• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Fun with benchmarks: my brand new Dell P4 gets spanked by my year old home box.

S

Stark

Diamond Member
Well, I finally sold out. My new work computer is Dell 8200 w/ XP Pro, Office XP, P4 1.7GHz, 256MB RDRAM, 20GB 7200RPM drive (I store everything on a raid5 server), DVD, 24x cdr, GF3 Ti200 64MB,... close to the top of the line for a Dell desktop system. With a 19" monitor, the system price was $1661.83

For kicks, I ran the ZD business Winstone 2001 benchmark on it and compared the results with my home system: Win2k, Office 2k, Athlon XP 1800+, 384MB PC133 SDRam, MSI K7Turbo, 2x30GB 7200 RPM in Raid 0 setup, Elsa ErasorX Nvidia 256 32MB SDram... in my opinion a last generation system with a chip upgrade. Most of the parts I got as "payment" for building computers for friends/family (you add X to your parts order, and I'll put it together for you).

Here are the results:
Dell P4 with RDRam: 36.4 @ 69.1% CPU load

My homegrown AMD system: 54.8 @ 69.9% CPU load

I then used an old maxtor 5400 RPM drive on the IDE channel as the temp drive for the benchmark and scored: 46.4 @ 57.6 CPU load, still a full 10 points better than the Dell.

My conclusion from these benchmarks: build your own!!!

Next up: Content Creation Winstone 2002 😀
 
My work computer a Dell 4300 P4 1.6Ghz 256MB PC 133 does a SETI WU in 6 hrs 15 mins. My home PC a hand built Epox 8KHA+ MB, Athlon XP 1700 (1.47Ghz), 256MB PC 2100 DDR does a SETI WU in 3 hrs 30 mins.

Conclusion: Dell sucks.
 
So you are comparing a benchmark (that everyone knows works far better with AMD processors) on a slower processor, slower operating system, slower Office program, slower drive, and less memory to a home built computer (with a faster processor, faster OS, faster Office, faster HD, and more memory). Then you conclude that you should home build since they are faster. I think that is the worst comparison I've ever seen. If you want to compare pre-built to home-built, then you must compare similar CPUs, HDs, OSs, etc...

By the way Dell sells computers with a 40% faster processor, 16 times as much memory, 5 times larger hard drives (as well as faster hard drives), faster video cards, and larger monitors. I wouldn't even call that close to top of the line for a Dell system.
 


<< So you are comparing a benchmark (that everyone knows works far better with AMD processors) on a slower processor, slower operating system, slower Office program, slower drive, and less memory to a home built computer (with a faster processor, faster OS, faster Office, faster HD, and more memory). Then you conclude that you should home build since they are faster. I think that is the worst comparison I've ever seen. If you want to compare pre-built to home-built, then you must compare similar CPUs, HDs, OSs, etc... >>


Actually, the Athlon is the "slower" cpu when you go by MHz.
XP Pro is supposed to be bigger, faster, and stronger than 2k Pro.
I would think that 256MB of super duper RDRam is comparable to 384MB of regular ol' PC133. Plus I don't even think 384MB of RDRam is even possible!?!

What I'm saying is that an build to order Dell (their top of the line desktop model) is slower than my piecemeal AMD system which is far from cutting edge. According to Anand's Raid benchmarks, the Raid0 config doesn't even make much of a difference... so I'm comparing 7200 RPM apples to 7200 RPM apples.

The whole test was to see which computer which I use each day was faster. I didn't even defrag the HD on my home machine... just loaded the benchmark and hit go. The Dell is setup exactly the way Dell shipped it to me. I disabled anything running in the system tray and ran defrag, but that's it. It's not scientific or exact, but the results are pretty interesting.
 


<< XP Pro is supposed to be bigger, faster, and stronger than 2k Pro. >>

well, you got one of those right. and it ain't faster or stronger.
 


<< Actually, the Athlon is the "slower" cpu when you go by MHz. >>


Yes the MHz is slower, but the Athlon is much more compareable to the 1.9 GHz P4 (or the 1.8 GHz Northwood P4). That is why it has a 1800+ rating!


<< XP Pro is supposed to be bigger, faster, and stronger than 2k Pro. >>


ElFenix was right, it is much bigger. Bigger=slower when it comes to operating systems. The more bloated Microsoft makes it, the worse it performs.


<< I would think that 256MB of super duper RDRam is comparable to 384MB of regular ol' PC133. Plus I don't even think 384MB of RDRam is even possible!?! >>


RDRAM is faster than PC133 on programs that need the bandwidth (many games) however business applications (ZD busineess Winstone 2001) do not need the bandwidth, so it doesn't matter if you used PC66 or the fastest DDR available. 384MB of RDRAM is possible on many motherboards: 2x128MB+2x64MB. A few P4 motherboards only have two slots, but that is rare as far as I know.


<< What I'm saying is that an build to order Dell (their top of the line desktop model) is slower than my piecemeal AMD system which is far from cutting edge. >>


True your memory and video card was far from cutting edge. However you ran a business benchmark that doesn't need fast memory or a fast video card. The one part that really matters (CPU) is almost cutting edge on your home machine (only 133 MHz slower than the fastest Athlon) yet your Dell computer is far from cutting edge (500 MHz slower and half the L2 cache of the fastest P4).


<< According to Anand's Raid benchmarks, the Raid0 config doesn't even make much of a difference... so I'm comparing 7200 RPM apples to 7200 RPM apples. >>


I'll give you that. It does help in some applications, but I'm not an expert so lets assume they are equal. By the way is your home built using the cheapest slowest 7200 drives like the Dell uses?
 
You can buy... *gasp* complete systems?!

I don't know how desperate I would have to be to even consider buying an OEM PC 😛
 
My company is supposedly an official Dell-only organization. But because my office is in Alaska, we're too remote and I've dodged the Dell bullet. We buy our systems from Alaska's Computer Smith, which might be the ugiest retail website in existence, but is a great local merchant. Those prices aren't high for Fairbanks, Alaska.
 
I probably could have built my own as part of IS, but all our regular workstations are dell, so I figured what the heck, why not try XP and a P4 and see how I like them. Better to let work pay for these experiments than shell out the big bucks myself. 😛

I'm about to start the CC 2002 benchmark to see how this thing does.
 
So of those have been filtering in at work too. Look nice, ultra quiet. Can't get out of it's own way.
 
P4 CC Winstone 2002 results:
26.2 @ 80.6 % cpu usage

Anand's latest benchmarks here show the 1.7 getting around 27.3, so not too bad.

I'll know my home computer's stats in about 45 minutes.
 


<< So of those have been filtering in at work too. Look nice, ultra quiet. Can't get out of it's own way. >>



I named the computer Shaq. It was supposed to be big, black, and dominating. I may have to change it's name to Marc Jackson... over rated and over priced. 😛
 


<< P4 CC Winstone 2002 results:
26.2 @ 80.6 % cpu usage

Anand's latest benchmarks here show the 1.7 getting around 27.3, so not too bad.

I'll know my home computer's stats in about 45 minutes. >>



Home box: 29.6 @ 89% cpu 🙂

Not bad for a 1.533 GHz machine with an SDRam mobo. I guess I'll have to rename it Raef LaFrenz... tall and beige with better overall stats than Shaq. 😱
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top