Who has the lowest benchmarks? - Page 3

asdf · 2003-07-11, 06:36

I have 8MB 30pin SIMMs somewhere... maybe they were thrown out.
And is it possible to run GIMPS on an 8088?

Xyzzy · 2003-07-11, 06:57

IIRC, GIMPS requires at least a 386, so technically a 16MHz 80386 should be the slowest processor possible, unless you want to count Macs...

:D

ColdFury · 2003-07-11, 10:41

Quote:

And is it possible to run GIMPS on an 8088?

No FPU

ET_ · 2003-07-11, 11:10

unless you owe a Intel 8087 or Waitek 1167 or IIT 8087 external fpu... ;)

Luigi

Paulie · 2003-07-11, 13:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

IIRC, GIMPS requires at least a 386, so technically a 16MHz 80386 should be the slowest processor possible, unless you want to count Macs...

:D

I think I have an IBM 486SLC2/66 with math co in storage.... The 486slc2/66 is a 386SX clone with i486 instruction set and a 16bit bus, 16k of L1 cache though. :) But I think it it wouldn't be slow enough, with the 33mhz IIT math co, even with the 16bit bus. :)

And just you wait Mr. Xyzzy, I may end up getting a G5 sometime this year, so I hope to be equal to a recent AMD instead of a P3@same clock... :( :(

Xyzzy · 2003-07-11, 16:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by ET_

unless you owe a Intel 8087 or Waitek 1167 or IIT 8087 external fpu... ;)

The problem there is the 8086 can only address 1MB of memory because it has a 20-bit address bus... (And usually 384K of that is reserved for the system!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paulie

...I may end up getting a G5 sometime this year, so I hope to be equal to a recent AMD instead of a P3@same clock... :( :(

;)

trif · 2003-07-11, 23:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdbardwick

On another note, why is your nickname blue in the TPR factoring reports? Just curious...

Because I'm spay-shul.

robried said he would give me a special color if I asked for it, and as I am approaching the territory where I will soon get a line on the factoring graphs, it will make it easy for me to pick out which line is me. I think he also made it so that special colors get a thicker line too.

E_tron · 2003-07-12, 01:09

Too bad that this 286 right here wont run 32-bit applications :? .

This bad boy machine has a grand total of 4Mb RAM

and a 30Mb Hard Drive

. I find it funny at boot-up, because the lights dim and it takes 6 seconds to page all of the RAM :D .

delta_t · 2003-07-12, 17:10

hey nomadicus,
how is your 100Mhz laptop so much slower than mine (the original post)? is it a dx-4 (33mhz X 3), is yours something different? But 50-60X slower seems way too slow, but then again maybe i need to bench mine with the same version you did. I did mine with 22.12, but i don't think it'll make that much of a difference? as of right now you are the king of the slow (until some others post benchmarks). i am now in search through the lab for the old 486 dx's that still work.

nomadicus · 2003-07-13, 21:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by delta_t

hey nomadicus,
how is your 100Mhz laptop so much slower than mine (the original post)? is it a dx-4 (33mhz X 3), is yours something different? But 50-60X slower seems way too slow

Delta-t,
I've been thinking about since I posted it and I've come downt to three possbilities: One might be that prime95 misread the laptop information, because it really is a 33MHz laptop, not 100. Second, might be the memory (20MB), but I didn't see much swapping and paging so I doubt if memory was issue even at 2048K FFT. Finally, I don't know if a fp unit is onboard the chip (I think it is).

john

QuintLeo · 2003-07-19, 17:38

I just started my 386DX-33 / 387DX-25 on benchmark.

I had forgotten the MB was an old Dell - onboard VGA. That should slow it down some. 8-)

Slackware 8.1 (2.4.18 kernel) - would have used Slack 9 but it defaults to 486-compiled kernel and utilities.

I've never SEEN a machine take more than 2 minutes to run the 384K FFT part of the benchmark before - most of my machines go through THAT in a few seconds or less....

(edit) Update - almost to 20 minutes, STILL working on the 384K FFT

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Lowest Unknown Prime	GuyMacon	PrimeNet	6	2011-05-07 03:20
Benchmarks	MurrayInfoSys	Information & Answers	3	2011-04-14 17:10
LLR benchmarks	Oddball	No Prime Left Behind	11	2010-08-06 21:39
lowest 10M exponents available - pick your choice	tha	Lone Mersenne Hunters	116	2008-11-23 13:03
What is the Lowest Rank you can have	crash893	Data	7	2006-01-26 05:26

2003-07-11, 06:36	#23
asdf Sep 2002 74₈ Posts	I have 8MB 30pin SIMMs somewhere... maybe they were thrown out. And is it possible to run GIMPS on an 8088?

2003-07-11, 06:57	#24
Xyzzy Aug 2002 2·3²·13·37 Posts	IIRC, GIMPS requires at least a 386, so technically a 16MHz 80386 should be the slowest processor possible, unless you want to count Macs... :D

2003-07-11, 11:10	#26
ET_ Banned "Luigi" Aug 2002 Team Italia 5·7·139 Posts	unless you owe a Intel 8087 or Waitek 1167 or IIT 8087 external fpu... ;) Luigi

2003-07-12, 01:09	#30
E_tron Sep 2002 Austin, TX 1061₈ Posts	Too bad that this 286 right here wont run 32-bit applications :? . This bad boy machine has a grand total of 4Mb RAM and a 30Mb Hard Drive . I find it funny at boot-up, because the lights dim and it takes 6 seconds to page all of the RAM :D .

2003-07-12, 17:10	#31
delta_t Nov 2002 Anchorage, AK 357₁₀ Posts	hey nomadicus, how is your 100Mhz laptop so much slower than mine (the original post)? is it a dx-4 (33mhz X 3), is yours something different? But 50-60X slower seems way too slow, but then again maybe i need to bench mine with the same version you did. I did mine with 22.12, but i don't think it'll make that much of a difference? as of right now you are the king of the slow (until some others post benchmarks). i am now in search through the lab for the old 486 dx's that still work.

2003-07-19, 17:38	#33
QuintLeo Oct 2002 Lost in the hills of Iowa 2⁶·7 Posts	I just started my 386DX-33 / 387DX-25 on benchmark. I had forgotten the MB was an old Dell - onboard VGA. That should slow it down some. 8-) Slackware 8.1 (2.4.18 kernel) - would have used Slack 9 but it defaults to 486-compiled kernel and utilities. I've never SEEN a machine take more than 2 minutes to run the 384K FFT part of the benchmark before - most of my machines go through THAT in a few seconds or less.... (edit) Update - almost to 20 minutes, STILL working on the 384K FFT