Windows benchmarks SUCK !!!

[VBboy]

Why does everyone use Sandra and other Windows programs for CPU/FPU and memory benchmarking?! Values you get are different every time you run the benchmark, right?

Well, that's because Windows is a multitasking OS. Everything will interfere with your benchmark, from background processes to drivers to Windows itself. Windows' memory managing threads could kick in while your benchmark is running, or it could decide to shrink/grow the Swap file, etc. You never get the same results because of this. Why not use a DOS benchmark where nothing is running in background, and the results you get are always consistent?

Even if you run Sandra 5 times in a row to perform a Memory Benchmark, you will get slightly different results. If you are on a network, your system may encounter higher traffic at some times, and lower at others, and it all effects the results you get from your benchmarks.

Of course video/HD benchmarking is different because Windows/DirectX support and accelerate most 3d and 2d graphics as well as provide 32bit disk access, better caching, etc.

But for CPU/FPU/RAM benchmarking, just download a good old DOS program (I will update this when I recall one ) - and use that. Good luck!

/* Updated!! Download Dr. Hardware Sysinfo here */

 

[Bumboy]

EWW... DOS

 

[neuralfx]

well windows9x.. isnt a multitasking OS.. yes your right sandra, and all those dont really paint a reliable picture.. at all.. as for using dos... remember that 1MB limitation of DOS, that would prohibit any real benchmarking...... now if you said Linux or BSD or any-other Unix-like oses, then that would make sense, i dont know of any *nix benchmarks though, to bad, that would paint the most accurate picture.. and bogomips dont count =)..
-neural

 

[VBboy]

neuralfx,

Dos does not have a 1-MB limitation. If you have an Extended memory manager such as HIMEM installed, programs have full access to your 256 MB or whatever it is you have. They perform low-level memory operations, thus painting the most reliable performance picture.

What makes you say that Windows 9x isn't a multitsking OS? Of course it only supports 1 CPU and therefore has time-slicing instead of actual multi-processing, but the general term for this is still "multitasking". I'm listening to an mp3 while typing this, what do ya call that?

 

[neuralfx]

heh..... ok im wrong DOS would be an awesome OS for benchmarking utilities... heh .. .. heh not multitasking.. yes its not, use a *nix, run some programs press ctrl+alt+F1-F9, then you'll see what i mean.. yes ok in the A+ sense it is.. but.. eh i'm not argue..
-neural