Skip to main content
  1. Home
  2. Computing
  3. News

Today’s CPUs are up to 60 times quicker than those sold just a decade ago

Add as a preferred source on Google

When we talk about processor speed improvement, we mostly talk in terms of tiny percentages, like a 15 percent performance-per-watt bump from last year’s model, or an extra .1 or .2 GHz. That’s a narrow view that works for computer reviews, but the team over at Phoronix decided to compare modern processors to CPUs from almost 11 years ago to see how they held up.

The two processors they managed to find that still booted up were both Intel Socket 478 chps. One was a single-core Pentium 4 with a clock speed of 2.8GHz and hyperthreading. the other was a single-core Intel Celeron D 320 with a base clock of 2.4GHz. Neither of these are fast by today’s standards, but they wanted to know exactly how fast, and how efficient, they are.

Recommended Videos

To make sure the test was accurate and consistent, they used Linux and updated it to a more modern kernel version after installation. The system they were installed in boasted 1GB of DDR-400 memory, a 160GB HDD, and an ATI (bet you haven’t heard that name in a while) Radeon 9200 with 128MB of VRam. They also had to install XFCE, a Linux interface that’s less graphically demanding than most.

The difference between machines powered by these processors and the newer ones are even more staggering than expected. The Celeron and Pentium came in dead last on almost every test, only passing the lowest-power processors on a few tests. When compared to the latest and greatest in Intel systems, the old systems scored as much as 60 times slower at completing the same tasks. Even when compared to systems like the Intel Compute Stick with an Intel Atom processor, the 11-year-old chip results were slower by multiple times over.

Performance wasn’t the only factor to take into consideration either. Both of the Socket 478 chips consumed three or four times the total power as newer Bay Trail and Broadwell-based processors. Granted, these chips are designed to run on a lower-power envelope, but their performance is also many times better than the old chips.

The team at Phoronix did their best to make it a fair fight, but there are a lot of factors out of their control that may have affected the results. In the end, it’s more of a thought experiment than anything else, to give us a decent idea of how far chip design has come in ten years or so, and the question is more easily answered in miles than inches. If you want to dive into the data of the experiment, you can check out the full rundown of the process, as well as the meticulous testing process.

Brad Bourque
Brad Bourque is a native Portlander, devout nerd, and craft beer enthusiast. He studied creative writing at Willamette…
Macbook Neo stress test shows Apple could’ve made it run cooler with a simple fix
This simple mod makes the MacBook Neo faster.
Apple MacBook Neo with users hands on it

Apple's MacBook Neo arrived as a shock to the industry. It is the new cheap MacBook that is designed to be silent, efficient, and affordable. But a new stress test suggests that it could have been noticeably better with a very simple change.

As per a recent test, the addition of a basic copper plate to the cooling setup can improve both thermals and performance by a meaningful margin. And the frustrating part? It isn't some complex engineering overhaul and is relatively straightforward.

Read more
The Mac Pro is dead at Apple, and I’ll miss the cheese-grater powerhouse
RIP Mac Pro. The Mac Studio is taking the throne, and we're okay with that.
Electronics, Computer, Pc

Apple has officially discontinued the Mac Pro. It’s been removed from Apple’s website, and Apple has confirmed to 9to5Mac that there are no plans to release a future version. The buy page now redirects to Apple’s Mac homepage, where the Mac Pro no longer exists.

Why did Apple kill the Mac Pro?

Read more
March Madness, Revisited: The AI Model Did Well. But Mad Things Still Happen
Stills from NCAA games.

(NOTE: This article is part of an ongoing series documenting an experiment with using AI to fill the NCAA brackets and see how it fares against years of human experience. The original article is as follows.)

A week ago, I wrote about entering an NCAA tournament pool with a more disciplined process than I usually use.

Read more