Just when you thought desktop PCs couldn't get slower. Along comes AMD...

[Eug]

Passmark is quite useless in determine if a CPU is good or not.

Passmark is not a good benchmark, but if you're talking about light usage like web browsing it's a general ballpark indicator.

As in:

<1000 too slow
>2000 good enough for grandpa

 

[Ramses]

Positive spin...uhm low end pcs teach you about bottlenecks.

:biggrin: I like it.

And I lived it and become a better tinker'r for it. Ever try to overclock a Cyrix PR133? lol

 

[Ramses]

Passmark is not a good benchmark, but if you're talking about light usage like web browsing it's a general ballpark indicator.

As in:

<1000 too slow
>2000 good enough for grandpa

I've observed that no matter what benchmark one points at, someone or some group will not think it's valid. But none of them have written a better one.
IMO there comes a point where you have to decide to go with some sort of data for comparison sake. It's like if you want to build a wooden house, you don't become a dendrologist first unless you want to never get around to the house-building.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Passmark is not a good benchmark, but if you're talking about light usage like web browsing it's a general ballpark indicator.

As in:

<1000 too slow
>2000 good enough for grandpa

No. Because you could have 4(or more) ultra slow cores that dies on a webpage, skype etc. Contra 2 faster that is enough.

Passmark is very multithreaded friendly.

 

[Eug]

No. Because you could have 4(or more) ultra slow cores that dies on a webpage, skype etc. Contra 2 faster that is enough.

Passmark is very multithreaded friendly.

True to a certain extent, but in practice, this rule of thumb actually works.

ie. Don't bother getting any main desktop machine with a Passmark below 1000 because it's too slow even for basic usage.

OTOH, above 2000, it's generally OK.

In the 1000-2000 range your point may be more valid, but I'm recommending getting something over 2000, which is easy to do in 2015 for low cost.

 

[monstercameron]

Cine bench is better r11.5 anything with single score of ~0.5 and multi 1.5

 

[Shivansps]

Im not talking about the consumption but 5W is 50% more over 10W, performance is increasing rapidly with 50% higher TDP. For example Beema A8-6410 at 15W TDP is faster than the Celeron 2957U both in CPU and iGPU.

Yes but thats no the point, and i not enterely sure about the IGP.

Yes but no Windows in that price.

Do you need Windows for a desktop/htpc use?

 

[Eug]

Cine bench is better r11.5 anything with single score of ~0.5 and multi 1.5

The AMD A4-5000 is single 0.4 and multi 1.5, so that wouldn't pass your criterion.

You're probably right, but the AMD A4-5000 is Passmark 1900 though so that wouldn't pass my criterion either, and it's easier to find Passmark scores.

 

[monstercameron]

The AMD A4-5000 is single 0.4 and multi 1.5, so that wouldn't pass your criterion.

You're probably right, but the AMD A4-5000 is Passmark 1900 though so that wouldn't pass my criterion either, and it's easier to find Passmark scores.

Interesting, just short on both metrics.

 

[escrow4]

I'd want something with a passmark of 10K to stand up over the years. 1000 is what, a Nokia dumbphone?

 

[skipsneeky2]

For fun i wonder where a celeron 420 sits compared to this,that was a miserable chip to use and it wasn't in a computer i owned lol.Waiting for it to load was just a all day experience and this was just 3 years ago!

This thing has to at least touch C2D no?The celeron 420 is half a C2D lol.420 is the slowest thing i have ever used in any given time period so this thing in the Op must be at least equally good or just a nightmare.

 

[Eug]

I'd want something with a passmark of 10K to stand up over the years. 1000 is what, a Nokia dumbphone?

Yeah but are you grandpa?

1000 is something like a Core 2 Duo T5670 1.8 GHz from 2008, or a Core 2 Duo SU9400 1.4 GHz, also from 2008. Both are laptop CPUs.

I have a Pentium SU4100 which is very similar to that Core 2 Duo SU9400, but the SU4100 is clocked at 1.3 GHz and has only 2 MB L2 cache (as opposed to the 3 MB in the SU9400). Otherwise the two chips are very similar:

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/84...vs_Intel_Pentium_Dual-Core_Mobile_SU4100.html

My SU4100 is agonizingly slow.

For fun i wonder where a celeron 420 sits compared to this,that was a miserable chip to use and it wasn't in a computer i owned lol.Waiting for it to load was just a all day experience and this was just 3 years ago!

This thing has to at least touch C2D no?The celeron 420 is half a C2D lol.420 is the slowest thing i have ever used in any given time period so this thing in the Op must be at least equally good or just a nightmare.

Celeron 420 1.6 GHz (with 512 KB L2 cache) gets just over half the Passmark score of my SU4100, at around 460. So, agonizingly slow divided by 2.

 

[sm625]

I love how in that video review of the E1-6010 playing a league of legends game, they show Ashe just standing there autoattacking and then it disconnects. I would hardly call that "playable".

 

[beginner99]

You think that's slow? I still use my Atom N270 netbook for various things. Now that thing is slow. That C50 is a speed demon by comparison.

I still have a netbook wit an Atom z530. Thats first gen single core atom with HT. It got unusable with windows xp after some time (but that was due to the extremely bad flash storage, like worse than a 4200 rpm disc...

However it did (or still does, haven't used it for some time) run JolicloudOS (Ubuntu based) pretty well as that included drivers for my specific netbook. And it actually plays 720p mkv acceptably (Some dropped frames) in Linux. This was nice in an airplanes as small video player.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Yeah but are you grandpa?

1000 is something like a Core 2 Duo T5670 1.8 GHz from 2008, or a Core 2 Duo SU9400 1.4 GHz, also from 2008. Both are laptop CPUs.


Celeron 420 1.6 GHz (with 512 KB L2 cache) gets just over half the Passmark score of my SU4100, at around 460. So, agonizingly slow divided by 2.

LOL oh wow. I talked the guy a few years back into letting me swap out the Emachine bs and slap in a AM2 mobo,x2 550 and 4gb and slapped in my old 8800gts 512mb and it didn't do to bad playing some COD after unlocking one other core on that cpu. All was old stuff i wasn't using no more.

Freaking wish i knew what that guy ran before,he said that 420 was miles faster then what he had before lol. What was it a freaking dorito?

 

[tential]

I love how in that video review of the E1-6010 playing a league of legends game, they show Ashe just standing there autoattacking and then it disconnects. I would hardly call that "playable".

PLaying = Playable....
=D

 

[ShintaiDK]

I love how in that video review of the E1-6010 playing a league of legends game, they show Ashe just standing there autoattacking and then it disconnects. I would hardly call that "playable".

You are ruining the marketing tricks. It was first supposed to be discovered after someone bought it.

 

[SPBHM]

Celeron 420 is like using a 3GHz P4... pretty slow, but it was OK for basic tasks back in 2007-2008, flash video was mostly low res at the time for example, I think.

yes the e1-6010 is like an inexpensive laptop from 2008, but with better IGP, ram and so on...

 

[monstercameron]

I love how in that video review of the E1-6010 playing a league of legends game, they show Ashe just standing there autoattacking and then it disconnects. I would hardly call that "playable".

Anything can run lol, it's the team fights that get the dx9 renderer chugging.

 

[Eug]

Celeron 420 is like using a 3GHz P4... pretty slow, but it was OK for basic tasks back in 2007-2008, flash video was mostly low res at the time for example, I think.

Heh. I had a P4 of that era that I purchased for $100 or something I think 7 years ago. I only used it to flash PC video cards into Mac compatible video cards for my old G4 Cubes.

I think I threw it out a while back. Gotta check my closet to be sure.

It was actually the loudest machine I owned - a full tower with loud fan.

 

[Ramses]

Heh. I had a P4 of that era that I purchased for $100 or something I think 7 years ago. I only used it to flash PC video cards into Mac compatible video cards for my old G4 Cubes.

I think I threw it out a while back. Gotta check my closet to be sure.

It was actually the loudest machine I owned - a full tower with loud fan.

I had a Sager laptop with that chip and some AMD GPU, it was hot stuff in it's day (pun intended). When it wasn't thermally throttled it was great fun having impromptu lan matches at Dennys@3am. Them were the days...

Actually I still have one in my shop computer I think, it plays netflix and crap, eventually, but it is miserably slow overall. It's a good reminder that anyone can make a crappy CPU now and again.

 

[Eug]

My Pentium III Tualatin 1.4 GHz ran nearly as fast as a Pentium 4 at twice the clock speed, and that was on a motherboard from 1998 - Asus P2B.

 

[Ramses]

My Pentium III Tualatin 1.4 GHz ran nearly as fast as a Pentium 4 at twice the clock speed, and that was on a motherboard from 1998 - Asus P2B.

ditto. I don't think I bought another intel chip after that 3 and a 2.4(which I think was HT) till this i7 laptop the other month. Not especially holding a grudge, least not consciously anyway. Damn shame they didn't develop the Tualatin further, great chip.

 

[AtenRa]

First P4 was horrible, Northwood P4 1.6A was great when OCed to 2.4GHz or higher. Prescott P4 2.4A was also very nice, i have one that could do 3.7GHz on air.

I also have used a dual core P4 3.0GHz recently with Windows 7 and browsing is ok especially if you have a dGPU.

 

[B-Riz]

ditto. I don't think I bought another intel chip after that 3 and a 2.4(which I think was HT) till this i7 laptop the other month. Not especially holding a grudge, least not consciously anyway. Damn shame they didn't develop the Tualatin further, great chip.

Well, Intel did develop P III Tualatin further because they realized the P4 was teh suck.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P6_(microarchitecture)#P6_Variant_Enhanced_Pentium_M

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_M

So Pentium M, Core and Core 2 all happened due to the last hurrah of the P III.