SPONSORED LINKS
On Fri, 31 Oct 1997 07:44:39 -0800, Randal Whittle wrote: >At 05:22 AM 10/31/97 GMT, epbrown wrote: >> As for the tests Paul suggests, my own copy of the PCMag benchmarks >>is on CD, and since it's incredibly large I think that's the only >>format they're available in. Running them would require using an >>external CD-ROM which could bias the results. I think it's a good >>suite, though, so if anyone disagrees and thinks it wouldn't heard, >>cool. > > I don't mind doing a test that requires a CD, but as you were saying, I >think that would have the effect of skewing the test somewhat. > > I have only 2 options for running the test from a CD. (1) I have an >Adaptec PCMCIA SCSI card I can use to run a Pioneer 6-disc changer that has >a native speed of 4x. (2) I have a 4x CD drive by "Backpack" that connects >to the parallel port. I'd think that the SCSI route would be best, but >that 6-disc changer is rather quirky--I don't even use it anymore because >it's sort of awkward (i.e. when you first boot up, it goes through *every* >disc in the magazine even if there is no disc--its time consuming and >annoying--frankly, when I need a CD drive, I find the parallel-based >Backpack drive a hell of a lot more convenient). > > List consensus on which I should use? Also, I'll need to get this CD from >someone--I don't have it. > > Emanuel, would you be kind enough to compile a "short list" of the >benchmarks that you and the list think should be done and the locations >from where they can be retrieved? And would everyone run these on their >701's and report the results to Emanuel for compilation & aggregation of >the results? I'd be glad to, if someone has benchmarks programs for OS/2. > > I've heard some suggestions of the benchmarks to be used--and that's >great--I'm just looking for a definitive consensus among the group. I >don't want to go through all this and find out a bunch of people are >complaining that I used the wrong test and the results are biased... > I would be more than happy to run some OS/2 benchmarks on my system. BTW, should disk type be considered, as in FAT16, 32, NTFS, HPFS (which I have), EXT2, etc? >> As for a DOS game, while I've played DOOM on a 701C for over a >>year, it's my recollection that the replacement chip (AMD or Cyrix) >>don't handle FPU-intensive tasks very well. So that could be seen as >>stacking the deck against PEP. > > Which chip is it that PEP uses in the replacement? And are you telling me >that the FPU performance could actually be *inferior* to the stock 486/75 >in my 701C? > I've heard the same too, but I don't know what to compare it too. All I heard as an example is that the Cyrix 6x86-166 compares to around a P90 in FPU, but I don't know about this one. AMD is supposedly better, and has a history of being more reliable. Anyways, don't quote me on this, but I think the upgrade is an AMD586-100. I *think*. But another problem for me is that I might be sending my 701 in for EasyServ, AGAIN, for a faulty keyboard, which will hang, and also a broken mouse. Sheesh. Paul