CYRIX "Samuel" 667 CPU

[eshort]

does anyone have info/benchamrking program for the CYRIX 667 "Samuel"


I have a comput with said chipo showing very low (120) MFLOPS (equivalent to a P100!)--suspect benchamrk (wintine) not accurate (Norton util's benchamrk shows 115--also very low for a cpu of this speed).

Substituted a celeron 466--raised MFLOPS to 575 but dropped Norton score to 105!

chipset= Sis which may be contributing but i doubt it wld lower the MFLOPS that severely!!

Ther cele seems to run at same speed but gives remarkably higher MIPS/MFLOPS using wintune benchmarking program.

Would sisoft SANDRA be more accurate for this CPU?

thanx.

[DanU]

Don't be surprised. The Cyrix III is a terrible processor compared to an equally clocked celeron. But at least they are dirt cheap.

[Joel Kleppinger]

First, wintune IS a very poor benchmarking program... probably the worst for a "major" piece of software.

Second, you're looking at MFLOPS. Most business software uses very little floating point calculations... that's generally more of a gaming/graphics thing. Since the Cyrix CPU line is aimed at low cost business users, it's not surprising it doesn't perform well for what it wasn't intended to do.

I personally do not give much credence to SANDRA when comparing CPU architectures like this (Samuel vs. Celeron, for instance). It's better than wintune, but I really take sandra numbers with a grain of salt. I generally use WinBench instead for a synthetic benchmark. Download the 10MB version and see how it works for you. http://www.zdnet.com/etestinglabs/stories/benchmarks/0,8829,2326114,00.html

[madfish]

Thanks Joel, I been looking for winbench to D/L, I hate sandra.. Cheers!