I never realised there was such a difference! (CPU Power)

[Vanilla]

So I fire up Sisoft Sandra and benchmark my CPU.

I get 20k MIPS MOPS SLOPS whatever with my AMD 64 3000+ (no, i'm not thinking of selling it so don't ask).

So I saw that the dual core AMD 64 4200+ was only £55 this week! Wow, it's 40k MIPS!!! Double Mine!!!!!!






Then I see what Sandra says about the Q6600.

240k~!!! or something silly. Is that right

 

[Dougsnake]

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=430&model2=464&chart=160

check there to see all the cpu benchies yours is near the bottom hehe

looks right to me

 

[Vanilla]

Right, i'm defo having a Q6600.

188 vs 264981.

I knew it had been a while since I upgraded but this is silly.

 

[Elmer]

I'm also upgrading from a amd 64 3000+ to a Q6600, but tbh I don't take much notice of the Sandra benchmarks, particularly that one.

Looking at the Toms tests, most of the real world application benchmarks seem to give say a 2 or 3 times quicker result with the Q6000, if you look at that Sandra graph linked to though you'd think the quad is 1500x faster than our existing machines lol.

 

[juno_first]

I noticed quad to be a lot quicker than my old amd 4400 @ 2.6, eg I code vids a lot & amd did it at -85fps & quad at 325fps... thats a lot less waiting

 

[Energize]

So I fire up Sisoft Sandra and benchmark my CPU.

I get 20k MIPS MOPS SLOPS whatever with my AMD 64 3000+ (no, i'm not thinking of selling it so don't ask).

So I saw that the dual core AMD 64 4200+ was only £55 this week! Wow, it's 40k MIPS!!! Double Mine!!!!!!






Then I see what Sandra says about the Q6600.

240k~!!! or something silly. Is that right

Well at 2.66Ghz I'd expect the Q6600 to be at least 50% faster per core so 30k MIPS x 4 cores = ~120k MIPS.

 

[Pulseammo]

Raw MIPS is not a valid benchmark, especially against two different microarchs, its about as useless as comparing clock rate on a 1:1 basis.