Compare old to new by how many times?

[Major Eazy]

I have this old computer which is soon to be 15 years old, it use AMD K6-II at 400MHz.

I have a project to customer build my next computer and have recently ordered an AMD FX6 3.5GHz.

Right, um, I'm just curiosity about how many times more powerful is the new one over than of the old one. So...

Is my new FX6 at 3.5GHz like roughly nearly 10 times more faster than the old K6-II at 400MHz, that right? I'm sure it is not 100 times, I'm sure it is 10 times, to go from mega to giga it is 10 x mega = giga?

And the FX6 is roughly like about 9 generations after the K6..? (The K6 is something like the great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandfather of the FX6?)

I looked up Wiki but they tend to make it harder to compare the generations in simple figures. It seems easy to say Xbox 360/PS3 is 7th generation Xbox One/PS4 is 8th generation, but when it comes to CPUs, it seems to get harder to track out the generations.

I'm assuming my new one is 9 generations later and 10 times faster, have I got it just about right or am I wrong?

 

[arad85]

Each core on the FX-6 is ~10x as performant as your old PC. You have 6 of them in the new processor, so raw processing is about 60x. The problem is finding a program that can harness 6 cores in parallel.

Mega->Giga = 1000x. Giga->Tera = 1000x Mega->Tera = 1000000x

 

[Major Eazy]

Each core on the FX-6 is ~10x as performant as your old PC. You have 6 of them in the new processor, so raw processing is about 60x. The problem is finding a program that can harness 6 cores in parallel.

Mega->Giga = 1000x. Giga->Tera = 1000x Mega->Tera = 1000000x

You're joking??

I know the FX6 got 6 core but I assume the clock speed counts as one. You make it sounds like I got 6x 3.5GHz?? Wow! Talk about a big upgrade.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Many program tasks only use a single core.
Others like PTAssembler for stitching panoramas can use as many as you have got. so can do those tasks may times faster.
However those cores must share the available memory between them, so to take advantage of the situation you need plenty of it. the more memory the merrier.....
Some tasks like word processing will seem little different.

 

[Major Eazy]

Each core on the FX-6 is ~10x as performant as your old PC. You have 6 of them in the new processor, so raw processing is about 60x. The problem is finding a program that can harness 6 cores in parallel.

Hang on, I'm no expert, but even if the CPU got 6 cores, it still is a 3.5GHz processor, each core is still 3.5GHz, it's not like you can add them up, so technically it is still only roughly 10 times faster than my old K6, not 60 times faster. Wasn't the reason for the idea of multi-core processor supposed to be to be able to do different programmes in the same time, say core 1 is processing your graphic design software while core 2 is just running anti-virus in the background, and maybe core 3 is playing your iTunes, so really, each one is just doing one job so still just 10 times faster than my old one, right?

Isn't it really more of a case of "6 times more powerful and 10 times more faster"?

Oh man, I can hardly wait for Monday!!! It's coming in the post, but then it will be months and months before I could finally use it.

 

[Dale_tem]

You can do the same thing 10 times, each 6 times faster all at the same time.

A single process will be 6 times faster, Windows has got better at doing different things on different cores and some software has got good enough to split the load over multiple cores.

It will be a lot faster!

 

[Mikesphotaes]

You can do the same thing 10 times, each 6 times faster all at the same time.

A single process will be 6 times faster, Windows has got better at doing different things on different cores and some software has got good enough to split the load over multiple cores.

It will be a lot faster!

Are you not getting your 6 and 10's in a muddle :shrug:

 

[Major Eazy]

It will be a lot faster!

Yeah, I know, part of the reason I'm planning on upgrading by building my new computer, if not this year, then next year, is partly because my old computer takes a while to process major graphic design work, even thought my Windows 98 seems to get any job done, but it tend to takes a minute or two.

 

[Phil V]

Kudos for keeping a Win 98 PC going all these years, though I can't think why anyone would want to (win 98 being the iteration to miss - like vista and win 8)

As others have said, some modern software is designed to split the workload between processors, but mostly you'll notice the difference in multi tasking. Set a batch of images to process and you can still watch streaming content whilst surfing the net with no loss in performance .

 

[Major Eazy]

Kudos for keeping a Win 98 PC going all these years, though I can't think why anyone would want to (win 98 being the iteration to miss - like vista and win 8)

As others have said, some modern software is designed to split the workload between processors, but mostly you'll notice the difference in multi tasking. Set a batch of images to process and you can still watch streaming content whilst surfing the net with no loss in performance .

Thanks. Actually budget reasons means I couldn't get to upgrade to later Windows or later system. Plus being a out-of-work single parent meant many other things had to come first, ie: car, kids needs, etc., so as long as my Windows 98 was still running okay and can keep going, it was good enough for my needs. But of course, I do need to catch up with technology, specially as I need to hook the Nikon D200 and the iPad to the computer, and the only way to do so, was to pop over to my mother's and use her computer til I build my own.

By the way in case it interest you, my Win98 is original 98, none of this 98SE thing, so sometimes it is annoying to find that I can't get a printer or anything to work with my PC. It's Win98SE this, Win98SE that.

I'm aware that the FX6 is able to do a number of jobs at the same time, it would be nice to get to see it in action and roughly 10 times faster.

Oh, by the way everyone, my new FX6 6300 came in the post. YEPIEE!!

 

[ecoleman]

Kudos for keeping a Win 98 PC going all these years, though I can't think why anyone would want to (win 98 being the iteration to miss - like vista and win 8)

As others have said, some modern software is designed to split the workload between processors, but mostly you'll notice the difference in multi tasking. Set a batch of images to process and you can still watch streaming content whilst surfing the net with no loss in performance .

98 was one of the good, more stable versions. Certainly not one to skip.
I think you mean Windows ME, that was god aweful.

 

[Phil V]

98 was one of the good, more stable versions. Certainly not one to skip.
I think you mean Windows ME, that was god aweful.

Oops yes, although I never had 98, I went from 95 to NT4, to 2000, I then got a vista laptop, which was awful, now win7

 

[neil_g]

going back as far as 3.1, ME was the really only awful version to be fair, that POS was just a complete waste of code. vista was let down by poor initial hardware specs and driver support.

 

[George7]

Going by Passmark scores (a universal CPU benchmarking tool) the closest I can find is the AMD K6-III, which is going to be a bit better than your K6-II. The K6-III gets 108 points on Passmark. I'm going to have to assume you've gone for the AMD FX-6120, as that's the only 3.5GHZ 6 core FX CPU I can find; that achieves 5843 Passmark points, so around 60 times quicker overall

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD-K6-III&id=1603

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-6120+Six-Core&id=258

 

[Major Eazy]

Going by Passmark scores (a universal CPU benchmarking tool) the closest I can find is the AMD K6-III, which is going to be a bit better than your K6-II. The K6-III gets 108 points on Passmark. I'm going to have to assume you've gone for the AMD FX-6120, as that's the only 3.5GHZ 6 core FX CPU I can find; that achieves 5843 Passmark points, so around 60 times quicker overall

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD-K6-III&id=1603

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-6120+Six-Core&id=258

60 times faster? I kind of expected like 10 times faster. Wow! Thanks.