The Ultimate 686 Benchmark Comparison

Discussion about old PC hardware.

The Ultimate 686 Benchmark Comparison

Postby feipoa » 2013-2-14 @ 10:58

THE ULTIMATE 686 BENCHMARK COMPARISON



In this study, 177 586/686-class CPUs were benchmarked in the frequency range of 60 - 600 MHz. The front-side bus was limited to 100 MHz or less (50 - 100 MHz). Several popular benchmark suites were utilised, including DOS-, Windows-, synthetic-, and game-based platforms. 20 CPUs with different architecture were also compared clock-for-clock at 133 MHz. The hardware used for each test was held constant, thereby allowing the results to be directly comparable from one CPU to another. Approximately 17,000 data points were taken manually and tabulated using Excel.

Note1: The precursor to this thread can be found here.

Note2: This 686 benchmark comparison was performed in a matter similar to the Ultimate 486 Benchmark Comparison.




TEST METHODOLOGY

The raw data is shown at the end of this report, along with another large multi-page table which normalises all data to that of a Pentium P55C 233 MMX. The normalised data is then multiplied by 100 to be more pleasing to the eye. Next, select tests are averaged to represent integer, floating-point, and overall performances.

Test numbers used for the Integer average:
3, 16, 18, (28, 34), 51, 52, 53, 56, 58, 61, (67, 69), and (79-82)

Test numbers used for the Floating-point average:
2, 4, 17, 19, 54, 55, 59, 60, 62, (68, 70), (83-86), 88, 90, 96, and 98

Test numbers used for the Overall average:
3, 16, 18, (28, 34), 51, 52, 53, 56, 58, 61, (67, 69), (79-82), 2, 17, (4, 19), 54, 55, (59, 60), 62, (68, 70), (83-86), 88, (90, 96), 98, 1, 31, 46, and 75

These test numbers are also indicated by an I, F, or O on the first page of the raw and normalised data tables. I for Integer, F for floating-point, and O for overall.

The instances of (x, y) indicate that x and y results were averaged. This is needed for cases whereby two tests were utilised from a single benchmark suite. Not averaging these values would give more weight to a specific benchmark program. For the Overall average score, some benchmark pairs needed to be averaged to reduce the number of floating point tests to equal the number of integer tests. In this way Integer and Floating-point tests are given the same total weight for the Overall average.

Although the hardware remained constant for these tests, the motherboard had to be changed for different PGA platforms, however all socket 7, socket 3, slot 1, etc CPUs were tested on the same respective motherboard. The exception to this rule was with VIA Nehemiah, Samuel, and Ezra CPUs, which only worked well on certain motherboards. Refer to the footnotes in the raw and normalised data tables for more information.

When transitioning from the socket 7 to the super 7 motherboard, some cross-over exists whereby the same CPU was tested on both motherboards. This was deliberate and was intended to offer some comparison between the i430TX chipset and the VIA MVP3. When browsing though the charts, it may not be immediately obvious if a socket 7 CPU was tested on the socket 7 or super socket 7 motherboard. If the CPU is listed as using a 95 or 100 MHz FSB, e.g. 100 / 3.0x, then it was tested on the super 7 motherboard. If the FSB is between 66 - 83 MHz, assume it is tested on the socket 7 motherboard, unless the name is followed by the -SS7 suffix, in which case it was tested on the super socket 7 motherboard. The subscripts listed on the raw data table also identify which motherboard was used for every CPU. The raw data table also lists the s-spec and CPUID for each CPU tested.

From the raw and normalised data tables, a simpler table was created to more easily identify the results for Integer, Floating-point, Overall, Quake 1, Quake 2, Quake 2 - OpenGL, Doom, PassMark - MMX, and 3DMark99Max. This table can be found under the heading SELECT BENCHMARK RESULTS - LISTED BY CPU. The results from this table are then rearranged in descending order based on benchmark score under the heading INTEGER PERFORMANCE - RANKED IN DESCENDING ORDER, and continued for Floating-point, Overall, Quake 1, Quake 2, etc.

Following the tables are bar charts containing 20 different CPUs - all run at 133 MHz. These charts give a quick means to compare the performance of different CPU architectures on a clock-for-clock basis. These charts offers a quick means to estimate if, for example, a Pentium II outperforms an AMD K6-2 at any mutual frequency. If the PII scores better than the AMD K6-2 at 133 MHz, it is also likely better at 450 MHz. The FSB and multiplier used for the 133 MHz comparison is assumed to be 66 x 2, respectively, unless noted otherwise on the charts.

In most cases, the author of this work tested each CPU, with the exception of the socket 8 and slot 2 CPUs. These CPUs were tested by http://www.vogons.org user luckybob. Some Xeons were also loaned by http://www.vogons.org user m1919 for testing by luckybob. The AMD K5-133 chip was lent by cpu-world.com user jrmunro for testing. The BIOS for the Biostar MB-8500TTD socket 7 motherboard was modified by Jan Steunebrink to allow for usage of AMD K6-2, K6-2+, K6-3, and K6-3+ CPUs. BIOS modifications were also made to allow for the usage of 4.0x multipliers on Cyrix 6x86MX/MII CPUs. Many thanks to all those who assisted in this endeavour!



REQUIRED SOFTWARE

● Windows 98SE
● Matrox G200 driver version 6.28
● Unofficial Service Pack 2.1a
● Internet Explorer 6
● DirectX 6.1a
● Benchmark programs:

DOS
● Symantec Sysinfo v8.0
● PiDOS
● Landmark v2.0
● Bytemark v2.0
● Roy Longbottom Dhrystone v1.1
● Roy Longbottom Whetstone
● Speedsys v4.78
● Cachechk v7.0
● 3Dbench v1.0c
● Doom v1
● Pcpbench v1.04 @ 640x400 8bpp LFB
● Quake v1.06 @ 640x480 (no sound)

WINDOWS
● SuperPi v1.1
● Ziff-Davis Winbench96
● Ziff-Davis Winbench99
● Ziff-Davis 3D Winbench97
● WinTune98
● Sandra99
● PassMark v4.0
● 3DMark99Max @ 800x600
● Final Reality v1.01
● MDK
● Quake II v3.20* @ 640x480


* FastVid was not enabled for testing. Enabling FastVid may increase highly graphic DOS-based benchmark scores, such as 3Dbench and Doom, when using a Pentium Pro, Pentium II, or Pentium III CPU.

* Note that the 3DNow! patch for Quake II was not used. The knowledge of this patch came after all results were tabulated This patch allows Quake II to utilise 3DNow! instructions and greatly improves the frame rate for 3DNow!-enabled CPUs. For this study, the CPUs which would benefit from this patch are the AMD K6-2, AMD K6-3, AMD K6-3+, AMD K6-2+, IDT WinChip2, and AMD Athlon. There are reports that applying the patch increases frame rates on an AMD K6-2 by ~20%.


Matrox driver versions:

AMD X5, Intel DX4, IBM 5x86, and non-MX Cyrix/IBM 6x86 CPUs required Matrox driver version 4.33c to boot into Windows 98. All other CPUs used Matrox driver version 6.28. Benchmarks requiring OpenGL, which were 3DMark99Max and Quake2 - OpenGL, did not function properly with driver version 4.33c. For these two benchmark programs and with the above noted CPUs only, Matrox driver version 5.07 was used in Windows NT 4.0 to acquire the data.


Speedsys confusion in raw and normalised tables:

Max of Ave L1 Cache (test 31): Tests 31, 32, and 33 are calculated by Speedsys and displayed on the main graph automatically. This is what Speedsys appears to be doing with these speeds: taking the average of non-MMX L1 cache speeds for read, write, and move; taking the average of MMX L1 cache speeds for read, write, and move; displaying the maximum of these two averages on line 31 (for L1), line 32 (for L2), and line 33 (for memory). This seemed somewhat unfair for CPUs which did not have an MMX unit. For the integer tests, I used the average (read, write, move) non-MMX L1 speed (test 34). Test 31, however, was used for part of the Overall score.

Max L1 Cache (test 37): Displays the maximum non-MMX cache speed, that is, the maximum of read, write, or move. In most cases, the L1 read speed is the maximum, but for some CPUs, it is move or write.

In Speedsys and Cachechk tests, whereby two L2 cache speeds exist, e.g. 388 / 168, the second tabulated speed represents the motherboard's L2 cache speed and the first tabulated speed is the CPU's L2 cache. All other incidences of L2 refer to the motherboard's L2 cache.


Commands for:

Quake 1
timedemo demo1

Quake 2
timedemo 1
map demo1.dm2

DOOM
doom -timedemo demo1
gametics/realtics*35



REQUIRED HARDWARE

● PCI Matrox G200 w/16MB (screen resolution at 1280x1024x16bit)
● PCI Yamaha DS-XG sound card
● 64 MB PC100 SDRAM (1 stick only)
● For the Cyrix/IBM 5x86 tests, the following register settings were used:

RSTK_EN = 0
BTB_EN = 1
LOOP_EN = 0
LSSER = 0
USE_WBAK = 1
WT1 = 1
BWRT = 1
LINBRST = 1
FP_FAST = 1
MEM_BYP = 1
DTE_EN = 1

For more information on Cyrix register settings, refer to the thread: Cyrix Register Enhancements Revealed.


● For the Cyrix/IBM 6x86 tests, the following register settings were used:

NO_LOCK = 1
WT_ALLOC = 1
LINBRST = 0 (limitation of 430TX chipset)
LINBRST = 1 (VIA Apollo MVP3)


MOTHERBOARDS

1 Biostar MB-8433UUD (UMC 8881F/8886BF) - Socket 3
2 Biostar MB-8500TTD (Intel 430TX) - Socket 7
3 FIC PA-2013 (VIA Apollo MVP3 - 598AT / 586B) - Super Socket 7
4 Asus P3V4X (VIA Apollo Pro 133A - 694X / 596B) - Slot 1
5 Asus TUSL2-C (Intel 815EP) - Socket 370
6 Gigabyte 6VX7-4X (VIA Apollo Pro 133A - 694X / 686A) - Socket 370
7 MSI MS-6167 (AMD-750 Irongate - 751 / 756) - Slot A
8 Asus P/I-P65UP5 with C-P6ND CPU Card (Intel 440FX) - Socket 8
9 ECS P5GX-M (MediaGX + CX5530) - Socket 7-GXM
10 Asus XG-DLS - Slot 2


The tested CPUs are noted on the following page. For the 8 CPUs which have 'simulated' as part of the title, the results for these were linearly extrapolated from other same brand CPUs with similar architecture. When extrapolating the data, at least 3 data points were used to form a linear fit. These host CPUs had the same front-side bus as the CPU being simulated. Very little standard deviation was noted with this linearization.

Some CPUs in the 60-600 MHz range (100 MHz FSB or less) which were not available for testing include the following,

● Intel PIII Xeon - 600 MHz
● Intel PII Dechutes - 450 MHz
● Intel PIII Coppermine - 500 & 550 MHz
● Intel Pentium P5 - 60 & 66 MHz
● All NexGen CPUs.

Results for the original Pentium P5 - 60 CPU were extrapolated from P90/P120/P150 data, and similarly, the P5 - 66 data was extrapolated from P100/P133/P166/P200 data. In these cases, the results simulate a P60/P66 on a socket 7 motherboard with "pipeline burst equivalent" Mcache. These simulated P5 results will be elevated by an amount which equates to the natural speed difference between a socket 4 and a socket 7 motherboard. This is perhaps somewhere in the 0-15% range.

In most cases, if you try to run a PII Klamath with a 2.0x multiplier, the onboard L2 cache will get disabled on motherboards with a chipset other than a 440FX. For the VIA Apollo Pro chipset (and 440BX), it was discovered that setting the CLKMUL jumper to 5.0x allows the CPU to run at 2.0x with L2 enabled. While some speed measuring programs may indicate the FSB as 26.7 MHz, multiple tests seem to indicate that the FSB is actually at 66 MHz.

As far as data analysis goes, I think I will leave this task to the reader... at least for now.



BENCHMARKED CPUS

SOCKET 7

Cyrix 6x86-75 (75 x 1)
Cyrix 6x86-83 (83 x 1)
Cyrix 6x86-100 (50 x 2)
Cyrix 6x86-110 (55 x 2)
Cyrix 6x86-120 (60 x 2)
Cyrix 6x86-133 (66 x 2)
Cyrix 6x86L-150 (75 x 2)
Cyrix 6x86MX-133 (66 x 2)
Cyrix 6x86MX-150 (60 x 2.5)
Cyrix 6x86MX-166 (66 x 2.5)
Cyrix 6x86MX-200 (66 x 3)
Cyrix 6x86MII-233 (66 x 3.5)
Cyrix 6x86MII-250 (83 x 3)
Cyrix 6x86MII-262 (75 x 3.5)
Cyrix 6x86MII-266 (66 x 4)
Cyrix 6x86MII-292 (83 x 3.5)
Cyrix 6x86MII-300 (75 x 4)
Cyrix 6x86MII-333 (83 x 4)
AMD K5-75 (50 x 1.5)
AMD K5-90 (60 x 1.5)
AMD K5-100 (66 x 1.5)
AMD K5-105 (60 x 1.75)
AMD K5-117 (66 x 1.5)
AMD K5-120 (60 x 2)
AMD K5-125 (83 x 1.5)
AMD K5-133 (66 x 2)
AMD K6-133 (66 x 2)
AMD K6-166 (66 x 2.5)
AMD K6-200 (66 x 3)
AMD K6-233 (66 x 3.5)
AMD K6-262 (75 x 3.5)
AMD K6-266 (66 x 4)
AMD K6-292 (83 x 3.5)
AMD K6-300 (66 x 4.5)
AMD K6-300 (75 x 4)
AMD K6-333 (83 x 4)
AMD K6-2-133 (66 x 2)
AMD K6-2-233 (66 x 3.5)
AMD K6-2-266 (66 x 4)
AMD K6-2-300 (75 x 4)
AMD K6-2-333 (83 x 4)
AMD K6-2+-133 (66 x 2)
AMD K6-2+-300 (75 x 4)
AMD K6-3+-133 (66 x 2)
AMD K6-3+-300 (75 x 4)
AMD K6-3+-333 (83 x 4)
AMD K6-3+-500 (83 x 6)
Intel P54C-75 (50 x 1.5)
Intel P54C-90 (60 x 1.5)
Intel P54C-100 (66 x 1.5)
Intel P54C-120 (60 x 2)
Intel P54C-133 (66 x 2)
Intel P54C-150 (60 x 2.5)
Intel P54C-166 (66 x 2.5)
Intel P54C-200 (66 x 3)
Intel P55C-133 (66 x 2)
Intel P55C-166 (66 x 2.5)
Intel P55C-200 (66 x 3)
Intel P55C-233 (66 x 3.5)
Intel P55C-262 (75 x 3.5)
Intel P55C-300 (75 x 4) - Simulated
IDT Winchip C6-133 (66 x 2)
IDT Winchip C6-200 (66 x 3)
IDT Winchip2A-133 (50 x 2.66)
IDT Winchip2A-133 (66 x 2) - Simulated
IDT Winchip2A-166 (66 x 3.5)
IDT Winchip2A-200 (66 x 3)
IDT Winchip2A-225 (75 x 3)
IDT Winchip2A-233 (66 x 3.5)
IDT Winchip2A-240 (60 x 4)
IDT Winchip2A-250 (83 x 3)
IDT Winchip2A-262 (75 x 3.5)
Rise mP6-133 (66 x 2)
Rise mP6-166 (66 x 2.5)
Rise mP6-166 (83 x 2.5)
Rise mP6-200 (66 x 3)
Rise mP6-208 (83 x 2.5)
Rise mP6-233 (66 x 3.5) - Simulated


SUPER SOCKET 7

Cyrix 6x86MII-250 (100 x 2.5)
Cyrix 6x86MII-285 (83 x 3)
Cyrix 6x86MII-300 (75 x 4)
Cyrix 6x86MII-300 (100 x 3)
Cyrix 6x86MII-333 (83 x 4)
Cyrix 6x86MII-350 (83 x 4.5)
Cyrix 6x86MII-400 (100 x 4) - Simulated
AMD K6-300 (75 x 4)
AMD K6-300 (100 x 3)
AMD K6-2-300 (100 x 3)
AMD K6-2-350 (100 x 3.5)
AMD K6-2-400 (66 x 6)
AMD K6-2-400 (100 x 4)
AMD K6-2-450 (100 x 4.5)
AMD K6-2-500 (100 x 5)
AMD K6-2-550 (100 x 5.5)
AMD K6-2-600 (100 x 6)
AMD K6-2+-350 (100 x 3.5)
AMD K6-2+-400 (100 x 4)
AMD K6-2+-450 (100 x 4.5)
AMD K6-2+-500 (100 x 5)
AMD K6-2+-550 (100 x 5.5)
AMD K6-2+-600 (100 x 6)
AMD K6-3+-350 (100 x 3.5)
AMD K6-3+-400 (66 x 6)
AMD K6-3+-400 (100 x 4)
AMD K6-3+-450 (100 x 4.5)
AMD K6-3+-500 (83 x 6)
AMD K6-3+-500 (100 x 5)
AMD K6-3+-550 (100 x 5.5)
AMD K6-3+-600 (100 x 6)
Intel P55C-250 (100 x 2.5)
Intel P55C-262 (75 x 3.5)
Intel P55C-300 (100 x 3)
Winchip2A-233 (100 x 2.33)
Winchip2A-250 (100 x 2.5)
Rise mP6-200 (100 x 2)


SOCKET 7-GXM

Cyrix MediaGX-133 (33 x 4) - Simulated
Cyrix MediaGX-150 (30 x 5)
Cyrix MediaGX-166 (33 x 5)
Cyrix MediaGX-180 (30 x 6)
Cyrix MediaGX-200 (33 x 6)
Cyrix MediaGX-233 (33 x 7)
Cyrix MediaGX-266 (33 x 8)
Cyrix MediaGX-300 (33 x 9) - Simulated
Cyrix MediaGX-333 (33 x 10) - Simulated


SOCKET 4

Intel P5-60 (60 x 1) - Simulated
Intel P5-66 (66 x 1) - Simulated


SOCKET 3

IBM 5x86c-100 (50 x 2)
IBM 5x86c-120 (60 x 2)
IBM 5x86c-133 (66 x 2)
AMD X5-133 (33 x 4)
AMD X5-160 (40 x 4)
Intel DX4WB-133 (66 x 2)
Intel P24T-83 (33 x 2.5)
Intel P24T-100 (40 x 2.5)


SOCKET 8

Intel P6-133 / 256k (66 x 2)
Intel P6-150 / 256k (60 x 2.5)
Intel P6-166 / 256k (66 x 2.5)
Intel P6-180 / 256k (60 x 3)
Intel P6-200 / 256k (66 x 3)
Intel P6-210 / 256k (60 x 3.5)
Intel P6-233 / 256k (66 x 3.5)
Intel P6-133 / 1mb (66 x 2)
Intel P6-166 / 1mb (66 x 2.5)
Intel P6-200 / 1mb (66 x 3)
Intel P6-233 / 1mb (66 x 3.5)
Intel PIIOD-300 (60 x 5)
Intel PIIOD-333 (66 x 5)


SLOT 1

Intel PII-Klamath-133 (66 x 2)
Intel PII-Klamath-166 (66 x 2.5)
Intel PII-Klamath-200 (66 x 3)
Intel PII-Klamath-233 (66 x 3.5)
Intel PII-Klamath-266 (66 x 4)
Intel PII-Klamath-300 (100 x 3)
Intel PII-Dechutes-350 (100 x 3.5)
Intel PII-Dechutes-400 (100 x 4)
Intel PIII-Katmai-500 (100 x 5)
Intel PIII-Katmai-550 (100 x 5.5)
Intel PIII-Katmai-600 (100 x 6)
Intel PIII-Coppermine-600 (100 x 6)
Intel Celeron-Mendocino-300 (66 x 4.5)
Intel Celeron-Mendocino-400 (66 x 6)
Intel Celeron-Mendocino-450 (100 x 4.5)


SLOT 2

Intel PII-Xeon-400 / 512k (100 x 4)
Intel PII-Xeon-400 / 2mb (100 x 4)
Intel PII-Xeon-450 / 512k (100 x 4.5)
Intel PII-Xeon-450 / 2mb (100 x 4.5)
Intel PIII-Xeon-500 / 512k (100 x 5)
Intel PIII-Xeon-550 / 512k (100 x 5.5)


SLOT A

AMD Athlon-500 (100 x 5)
AMD Athlon-600 (100 x 6)


SOCKET 370

VIA C3-Samuel-550 (100 x 5.5)
VIA C3-Samuel-600 (100 x 6)
VIA C3-Samuel2-600 (100 x 6)
VIA C3-Ezra-600 (100 x 6)
VIA C3-Nehemiah-400 (66 x 6)
VIA C3-Nehemiah-600 (66 x 6)
VIA C3-Nehemiah-600(100 x 6)

The downloadable images shown directly below contain 177 CPU data points each. The scores are ranked in descending order. After clicking on an image, hit your browser's zoom-in button. You can then scroll freely.
Attachments
686_ALU_and_FPU.png
(150.85 KiB) Downloaded 179 times
686_Overall_and_Quake1.png
(155.09 KiB) Downloaded 196 times
686_Quake2_and_Quake2GL.png
(150.19 KiB) Downloaded 159 times
686_3DMark99Max_and_PassMark-MMX.png
(142.54 KiB) Downloaded 138 times
686_Doom.png
(84.57 KiB) Downloaded 167 times
Last edited by feipoa on 2013-8-04 @ 00:04, edited 11 times in total.
User avatar
feipoa
l33t
 
Posts: 4303
Joined: 2011-3-07 @ 13:54
Location: Canada

Re: The Ultimate 686 Benchmark Comparison

Postby feipoa » 2013-2-14 @ 10:59

Clock-for-clock comparison at 133 MHz.
Attachments
686_133MHz_FPU.png
686_133MHz_FPU.png (10.53 KiB) Viewed 35080 times
686_133MHz_Quake1.png
686_133MHz_Quake1.png (10.02 KiB) Viewed 35080 times
686_133MHz_ALU.png
686_133MHz_ALU.png (10.61 KiB) Viewed 35080 times
686_133MHz_Overall.png
686_133MHz_Overall.png (10.38 KiB) Viewed 35080 times
686_133MHz_Quake2.png
686_133MHz_Quake2.png (10.07 KiB) Viewed 35080 times
Last edited by feipoa on 2013-5-14 @ 10:37, edited 5 times in total.
User avatar
feipoa
l33t
 
Posts: 4303
Joined: 2011-3-07 @ 13:54
Location: Canada

Re: The Ultimate 686 Benchmark Comparison

Postby feipoa » 2013-2-14 @ 10:59

Clock-for-clock comparison at 133 MHz continued...

The full pdf report contains all raw data in printer friendly form.
Attachments
Ultimate_686_Benchmark_Comparison.pdf
The Ultimate 686 Benchmark Comparison - Full Report
(2.3 MiB) Downloaded 642 times
686_133MHz_Quake2-OpenGL.png
686_133MHz_Quake2-OpenGL.png (10.71 KiB) Viewed 35079 times
686_133MHz_Doom.png
686_133MHz_Doom.png (9.57 KiB) Viewed 35079 times
686_133MHz_3DMark99Max.png
686_133MHz_3DMark99Max.png (9.62 KiB) Viewed 35079 times
686_133MHz_PassMark-MMX.png
686_133MHz_PassMark-MMX.png (8.88 KiB) Viewed 35079 times
Last edited by feipoa on 2015-5-15 @ 23:33, edited 10 times in total.
User avatar
feipoa
l33t
 
Posts: 4303
Joined: 2011-3-07 @ 13:54
Location: Canada

Re: The Ultimate 686 Benchmark Comparison

Postby elianda » 2013-2-14 @ 11:29

If there would be an award for efforts on summarizing information from real vintage systems I would vote for this.
Retronn.de - Vintage Hardware Gallery, Drivers, Guides, HQ Videos.
Youtube Channel
FTP Server - Driver Archive and more
DVI2PCIe alignment and 2D image quality measurement tool
User avatar
elianda
l33t
 
Posts: 2169
Joined: 2006-4-21 @ 16:56
Location: Halle / Germany

Re: The Ultimate 686 Benchmark Comparison

Postby feipoa » 2013-2-14 @ 11:33

For this comparison, user comments will be used in place of a formal discussion section.

I added a scan of the Socket 7 CPUs used in this comparison.
CPU_686_Scan.jpg
Images of the Socket 7 CPUs used in this comparison.
(4.75 MiB) Downloaded 124 times


20 Jan. 2015 - I have added the Excel spreadsheet for easy viewing and comparison between CPUs.
Ultimate_686_Benchmark_Comparison_Vogons.xls
(1.02 MiB) Downloaded 292 times
Last edited by feipoa on 2015-5-15 @ 23:34, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
feipoa
l33t
 
Posts: 4303
Joined: 2011-3-07 @ 13:54
Location: Canada

Re: The Ultimate 686 Benchmark Comparison

Postby mwdmeyer » 2013-2-14 @ 11:48

I'm pretty impressed with the K6 2/3 FPU performance. Seeing as it was meant to be pretty bad I think it has done very well.

I'll need to do some more testing of my own but it looks like the higher end K6 2/3s can easily beat the low end P2s, which I think is pretty cool.

My benchmarks of choice are a bit newer, Quake 3 and 3DMark 2000/2001se, so the K6s might perform different in these apps.

Great work, I'll be reading it more in the next few days.
Vogons Wiki - http://vogonswiki.com
User avatar
mwdmeyer
Member
 
Posts: 283
Joined: 2012-3-06 @ 11:35
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: The Ultimate 686 Benchmark Comparison

Postby luckybob » 2013-2-14 @ 12:26

man, Pentium pro overdrives are AWESOME chips... Something doesn't sit right with me on the quake 1 results though. I'm going to run that once more and double check. for some reason not only are those chips WINNING but beating chips 2x as fast in mhz. honestly i'd expect to see them just under the p2 xeons.

unless quake 1 dos loves p2-overdrives...
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes.
User avatar
luckybob
l33t
 
Posts: 2825
Joined: 2009-4-30 @ 04:43

Re: The Ultimate 686 Benchmark Comparison

Postby carlostex » 2013-2-14 @ 17:21

For me the most impressive chip is the AMD K5. AMD clearly designed a superior chip, but unfortunately it was actually too advanced for AMD to properly implement it.

Will remain my favorite fifth generation processor ever.
User avatar
carlostex
Oldbie
 
Posts: 1952
Joined: 2010-4-03 @ 21:39
Location: Portugal

Re: The Ultimate 686 Benchmark Comparison

Postby F2bnp » 2013-2-15 @ 18:02

Here are the tests I promised, hope you find them useful feipoa. These were all run without sound under Quake 2.
Attachments
K6-2 , K6-3+.xls
(10.5 KiB) Downloaded 327 times
User avatar
F2bnp
l33t
 
Posts: 3184
Joined: 2007-9-23 @ 10:19

Re: The Ultimate 686 Benchmark Comparison

Postby sunaiac » 2013-2-15 @ 18:32

You got your DX4 at 2x66 ! Nice :D
Fun to see it tail the PII in Doom :D
i7 980X/R9 290X/X-Fi titanium | FX-55/X1950pro AGP/Audigy 2
K7 1000/GeForce 2 Ti/AWE64G | P5 200/ET6000/AWE32
iDX4 100/ET4000W32p/SB16
User avatar
sunaiac
Member
 
Posts: 492
Joined: 2012-5-22 @ 17:31
Location: France

Re: The Ultimate 686 Benchmark Comparison

Postby feipoa » 2013-2-15 @ 19:03

Thank you for this data.

Here is the data in terms of percent increase for the 3DNow! patch.


Quake II @640x480 - Software Mode

AMD K6-III-300 (4.5x66): 26%
AMD K6-III-300 (3x100): 31%
AMD K6-III-500 (5x100): 23%
AMD K6-III-510 (5x110): 22%
AMD K6-II-300 (3x100): 28%
AMD K6-II-475 (5x95): 21%


Quake II @640x480 - OpenGL

AMD K6-III-300 (4.5x66): 17%
AMD K6-III-300 (3x100): 15%
AMD K6-III-500 (5x100): 18%
AMD K6-III-510 (5x110): 13%
AMD K6-II-300 (3x100): 18%
AMD K6-II-475 (5x95): 15%


The slower CPU speeds show greater benefit from 3DNow! I wonder how much increase the Winchip2 would show?

Do you think it would be of value to patch the Quake II charts to reflect these percent increases? EDIT: Actually, this would also alter the FPU and Overall charts, as well as the RAW/Normalised data tables.
User avatar
feipoa
l33t
 
Posts: 4303
Joined: 2011-3-07 @ 13:54
Location: Canada

Re: The Ultimate 686 Benchmark Comparison

Postby F2bnp » 2013-2-15 @ 23:55

Well, it will probably be too much of a hassle for just this one game. AMD made some pretty heavy tweaks to Quake 2 to really show off the power of 3Dnow!
But it's just Quake 2, I don't think there's really any other game that shows such improvement.
So in the end, its your call. I just found it fun to do these tests :D.
User avatar
F2bnp
l33t
 
Posts: 3184
Joined: 2007-9-23 @ 10:19

Re: The Ultimate 686 Benchmark Comparison

Postby leileilol » 2013-2-16 @ 00:01

Too bad their 3dnow stuff was never GPLed. :(

Maybe, MAYBE they'll do it with id's authorization if they're asked though, since 3dnow is deprecated tech

that said, Quake or Quake2 never had any MMX support either
User avatar
leileilol
l33t++
 
Posts: 8676
Joined: 2006-12-16 @ 18:03

Re: The Ultimate 686 Benchmark Comparison

Postby F2bnp » 2013-2-16 @ 00:05

Well, the fact that they dropped 3Dnow! instructions a couple of years ago could work to our advantage or our disadvantage if we try to get them to do it. :P
Either way, this thread wins on so many levels. Feipoa you're the man, also many thanks to the rest of you people that helped with the tests. You guys win on so many levels:
Image
User avatar
F2bnp
l33t
 
Posts: 3184
Joined: 2007-9-23 @ 10:19

Re: The Ultimate 686 Benchmark Comparison

Postby feipoa » 2013-2-16 @ 07:14

F2bnp wrote:Well, it will probably be too much of a hassle for just this one game. AMD made some pretty heavy tweaks to Quake 2 to really show off the power of 3Dnow!
But it's just Quake 2, I don't think there's really any other game that shows such improvement.
So in the end, its your call. I just found it fun to do these tests :D.

Let's wait to see if someone volunteers to measure the performance gain of a Winchip2 in Quake 2 w/3DNow! enabled. If so, then I'll amend all the AMD and Winchip data.
User avatar
feipoa
l33t
 
Posts: 4303
Joined: 2011-3-07 @ 13:54
Location: Canada

Re: The Ultimate 686 Benchmark Comparison

Postby feipoa » 2013-2-21 @ 09:48

Socket 7 CPU scan added to the 5th post down.
User avatar
feipoa
l33t
 
Posts: 4303
Joined: 2011-3-07 @ 13:54
Location: Canada

Re: The Ultimate 686 Benchmark Comparison

Postby kool kitty89 » 2013-2-25 @ 09:06

Really cool to see this completed! :)
kool kitty89
Member
 
Posts: 272
Joined: 2012-2-15 @ 08:43
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: The Ultimate 686 Benchmark Comparison

Postby Mystery » 2013-3-01 @ 11:34

Fantastic job, feipoa, thank you for your hard work and everyone involved in this project. Really nice to have such a thorough analysis of the 686 platform :)
::42::
User avatar
Mystery
Member
 
Posts: 190
Joined: 2010-4-11 @ 06:49

Re: The Ultimate 686 Benchmark Comparison

Postby feipoa » 2013-3-01 @ 23:57

Thanks! Unfortunately, I haven't written much by way of analysis (yet?). I'm waiting for a) time, b) the retro itch. I have noticed a few minor mistakes, which need to be fixed at one point.

For example, there are two Intel P55C, 262 MHz listings on the Overall chart with different scores. This is correct, however one of them should have an "SS7" suffix to denote it was run on a Super 7 board. Another curious point is, why the C3 Nehemiah at 600 MHz, 66 FSB scored 0.5 points higher than the C3 nehemiah at 600 MHz, 100 FSB. Again, refering to the Overall Performance Chart.

It would be good to cross-reference some of this data in the Vogons wiki. Someone noted on the wiki, "When overclocked to 262MHz or further, it [the P55C-262] provides exceptional performance no other Socket 7 CPU can match", which these 686 results seem suggest there being socket 7 CPUs with better performance. For overall performance, these socket 7 CPUs (66-83 MHz FSB) beat the P55C-262 on an Intel 430TX board,

Rise mP6-208
Cyrix MII 233-333
AMD K6 262-300


Looking at the FPU performance, these socket 7 CPUs (66-83 MHz FSB) beat the P55C-262 on an Intel 430TX board,

AMD K6 292-333
Cyrix MII-333 (83x4) - about 1% slower than the P55C-262.



For Quake II, these socket 7 CPUs (66-83 MHz FSB) beat the P55C-262 on an Intel 430TX board,

AMD K6-333 (83x4)
Cyrix MII-333 (83x4)

While I do not dispute the P55C-262 is an exceptional performer, I think the K6-300/333, when run at 75x4 or 83x4 may be just as good, or better. Note that I have omitted the K6-2, and K6+ series because it is more debatable that these are Super7 CPUs, although they will run on many 430TX boards.
User avatar
feipoa
l33t
 
Posts: 4303
Joined: 2011-3-07 @ 13:54
Location: Canada

Re: The Ultimate 686 Benchmark Comparison

Postby remax » 2013-3-03 @ 16:29

Do you think linear interpolation would be valid to get the results of a K6-3 450?

(either with other K6-3 or on the average gap of performance beetween K6-2 or K6-3+?)
remax
Newbie
 
Posts: 13
Joined: 2011-2-02 @ 14:17

Next

Return to General Old Hardware

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bishopcop, dada, Srandista and 8 guests