Comparing Today's Modern CPUs To Intel's Socket 478 Celeron & Pentium 4 NetBurst CPUs

[GreatEmerald]

Heh, not bad. Now I'm looking forward to a benchmark of AMD Radeon Fury vs ATI Rage Fury MAXX

[DeepDayze]

Those abit ic7 motherboards were great. I've still got one laying around upstairs with a 2.8 prescott (90nm).
So many old systems laying around, I even kept the original boxes for many things :/
I'll have to throw this stuff out soon enough.

You could still run Linux on that and make it into at least a halfway decent Linux office system. Beats throwing it away!

[torsionbar28]

You could still run Linux on that and make it into at least a halfway decent Linux office system. Beats throwing it away!

Dude, it's a P4 Prescott. The only thing Prescotts are good for, besides frying eggs, is taking up landfill space. I can understand romanticizing really unique awesome hardware, like DEC Alphas or SGI workstations, but there is no romance in an old cheapo budget peecee. Throw that shit in the trash where it belongs.

[garyc2015]

Hi Michael, just a quick message to say I LOVED this article so much I subscribed ! (funds willing I will donate a few ? as well)
This site is like the Top Gear of Linux Sites Who else would do such an excellent, exhaustive and informative test !
Thank You !

[bridgman]

Besides, if you want classic I still have an old 8086 system ("turbos up to 12 MHz") and a 486-33 down in the basement somewhere.

[schmidtbag]

Hmm I guess those are multithreaded results right ? how about comparing the CPUs on a single core workload ? run the apache compilation with j1 ?

Well, I suppose you could divide the results by the amount of cores that CPU has and you'll get a rough estimate of how much faster it is. Not accurate by any means, but that's why I said "rough estimate"

[drSeehas]

... I still have an old 8086 system ("turbos up to 12 MHz") ...

8086 and 12 MHz?
Are you sure?

[bridgman]

I think so. The original PC used 8088 but some of the early clones used 8086 and ran a bit faster. I think this was an 8 MHz part that could turbo to 12 on a good day. Might have been a 10 MHz part but I doubt it, would have expected base clock to be 10 MHz in that case. I guess it might have been a 286, will have to see if I can dig it out some time and get PTS running on it.

[duby229]

I think so. The original PC used 8088 but some of the early clones used 8086 and ran a bit faster. I think this was an 8 MHz part that could turbo to 12 on a good day. Might have been a 10 MHz part but I doubt it, would have expected base clock to be 10 MHz in that case. I guess it might have been a 286, will have to see if I can dig it out some time and get PTS running on it.

If it's a 286 it won't work. If it's a 386 you'll want to make sure the kernel and all of the userspace is built with -march=i386. And you'll need an ISA ethernet adapter. You'll probably want to use something like gentoo with distcc so as to keep the number of dependencies as low as possible and built correctly. Even with distcc though, it'd still take forever because portage would be running on that slow ass machine.

EDIT: I suppose you could install to a modern machine, and then emerge -e --buildpkgonly world. Then install the binaries only to the 386 machine. That would faster I'm sure.

EDIT2: I would be interested to see a benchmark graph comparing Intel's earliest linux capable processor to a modern one. Not that it would be useful, but it would satisfy my curiousity.

[drSeehas]

I think so. The original PC used 8088 but some of the early clones used 8086 and ran a bit faster. I think this was an 8 MHz part that could turbo to 12 on a good day. Might have been a 10 MHz part but I doubt it, would have expected base clock to be 10 MHz in that case.

I remember an AT&T build by Olivetti using a 6 or 8 MHz 8086.
The fastest 8086 I remember was running at 10 MHz.

We exchanged in all our IBM PC clones the 8088s to NEC V20 und the 8086s to NEC V30.
And in a few we added the veerry expensive 8087 coprocessor.