Overall performance comparison between different computers under Windows XP

[AstroSkipper]

1 minute ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I can agree to that.  This whole "pinewood derby" only began because you didn't believe me when I told you that your computer is faster than mine.  

And "see what you started", we now have MSFN Members dusting off computers they haven't used in months or even years all to *WIN* with the *SLOWEST* we can find.

ANYBODY can go out and buy a NEW computer to win as the *FASTEST*.  Granted, we all have our priorities on what we spend our money on, lol.

Oops!  That was me?  Ok. I can live with that. The good is I've found several problems which are now all fixed.  BTW, this was my very first benchmark test. In general, I am not  particularly interested in such tests. 

[NotHereToPlayGames]

29 minutes ago, AstroSkipper said:

I am not  particularly interested in such tests.

Generally speaking, to me they only reinforce "gut feelings".  But since we don't live on the same street and couldn't witness each other's real-life computers, we both wanted to "prove" we were the SLOWEST.

I was convinced that I was.  You were convinced that you were.  At least, yeah, that's how it looks from here.

[AstroSkipper]

1 hour ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I was convinced that I was.  You were convinced that you were.  At least, yeah, that's how it looks from here.

Yep, that's right. The main reason for it was that your computer is nearly 10 years younger than mine. My computer (and by that I mean its motherboard) is from 2000. And your DDR2-RAM is actually much faster than my very slow SD-RAM. However, the test results are a bit strange as a computer many years younger actually should be faster. 

Edited September 9, 2024 by AstroSkipper
Update of content

[AstroSkipper]

1 hour ago, AstroSkipper said:

In general, I am not  particularly interested in such tests. 

I basically only do stability tests and hardware tests to make sure that hardware components are OK and running well in the system. The last time, I did a burn-in test was when I modified the BIOS on my old Athlon XP machine as regular BIOS updates were abandoned many years ago. I replaced the SATA module integrated in the motherboard BIOS with a newer version and then flashed my modded BIOS back.  After that, some tests were necessary to check the stability and functionality. 

Edited September 9, 2024 by AstroSkipper
Update of content

[NotHereToPlayGames]

4 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

the test results are a bit strange as a computer many years younger actually should be faster.

You can't go by age alone.  I was working in the defense industry in the 90s and was working on computers that could easily outperform stuff from 2010 or so, maybe even 2015.  But no, they couldn't compete with something brand new off the shelf nowadays.

If you really want to get down to it, there were "game consoles" in the 2015s or so that could blow away top-of-the-line "computers" today.  But you cannot run something called "PCMark05" on a GAME CONSOLE.

[AstroSkipper]

17 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

It's your MU/WU under Windows XP thread that was "bumped" earlier, not everybody wants ALL updates applied to their computers!

Just for clarification. There was nothing "bumped". My thread "General and specific solutions for problems regarding AU/WU/MU in Windows XP " gets updates and new information when necessary. I am kind enough to share my experience with people. And using MU/WU does not mean that all offered updates have to be applied. It's up to the user to decide which updates are wanted and which not. No need to install all updates. So, I don't understand your objection at all.  However, my Windows XP always gets all necessary updates. And that's a good thing. 

Edited September 10, 2024 by AstroSkipper
correction

[Multibooter]

16 hours ago, Multibooter said:

I will uninstall PCMark05 (it was installed under Total Uninstall, so no problem uninstalling and restoring it later), then install Windows Media Player 11 and PCMark05 into the same sandbox under Sandboxie 4.22. Maybe in this way it will be possible to have Windows Media Player 9 and 11 side-by-side.

Didn't work. Windows Media Player 11 played music Ok when installed into a sandbox. PCMark05 also ran some tests OK when installed into the same sandbox as Windows Media Player 11. BUT: Two err msgs were displayed when PCMark05 came up:
- SBIE2103 Denied attempt to load system driver 'pcibus' [PCMark05]
- "In order to run properly, PCMark05 requires Windows Media Player 10 or newer to be installed on your computer"
Somehow PCMark05 in the sandbox couldn't find Windows Media Player 11 in the same sandbox.

[Multibooter]

18 hours ago, Multibooter said:

I will repeat the test of the Inspiron 7500 with PCMark05 as an overnite job, and will not pull the plug when the screen stays black for a long time.

PCMark05 ran OK overnite, took 7:40hrs to complete. The overall score was 402. In contrast to the previous test with PCMark04, three graphics test of PCMark05 didn't complete. PCMark04 seems therefore to be preferrable to PCMark05 for testing/benchmarking old hardware. The last version of a software for WinXP is not necessarily the best version for WinXP.

Below is the log file:
Test started at: Tue Sep 10 01:05:32 2024
3D - Pixel Shader: This system is not capable of running pixel shader test.
3D - Pixel Shader: This system is not capable of running pixel shader test.
3D - Vertex Shader: This system is not capable of running vertex shader test.
Test ended at: Tue Sep 10 07:45:25 2024

Maybe I'll keep PCMark05, the SystemInfo Explorer part of the program is perhaps useful as a diagnostic utility.

"Max. User Clipping Planes 0" in the screenshot above explains maybe why the 3D tests failed.

The SystemInfo Explorer runs OK with the Windows theme "Windows Classic", PCMark05 only complains "In order to run all the tests properly, Visual Settings need to be set to "Adjust for best appearance" and the "Classic Style" may not be selected". PCMark04 does not display such a message. Not sure whether SystemInfo Explorer runs without Windows Media Player and MS Windows Media Encoder 9.

BTW, not sure how trustworthy the stuff displayed by SystemInfo Explorer is. PCMark05 displays as "Total Local Video Memory" 7MB, PCMark04 displays a correct 8MB. Both PCMark04 and PCMark05 display incorrectly one memory slot as empty (altogether 2x256MB RAM is the RAM slots), but the Total Physical Memory is indicated OK as 512MB.

Maybe the main benefit of this "pinewood derby" was the social effect, adding to the feeling of community here at msfn.org.

Edited September 10, 2024 by Multibooter

[NotHereToPlayGames]

22 minutes ago, Multibooter said:

took 7:40hrs to complete

[NotHereToPlayGames]

51 minutes ago, AstroSkipper said:

 And that's a good thing. 

We will have to "agree to disagree".  

[Multibooter]

2 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

However, my Windows XP always get all necessary updates. And that's a good thing.

I "agree to disagree", but my opinion is only one man's opinion

Edited September 10, 2024 by Multibooter

[AstroSkipper]

2 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

We I will have to "agree to disagree".  

Edited by AstroSkipper 

2 hours ago, Multibooter said:

I "agree to disagree", but my opinion is only one man's opinion

At this point, I would like to quote a saying that someone here usually gives off:: To Each Their Own! 

Edited September 10, 2024 by AstroSkipper
Update of content

[Saxon]

12 hours ago, Multibooter said:

BTW, not sure how trustworthy the stuff displayed by SystemInfo Explorer is. PCMark05 displays as "Total Local Video Memory" 7MB, PCMark04 displays a correct 8MB. Both PCMark04 and PCMark05 display incorrectly one memory slot as empty (altogether 2x256MB RAM is the RAM slots), but the Total Physical Memory is indicated OK as 512MB.

Those era notes usually had 8MB of real VRAM, the rest was borrowed from the system.

[AstroSkipper]

2 hours ago, Multibooter said:

BTW, not sure how trustworthy the stuff displayed by SystemInfo Explorer is.

Not very trustworthy as the integrated version is very old. I believe it is version 3.21. This SystemInfo Explorer version was not able to indicate the correct memory size in my system. It says 2 GB instead of the correct value of 1.5 GB. BTW, the last Windows XP compatible version is 4.48.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

50 minutes ago, AstroSkipper said:

To Each Their Own! 

  But if we are keeping track, that's one "for" 'all necessary updates' and two "against".  I can think of at least two that were "ran off the forum" that were intentionally sticking with XP x86 SP2 and were both deadset "against" the 'necessary' SP3.