feipoa wrote:

I've just finished a series of testing with the Cyrix 5x86-133 and compiled results with 9 different benchmark programs. These […]
Show full quote

I've just finished a series of testing with the Cyrix 5x86-133 and compiled results with 9 different benchmark programs. These include,
Norton Sysinfo v8.0, PC-Config v9.33, PcpBench v1.97, Speedsys v4.78, Cachechk v4.0, Roy Longbottom's Dhrystone, Linpack, and Whetstone.

I also cross-compared the results to 13 other socket 3 cpus. The purpose of this is to show a performance comparison between cpus, not necessarily the fastest possible configuration. I used a PC Chips M919 for testing, however the Biostar MB-8433UUD v3.0 generally showed slightly improved performance over the M919. Also, switching to a VLB graphics card tends to increase 3D performance from that of the PCI ones. For example, pcpbench results increase from 8.2 to 9.2 with a Diamond Stealth 64 VRAM (4MB).

The cpus compared were,
Cyrix 5x86-133, 120, 100, and 100 with branch prediction on
AMD x5-160, 133, and AMD DX4-100
Intel Pentium Overdrive P24T-100 and 83.
Intel DX4-100, DX-33, SX2-50.

Unfortunately, the DX2-66 I had in the collection no longer boots.

Refer to the attached PDF for the comparison chart.

Wow. If that Cyrix 133 overclocks at all and is placed on the right motherboard it might be the new 486/586 speed champ.

elfuego wrote:

Guys are you serious? Rare? Cyrix 133mhz was one of the el-cheapo 'pentium imitations' back at the time and a lot of my friends used them because of the price. Most of them (CPUs, not friends 😜 ) ended in garbage - which must also be a reason that there are very few of them around nowadays.

As for the reason they ended in garbage - I'll leave it to you. 😜

The Cyrix 5x86 133 was always extremely rare. Even the 120mhz versions were scarce. It has nothing to do with people throwing them away because they were bad chips.

@Tetrium
Thanks for pointing that out. I was aware of the different caches available on AMD/Intel DX2/DX4 chips and will be adding it to the next revision of the comparison sheet.

I already included test results for the Intel DX4-100 on the original comparison sheet, as well as the POD-83/POD-100. Please refer back to the original PDF document. The Intel DX4-100 tested was an SK096, meaning it has 16KB of WB cache.

The PiDOS benchmark program only goes to the seconds place, unfortunately. If you want to increase your resolution, you need to increase the number of digits, for example 50,000 or 100,000 digits to get into minutes/seconds.

@rg100
Glad you now have more benchmark apps to play with. It sounds like you now have all the programs that I have. So far, I have recorded results for all the benchmark programs on my Cyrix 5x86-120. It would be interesting to see what you get with all the programs with the AMD X5-200.

feipoa wrote:

@rg100
Glad you now have more benchmark apps to play with. It sounds like you now have all the programs that I have. So far, I have recorded results for all the benchmark programs on my Cyrix 5x86-120. It would be interesting to see what you get with all the programs with the AMD X5-200.

My estimated time of finding the Biostar mobo in the attic of doom is now less than 1 week. I am ploughing through mountains of junk, doing 1 box each day. By next weekend, I'll have the Biostar up and running again, with the X5-200. Also, I think Old Thrashbarg wants to see some 486 tests done using Speedsys with an SX and then a DX chip. I can do that too, at the same time. 😀

I have an SX-25 (SX679) I could add to the list as well, but I thought it too slow to be of any interest, not to mention it will take forever to benchmark.

The DX-33 (SX729) is already on the original PDF. It performed worse than the SX2-50 in Speedsys.

You should try an SX-16, the slowest 486 ever released ;D

The 486 boards I have are too new, they will only go down to 25 Mhz. I'd need to add a clock divisor PLL to get such benchmarks out of my equipment. I think I'll pass the buck to someone with a more obsolete motherboard!

@feipoa
I have big request. Could you upload all benchmarks that you used in comparsion please? Searching some of these tools takes forever (for example cachechk V4).
Regards! (:

I'd love to, but it would probably take me longer to read thru all the license agreements. Please let me know which ones you get stuck with and I'll have a read through.

Knowing what to look for on google is really key. For example, if you are searcing for the Landmark v2 benchmark, you'll eventually find out that you need to be searching for SPEED.EXE or SPEED.ZIP. The search then becomes a lot easier.

Cachechk is postcard-ware, so I have attached it below. Cachechk version 4 and 7 show the same results but version 4 seems to be better with detecting 486 cpu speeds.

retro games 100 wrote:

feipoa wrote:

@rg100
Glad you now have more benchmark apps to play with. It sounds like you now have all the programs that I have. So far, I have recorded results for all the benchmark programs on my Cyrix 5x86-120. It would be interesting to see what you get with all the programs with the AMD X5-200.

My estimated time of finding the Biostar mobo in the attic of doom is now less than 1 week. I am ploughing through mountains of junk, doing 1 box each day. By next weekend, I'll have the Biostar up and running again, with the X5-200. Also, I think Old Thrashbarg wants to see some 486 tests done using Speedsys with an SX and then a DX chip. I can do that too, at the same time. 😀

Speaking of which, I managed to lay my hands on another one of those motherboards for cheap. Now my score has reached 2 and they only cost me $60 shipped for BOTH. 😮 😏

Now if I only had time to do something with them. 😖

sliderider wrote:

Speaking of which, I managed to lay my hands on another one of those motherboards for cheap. Now my score has reached 2 and they only cost me $60 shipped for BOTH. 😮

You suck, and I hate you. 🙁

Tetrium wrote:

You should try an SX-16, the slowest 486 ever released ;D

You may as well go all the way down to a 386 DX-20 if you're going to use one of those. They're probably about the same speed.

sliderider wrote:

Tetrium wrote:

You should try an SX-16, the slowest 486 ever released ;D

You may as well go all the way down to a 386 DX-20 if you're going to use one of those. They're probably about the same speed.

But that's not a real 486 though 😜

luckybob wrote:

sliderider wrote:

Speaking of which, I managed to lay my hands on another one of those motherboards for cheap. Now my score has reached 2 and they only cost me $60 shipped for BOTH. 😮

You suck, and I hate you. 🙁

Don't forget, though, that one of them came from a scrap gold pile so might not work at all. There's actually a good chance at that price that neither one of them work. I got a Compact Flash adapter with DOS and Win 9x drivers and now I need to find a cheap CF card to put in it and I'll be able to try them out.

Are you refering to the Biostar MB-8433UUD? You now have two of them? Which versions? Are they both version 2.0? If you get a version 3.0 or 3.1 and want to give it good home, let me know. I don't like being without a backup.

I went through my pile of hardware I have yet to test and somehow a 8433UUD-A version 2 made it into the pile. No idea how I got it 🤣, except that it must've been pretty recent. No idea if it works though, but it seems to look fine.

Tetrium wrote:

I went through my pile of hardware I have yet to test and somehow a 8433UUD-A version 2 made it into the pile. No idea how I got it 🤣, except that it must've been pretty recent. No idea if it works though, but it seems to look fine.

Hehe, nice find! Very roughly, how many items have you got to test?

@feipoa
Thank you! You are right - reading all license agreements would be titanic work. In Poland we don't pay so much attention to license agreements for such kind of "small applications", but this is slowly changing... (;

Currently I would like to complete benchies list from your first comparsion. I still can't find Dhrystone Benchmark v1.1, Linpack Benchmark and Whetstone Benchmark. I will be grateful for some pointers.

I was going to retest Cx5x86@150MHz system - yesterday I discovered that pcpbench is unstable. However tests like speedsys worked fine. I wonder is it worth to test not full stable processor?

Regards! (:

udam_u wrote:

Currently I would like to complete benchies list from your first comparsion. I still can't find Dhrystone Benchmark v1.1, Linpack Benchmark and Whetstone Benchmark. I will be grateful for some pointers.

I haven't looked for these yet. I wonder, are they freeware?

On the first comparison sheet, there was a mention that those benchmark programs were from Roy Longbottom's dos benchmark pack. You can find them here:
http://homepage.virgin.net/roy.longbottom/oldones.htm

Perhaps I should start saving weblinks to where I've downloaded programs. I also have the habit of renaming zip files so they are easier for me to find, but makes the archive name no longer searchable on google.

Still working on version 2 of the sheet. It will be a lot more complete.