't

autorouting

Well that makes it real simple; anything you get is likely to be more than enough.

?-)

This might be of interest to somebody. Amd is selling a light weight proce ssor which is intended for the low power user. It is the Kabini and is ess entially a notebook processor that goes into a socket instead of being sold ered to the motherboard. It has all the stuff on one chip instead of requi ring another chip for the I/O. So the motherboard are cheap.

Currently Newegg is selling a AM1 ( the socket ) motherboard for $30 with a $10 rebate. And Tiger Direct is selling the AMD 5150 ( 4 core 1.6 Ghz ) processor for $35 with shipping. Note Bene It uses DDR3 memory which will add to the cost if you do not have some on hand.

Again a low power ( 25 Watt ) inexpensive processor that uses modern memor y and 6 Ghz Sata hard drive , with USB 3.0 and decent on chip graphics.

Dan

Dan