amused
pleaseremove and I ended up discussing CPU performance, partially because he has a new shiny toy and wanted to see how well it performed. Many years ago we benchmarked our systems with CrystalMark 2004 but he's had problems getting that to work so this time round our tool of choice is PerformanceTest 9.Now by rights,
pleaseremove's desktop ought to flatten mine as his is a good 5 or so years more modern, but the question is by how much...Nyx (my desktop), a Core 2 Quad Q6600 with a GeForce GTX 950:
pleaseremove's desktop, an i7 3700-K with a GeForce GTX 670:
Hah. 1619 against 4603 - there's not much contest there, with his system knocking the stuffing out of mine on every benchmark (in particular disk -
pleaseremove has a ludicrously fast NVMe SSD because of course he has). While his box couldn't complete the GPU tests, even the ones it did run outperform mine despite me having a much more modern graphics card. Looks like all those years of CPU improvements have actually been worth something.And just to add insult to injury, here's the results from his shiny new toy:
The only thing that lets it down is a pokey little embedded GPU, otherwise it still flattens all my systems and gives his desktop a good run for its money...
boggyb: Your laptop outperforms your desktop on disk. How is that even possible?pleaseremove: The whole thing is utterly ridiculousFinally, just for a laugh here's Hemera (my laptop), running a 2GHz Pentium M with an ATi Mobility FireGL T2:
I really do need to upgrade Hemera one of these days, but that's for another rant on how all modern laptops are terrible except for the ones that you can't actually buy.