Result: Cyrix MII 300Mhz GA-5AX 128MB SDRAM PC-100(cl?)
11m 23.560s

The BIOS recognized it as a 350Mhz CPU, but I assume this is incorrect.
It is jumpered for 3x100Mhz
I tried cpu-z but they didn't mention on their website what version of windows it will run 😵
I mean, it's not like hardly anyone u...eh, nevermind 🤣.
Anyway, I looked at the screenshots posted by maddmaxstar and downloaded that version of CPU-Z

Edit:Tried CPU-Z and it reports a cpu speed of around 141Mhz with a FSB of 31.7Mhz?

Anyway, I damaged one of my mainboards to get this result. The CPU tab of my MS-5169 broke while trying to mount a cooler. A drop of superglue will probably fix that, but I misplaced my superglue 🤣
Never knew how little force is needed to actually break such a tab.

Anyway, I'll assume the result is correct. Afaik no liniar burst was used as I didn't see it in the BIOS anywhere and the CPU was misidentified.

I just re-tested my Mobile Celeron 500MHz (IBM Thinkpad A20m) this time running Win2000 SP4.
4m 6.975s

That's an impressive jump from when running in Win9x, I wonder if SuperPi runs faster under Win2000/XP than in 9x (no 32bit on 16bit APLs to screw with)...

Tetrium wrote:

Result: Cyrix MII 300Mhz GA-5AX 128MB SDRAM PC-100(cl?) 11m 23.560s […]
Show full quote

Result: Cyrix MII 300Mhz GA-5AX 128MB SDRAM PC-100(cl?)
11m 23.560s

The BIOS recognized it as a 350Mhz CPU, but I assume this is incorrect.
It is jumpered for 3x100Mhz

A MII 300 running at 3x100? Is it an MII 433 or is it an MII 300 running overclocked? Just wondering if that's why it's not recognized properly.

Even so, holy heck thats a slow time compared to similar chips. Both the K6 and Celeron at those speeds leave it in the dust. And if it's the one carrying a PR433 rating, it looks even worse.

maddmaxstar wrote:

Tetrium wrote:

Result: Cyrix MII 300Mhz GA-5AX 128MB SDRAM PC-100(cl?) 11m 23.560s […]
Show full quote

Result: Cyrix MII 300Mhz GA-5AX 128MB SDRAM PC-100(cl?)
11m 23.560s

The BIOS recognized it as a 350Mhz CPU, but I assume this is incorrect.
It is jumpered for 3x100Mhz

A MII 300 running at 3x100? Is it an MII 433 or is it an MII 300 running overclocked? Just wondering if that's why it's not recognized properly.

Even so, holy heck thats a slow time compared to similar chips. Both the K6 and Celeron at those speeds leave it in the dust. And if it's the one carrying a PR433 rating, it looks even worse.

It's the MII PR400. It's standard speed is 95Mhz x 3. This one is (slightly) overclocked to 100Mhz x 3.
Maybe I should rerun the test?
Perhaps tightening the CAS latency will help, but probably only a little.

At any rate, it's only a bit slower clock for clock then a Pentium 1

maddmaxstar wrote:

I just re-tested my Mobile Celeron 500MHz (IBM Thinkpad A20m) this time running Win2000 SP4.
4m 6.975s

That's an impressive jump from when running in Win9x, I wonder if SuperPi runs faster under Win2000/XP than in 9x (no 32bit on 16bit APLs to screw with)...

That's very impressive actually!

Here's photo evidence:

Core2Duo E8500 @ 3.8GHZ (400FSB)
8GB Crucial DDR2-1066
ASUS P5E w/updated microcode in bios (1201+)
Windows 7 X64 Ultimate

12.476 seconds for 1M with Super PI Mod 1.5

Just finished my CPU upgrade on my Thinkpad A20m. Just installed a PIII-800 CPU, however because the mainboard doesn't support speedstep (previous chip was a Celeron 500), the CPU's locked at 650. It's fast enough so no worries.

In the end it was able to crunch 1M a full minute faster than the Celery, at 3m 02.853s

Just noticed. Look where the poor K6-2 sits! And that too on an oc'ed bus....

Pentium 2 266MHz - 7m 26.852s
AMD K6-2 @495mhz - 8m 7.024s
Celeron 266MHz - 9m 14.117

Really good data. This could be a list like no other. I think we may be one of the few, if not only forums where members have just about every piece of hardware ever made for testing.

sgt76 wrote:

Just noticed. Look where the poor K6-2 sits! And that too on an oc'ed bus.... […]
Show full quote

Just noticed. Look where the poor K6-2 sits! And that too on an oc'ed bus....

Pentium 2 266MHz - 7m 26.852s
AMD K6-2 @495mhz - 8m 7.024s
Celeron 266MHz - 9m 14.117

Really good data. This could be a list like no other. I think we may be one of the few, if not only forums where members have just about every piece of hardware ever made for testing.

Yes, it's a very good list 😀
We've tested so far everything ranging from 386 all the way to i7 in a matter of days!
If I have time I'll go test some more VIA stuff (VIA C3 is in my head 🤣)

Updated list:

Core2Duo E8500 @ 3.8GHZ (400FSB) - 12.476s
Core i7-2720QM 2.2Ghz - 12.854s
X4 960T 4.4GHz - 16.286s
Phenom II X6 1090T (3.2GHz+Turbo, Thuban Core, 6x512k L2, 6MB L3) = 21.434s
Core i3 M330 2.13GHz - 21.513s
PhenomII 3.2Ghz - 21.699s
X4 960T 3.0GHz - 23.353s
Athlon X2 4850e (2.5GHz Brisbane, 2x512k L2) - 36.219s
Athlon 64 3000+ (Venice E6) @ 2.5ghz - 37.172s
Prescott 3.0E @ 3.6Ghz - 38.750s
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ (2.3GHz Brisbane 65nm 2x512k L2) = 39.204s
P4 3.2C @ 3.6GHz (northwood) - 41.125s
Phenom II X3 E840 (1.9GHz, Caspian core, 3x512mb L2 Cache) = 41.169s
Athlon 64 3200+ 2.2Ghz - 42.594s
Athlon 64 3500+ 2.2Ghz - 43.906s
Athlon 64 3200+ 2.2Ghz - 45.015s
Prescott 3.0E@3ghz - 45.094s
AMD Athlon 64 3700+ (2.2GHz 1MB L2, San Diego) = 45.312s
P4 Northwood HT 3.2Ghz - 46.734s
P4 Northwood HT 3.2GHz - 48.984s
Northwood 2.8B @ 3.15ghz - 55.57s
Athlon XP 3200+ (2.2Ghz) - 57.406s
Sempron 2600+ (1.83Ghz 333fsb) - 1m 05.438s
XP 2000+ (1.67Ghz Palomino 133fsb) - 1m 23.850s
Pentium 3 1400S - 1m50.764s
Athlon Thunderbird 1400C - 2m 0.766s
Pentium III 1400Mhz - 2m 6.150s
PIII Coppermine @ 966mhz - 2m 57.883s
Coppermine 1000 - 2m 58.616s
Mobile Pentium 3 650 (Win2000 SP4) - 3m 02.853s
Pentium III 933Mhz - 3m 9.189s
P3 800 Slot 1 - 03m 13.706s
Pentium 3 650MHz - 3m 7.930s
Intel Celeron 800MHz - 3m 29.461s
AMD Athlon 700MHz - 3m 38.915s
Mobile Celeron 500MHz (Win2000 SP4) - 4m 6.975s
Intel Celeron 800 - 4m 07.752s
AMD Athlon 550MHz - 4m 13.074s
Intel Celeron 466MHz - 5m 03.346s
Mobile Celeron 500MHz (Coppermine, Skt 495) = 6m 00.120s
k6/3 450 - 6m 18.131s
Celeron 366MHz - 6m 38.563s
Celeron 333MHz - 6m 57.971s
Pentium 2 266MHz - 7m 26.852s
AMD K6-2 @495mhz - 8m 7.024s
Celeron 266MHz - 9m 14.117
Cyrix MII 300Mhz - 11m 23.560s
Mobile Pentium MMX 233MHz (Tillamook on MMC-1) - 12m 24.011s
AMD K6-233 - 12m 42.204s
Pentium 133mhz - 16m 23.153s
Intel Pentium 75MHz - 45m 27.274s
AMD Enhanced Am486DX4 120MHz - 50m 31.356s

Heres another test for the list

P4 3.2C @ 3.6GHz (northwood) | 4x512MB DDR400 2.5/3/3/7 | Intel 915 chipset 41.125s

Results from my s939 system.

Athlon 64 3000+ (Venice E6) @ 2.5ghz | 2x512MB DDR358 3-3-3-8 1T | Asus A8N-SLI (N force 4) - 37.172s

List updated.

Intel 386SX-16, 8MB RAM, Win 3.11 + Win32S
Result: 27days 19h 31min 43sec

Screenshot:
http://www.hwbot.org/image/545608.jpg

DrSwizz wrote:

Intel 386SX-16, 8MB RAM, Win 3.11 + Win32S Result: 27days 19h 31min 43sec […]
Show full quote

Intel 386SX-16, 8MB RAM, Win 3.11 + Win32S
Result: 27days 19h 31min 43sec

Screenshot:
http://www.hwbot.org/image/545608.jpg

You actually left your computer running for almost an entire month tog et the SuperPi results?

This thread isn't even that old yet.

DrSwizz wrote:

Intel 386SX-16, 8MB RAM, Win 3.11 + Win32S
Result: 27days 19h 31min 43sec

Wow, the difference a Coprocessor can make in this test 😜

sliderider wrote:

DrSwizz wrote:

Intel 386SX-16, 8MB RAM, Win 3.11 + Win32S Result: 27days 19h 31min 43sec […]
Show full quote

Intel 386SX-16, 8MB RAM, Win 3.11 + Win32S
Result: 27days 19h 31min 43sec

Screenshot:
http://www.hwbot.org/image/545608.jpg

You actually left your computer running for almost an entire month tog et the SuperPi results?

This thread isn't even that old yet.

Yes, the screenshot is real. 😀

I did it last year for HWBot, you can see the submission here:
http://www.hwbot.org/submission/2133058_drswi … min_43sec_488ms

You might want to add this result to the list too:

Pentium 60 overclocked to 66MHz, 512KB cache, 48MB RAM
30min 36sec 231ms
http://www.hwbot.org/image/408895.jpg

While testing some hardware my Asus P2B-DS with 2 x P3 800 did 02m 42.750s running W2K.

DrSwizz wrote:

Yes, the screenshot is real. :-) […]
Show full quote

sliderider wrote:

DrSwizz wrote:

Intel 386SX-16, 8MB RAM, Win 3.11 + Win32S Result: 27days 19h 31min 43sec […]
Show full quote

Intel 386SX-16, 8MB RAM, Win 3.11 + Win32S
Result: 27days 19h 31min 43sec

Screenshot:
http://www.hwbot.org/image/545608.jpg

You actually left your computer running for almost an entire month tog et the SuperPi results?

This thread isn't even that old yet.

Yes, the screenshot is real. 😀

I did it last year for HWBot, you can see the submission here:
http://www.hwbot.org/submission/2133058_drswi … min_43sec_488ms

So the x87 emulation library you used was the one that comes with win 3.11 ?
And did the 386sx system used cache?
Why does the system analysis tool in your screenshot reports a 386DX instead?
btw: your hwbot entry reports 8 GB FP RAM, better fix this two errors. 😉

elianda wrote:

So the x87 emulation library you used was the one that comes with win 3.11 ? And did the 386sx system used cache? Why does the s […]
Show full quote

DrSwizz wrote:

Yes, the screenshot is real. :-) […]
Show full quote

sliderider wrote:

You actually left your computer running for almost an entire month tog et the SuperPi results?

This thread isn't even that old yet.

Yes, the screenshot is real. 😀

I did it last year for HWBot, you can see the submission here:
http://www.hwbot.org/submission/2133058_drswi … min_43sec_488ms

So the x87 emulation library you used was the one that comes with win 3.11 ?
And did the 386sx system used cache?
Why does the system analysis tool in your screenshot reports a 386DX instead?
btw: your hwbot entry reports 8 GB FP RAM, better fix this two errors. 😉

Well, SuperPi is a win32 application so I suppose that the FPU emulation is a part of the win32s library.

The system has no cache, which in combination with the FPU emulation greatly contributes to the slowness.

Syschk for some reason fails to detect the CPU properly, it is really a 386SX CPU.

As for incorrect values in the HWBot entry, those are there because of bugs in the HWbot code. Apparently they never anticipated people using so slow hardware with so little memory.