Old vs New cpu's |
![]() |
| log in |
Message boards : Number crunching : Old vs New cpu's
1 · 2 · 3 · Next
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
My trusty old pentium 100 completed a w/u in 1,983,296.00 seconds (cpu time) for its massive 138.55 credits. | |
| ID: 1105065 · | |
|
I see you also have a Pentium 60 running Linux? | |
| ID: 1105121 · | |
My trusty old Pentium 100 completed a w/u in 1,983,296.00 seconds (cpu time) for its massive 138.55 credits. Obviously this 52.95 seconds CPU time task is done on GPU (and real "Run time"/"Elapsed" was ~1000-2000 seconds, very small part to prepare the data to be send to GPU is using the CPU) http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=1882574000 The fastest CPUs today using optimized apps can do SETI tasks in ~4000-5000 CPU-seconds: http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=1882840467 Anyway ..... shame I cannot get boinc to run on my window 1 machine with its Cyrix FasMath co-processor. You are kidding about that ;) Despite the Cyrix FasMath was faster than Intel 387 @ 33-40 MHz it will be unable to finish SETI task in time to meet the deadline. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrix My first home computer in ~1994 was with Cyrix 486DLC @ 33 MHz ( ;) overclocked to 40 MHz) + 4 MB RAM ( ;) upgraded to 8 MB for AutoCAD 12 for DOS) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/486DLC I still keep the motherboard + CPU + IIT 3C87-40 FPU hanged on the wall to remind me of "good old days" ;) http://www.cpu-collection.de/?l0=co&l1=IIT&l2=FPU#3C87-40 ____________ - ALF - "Find out what you don't do well ..... then don't do it!" :) | |
| ID: 1105165 · | |
Despite the Cyrix FasMath was faster than Intel 387 @ 33-40 MHz it will be unable to finish SETI task in time to meet the deadline. Deadlines are artificially low. We could always extend the deadlines! ;) | |
| ID: 1105168 · | |
|
My Intel Macs do more in one day than my PPC (601 - 604) machines did in 6 years. | |
| ID: 1105171 · | |
|
i remember an article in "Sky and Telescope" | |
| ID: 1105176 · | |
i still have a 286 buried somewhere. I still have mine! And I added an Intel 80287 copro to it, running at a blinding 12MHz! I think it's running MS-DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.0 on a whopping 130MB hard drive. | |
| ID: 1105185 · | |
|
My first computer was a Texas Instrument. It didn't have a hard drive it used a cassette recorder. It didn't use a monitor it used my TV. I had to write my own programs in BASIC. The year was 1982. | |
| ID: 1105187 · | |
and Windows 3.0 Cut my teeth om Wndows 286 through to Windows for Workgroups 3.11. MSDOS 5 was the best though. | |
| ID: 1105188 · | |
and Windows 3.0 DR DOS was much better. ____________ | |
| ID: 1105192 · | |
and Windows 3.0 I rather liked the DEFRAG utility included with DOS 6.0 and the Scandisk utility included with MS-DOS 6.2 and later. HIMEM.SYS and EMM386.EXE seemed to be optimized for UMB/HMA use in DOS 6 as well. Other than that, there wasn't too many important differences between DOS 5 and 6. | |
| ID: 1105195 · | |
and Windows 3.0 I never got a chance to play with DR DOS until Caldera gave it away for free, originally as Caldera OpenDOS 7.01, then as DR DOS 7.02 and DR DOS 7.03. It was fun to play with, and they had some interesting enhancements that IBM (PC DOS) and Microsoft (MS-DOS) didn't have, but nothing that was a "must have" to switch. Still fun to play with nonetheless. | |
| ID: 1105216 · | |
|
I started using a C-64 but it was my brothers, The first one I bought was a 286 that ran at a blazing 12mhz and had a 18 Mbyte HD.DOS 3.2 I think, maybe 3.3, I remember after setting it all up and using it for a while it crashed and displayed the message " Fatal Error ", My first thoughts were "Oh no I've killed it",I remember feeling great fear as I powered it down and then back on that it would not restart and that it was truly dead. Ah the memory's, the cryptic dos messages, the needing to reboot after every program ran cause even if it didn't crash when you exited one program the next probably would crash it when launched. | |
| ID: 1105230 · | |
|
I have still got an original IBM PCDOS 2.1 5-1/4" floppy disk. Could be worth something to a collector. | |
| ID: 1105238 · | |
|
Don't have my old copies of DOS, but do have 6.22, COA and WFWG disks: | |
| ID: 1105247 · | |
|
| |
| ID: 1105259 · | |
|
Once these old cpus were kings. Then thrown away as scrap. Along with the rest of the kit - including software and winchester hard drives. | |
| ID: 1105261 · | |
|
You make me wish I'd kept my 486DX2/66 that all of a sudden one day (only a few years ago) said: ok not going to boot up to the lo-level splash screen no more. | |
| ID: 1105271 · | |
|
I think also the change in Video history is interesting as well. CGA, EGA, VGA, SVGA. Not forgetting of course the non-standard output of the Olivetti M20. | |
| ID: 1105394 · | |
|
My second computer was a Tandy it had only a 5.25 inch floppy and no hard drive and 2 speeds slow 4 megahertz and fast 8 megahertz . It was my fathers and he gave it to me when he got his windows 95 custom built. It was a late 80's model. | |
| ID: 1105510 · | |
Message boards : Number crunching : Old vs New cpu's
| Copyright © 2013 University of California |