Comparing The Power/Performance Of A NetBurst Celeron & Pentium 4 To Broadwell's Core i7 5775C

[Michael]

Michael, as I commented last time, what's the point of benchmarking a NetBurst CPU using -march=i686 -mtune=generic? Modern GCC does emphatically not optimize for NetBurst with a generic x86 target! -march=native would probably give a huge performance improvement. I remember back in the day how badly Pentium3 optimized code ran on the Pentium4, the Pentium3 was usually faster even with the CPU clock disparity!

It was just done at the defaults at the time, so that's how the testing remained today with being the reproducibility. Besides for most out there that's how the performance is/was aside from the source distributions or those rebuilding all their packages. Even if the P4 performance were still to double, as schmidtbag pointed out, it wouldn't gain much ground against the i7-5775C and the findings of this testing. For the march=native optimizations on x86_64 with the Broadwell system its performance too would have went up.

[user82]

When stuff actually developed in the right direction.
Do it again in 10-15 years and everything single-threaded will see a laughable boost compared to this, but it can run at 1Watt, which is useless for Desktop.

[Gusar]

A big difference in performance comes from simply having more cores to throw at the problem. That's why single-threaded tests would be nice (x264 can be told how many threads to use), to see how much performance comes just from having a newer architecture. Bonus points for another additional test that also disables instruction sets NetBurst doesn't have (SSE3, AVX, ...) - x264 can do that too, by using "--asm mmx2,sse2,sse2fast". That's just playing around though, but a single-threaded test would be of interest I think.

off-topic rant: Man, I *really* hate this forum's completely stupid "Paste, Add Table" right-click menu instead of doing something sane like, you know, presenting the browser's menu!

[schmidtbag]

Michael, as I commented last time, what's the point of benchmarking a NetBurst CPU using -march=i686 -mtune=generic? Modern GCC does emphatically not optimize for NetBurst with a generic x86 target! -march=native would probably give a huge performance improvement. I remember back in the day how badly Pentium3 optimized code ran on the Pentium4, the Pentium3 was usually faster even with the CPU clock disparity!

I'm sure the results would still be so black and white that any optimizations wouldn't really make a difference. It's not like anyone here is expecting the P4 to still be considered a worth-while product.

To me, one of the nice thing about tests like this is how, whether optimized or not, they're a good way to show that people holding onto these old machines are wasting time and money.

[s_j_newbury]

Michael, as I commented last time, what's the point of benchmarking a NetBurst CPU using -march=i686 -mtune=generic? Modern GCC does emphatically not optimize for NetBurst with a generic x86 target! -march=native would probably give a huge performance improvement. I remember back in the day how badly Pentium3 optimized code ran on the Pentium4, the Pentium3 was usually faster even with the CPU clock disparity!

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Comparing The Power/Performance Of A NetBurst Celeron & Pentium 4 To Broadwell's Core i7 5775C

With my Intel Core i7 5775C Linux review having gone out earlier this week, out of curiosity one of the other follow-up tests I wanted to run was comparing the performance and efficiency to an old Pentium 4 and Celeron Socket 478 CPU from the NetBurst era.

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=21900