CPU Test Pentium vs. All
10 messages in this thread
To all who are interested,
We did some more exact CPU tests with 3DStudio 3… these tests were
performed with more accuracy than earlier tests. The guy who makes
all of our systems uses ASUS Motherboards (you may not know the name,
but they are extremely high quality and blindingly fast.. they've
beaten Micronics in all tests. Any good clone maker should be
familiar with ASUS).
Here were the contenders:
System #1 – Gateway 486/DX2 66 Vesa Local Bus
32 MB Ram (70ns)
2 Western Digital Cavier 384MB Hard Drives IDE
(We just moved these 2 drives between each of the
systems being tested to ensure good comparisons)
256k Cache
Very simple configurations with EMM386.SYS and a mouse!
System #2 – Omni-Digital (Our Engineer's Clone) 486/DX4 100
16 MB Ram (70ns)
2 Western Digital Cavier 384MB Hard Drives IDE
(We just moved these 2 drives between each of the
systems being tested to ensure good comparisons)
256k Cache
System #3 – Omni-Digital Pentium P/60 PCI
16 MB Ram (70ns)
2 Western Digital Cavier 384MB Hard Drives IDE
256k Cache
System #4 – Omni-Digital Pentium P/66 PCI
16 MB Ram (70ns)
2 Western Digital Cavier 384MB Hard Drives IDE
256k Cache
The Test: We loaded BIRDSHOW.3DS (you should have this in your
MESHES Directory) We turned off DISPLAY and used NONE as graphics
display. We left all other settings alone. Shadows on, Anti-A on,
Forced two-sided off, metal shading mode, mapping on, filter maps on,
motion blur on (of no consequence here), auto-reflect on, etc. We
then rendered at 640×480 TGA compressed to disk with NO display!!
Here are the results:
System #1 01:43
System #2 01:08
System #3 01:00
System #4 00:54
If you have any questions, give me a ring at 404-355-1662 or leave me
EMAIL. Hope this helps you guys trying to get the most inexpensive
systems while remaining fast enough. Remember ALL systems by ALL
manufacturers will differ. I think that you will find that these are
some of the fastest times (minus the Gateway <g>) for the respective
systems, on the market. If you are looking for a good non-no-name
clone.. my recommendation would be to go with the new ZEOS Pantera
(sp?) P-66. Just don't expect a lot of service! I'll let you guys
know about the P-90 when my engineer gets them (be careful of buying
these from anyone right now!!! I heard (BUT I DON'T KNOW… JUST
HEARD!!!! <g>) that the FCC isn't too happy with these melting demons
yet. But they'll be here soon enough…and we'll grab one as soon as
they're available and de-bugged. Talk to you guys later.
Robert,
Thanks very much for this great info. Much appreciated!
Nik
Robert,
We are testing a 90 Mhz Pentium against a fast 486-66 and found it to be almost
exactly three times faster. Your results suggest that we might not have the
optimum configuration if you are getting 3X on a 60 Mhz Pentium…
Donald
Hey Don,
We put a Gateway (not to fast) 66DX2 up against the fastest cpu maker I know…
that may account for the 3X. I'll see if I can get some benchmark numbers.
Unfortunately they don't usually mean all that much!
Give me a ring @ 404-355-1662
-RT
Robert,
Actually, the 486 that I compared it to is a really sweet DX2 system, while the
Pentium demo system has a lot of junky components on it…
Don,
That would probably explain it!
I'll bet that 90 kicks ass! I can't wait to add one to my farm! Is it getting
real hot?
-RT
PENTIUM P90
I'm just doing some benchtests with AutoCAD R12 C2 for DOS on a Pentium P90 PC
and getting
some interesting results – it proved no faster at running AutoCAD than a
Pentium 60MHz! The
basic config included:
16 MB RAM, Diamond Viper (using a fast asynchronusVL bus), 256Kb cache,
AMIBIOS,
SoftEngine (V2).
Special attention was given to the BIOS settings i.e write back enabled and the
config files were
optimised to run AutoCAD for DOS. The test was run on an identically configured
P60 which
tested at 53 seconds. The best we could get the P90 to do was 51.9 seconds?
I then tried a Diamond Stealth card with Panacea's DLD and got similar
results……….
All those Winbench etc things told us that it was really fast at running
Windows etc but when it
came down to running a real application like AutoCAD there seemed to be a log
jam somewhere
in the system.
Next I tried 3D Studio: The P60 was literally twice as fast as the 486 66 but
the same Pentium
P90 could only give a 20% improvment on the P60.
There are only a few explainations that I can think of:
1) The log jam is now on the video bus – today's processors are fast but the
graphics cards are
now holding back AutoCAD. There was a time when PC processors were not that hot
so graphics
guys decided to off-load some of the processing workload onto another
chip…usually on the
graphics card….maybe this has changed and the CPU is now so fast that the
processor on the
graphics chip is a liability. I have yet to try out a 64 bit card but the
AutoCAD drivers for these
are still a bit ropey..I'll have to wait untill Softengine is up and running
for the Matrox.
2) It's early days and P90 motherboards are not that good – this could be in
the BIOS, general
PCB architecture or chipsets……
The company who's machine I tested know their stuff and have produced some of
the fastest
486s I have seen. So it came as a surpprise to both them and myself as to the
poor P90
performance……. If this is what a good PC manufacturer can come up with what
the hell are the
bad ones going to produce?
On my first encounter I would have to say WAIT until things settle down.
Has anyone else out there looked at any other P90 machines? I would be
interested in any
feedback on Pentiums with AutoCAD.
I'm going to be looking at a VIP Pentium board later this week – that's a
motherboard which has
PCI, VL local bus and ISA slots with the latest OPTI chipset. This may provide
the P90 with its
missing power. Who knows!
Martyn Day, Editor, CADdesk Magazine, London.
Have you checked out the Micron P90's (they're not shipping yet, but you're a
magazine…)?
Also, you may want to try running AutoCad with a REAL graphics card, not a
Diamond or other consumer thingy. Have you tried the Matrox MGA PRO or MG 3D
Ultra, or Rasterex Tracer? These cards are CAD accelerators. I think your
Diamond is the weak link (boy is that an understatement!) in the Acad test you
did.
John Tissavary (LUNA cie)
John,
Sorry but I will have to disagree with you completely on the graphics
card front. I see alot of graphics cards and have an Impression. The Matrox
AutoCAD drivers are really slow, even if the the 64 bit chip is fast the
drivers let it down. I have done side by side benchtests and both the Artist
WinSprint and Matrox Vesa Local Bus cards get hammered by the Diamond Viper
running Softengine.
The Matrox and Artist cards only come into their own in 3D. So if you are
a 2D AutoCAD users the Viper (or any P9000 or 9100 card is the fastest choice.
Don't believe the marketing rubbish.
When I tested the Matrox I rang them and told them that the MGA VESA was
slower than the P9000 ISA, which they did not understand. I had loads of phone
calls from them, four sets of drivers etc. In the end they agreeed that the
display list driver was the week link.
Just because the Viper is low-cost does not mean its low-performance.
Martyn Day, Editor, CADdesk Magazine.
I'm not a huge Acad user, and then it's all 3D, but I have heard the Matrox
drivers are a bit slower than other high-end cards' (didn't think about
Vibrant's Softengine…) Have you tested the Rasterex Tracer? It's supposed to
be blisteringly fast, according to someone that's got it and the MGA, plus a
few other cards.
John Tissavary (LUNA cie)