u p g r a d e     c e n t r a l

home
graphics version
e-mail
thinkquest
disclaimer
glossary
links
site map
credits
help
price vs performance

 

This article will compare the performance of three different homebuilt computers. To test them, we used two different applications and a series of timed file transfer tests.

hardware specifications
  $600 computer $1200 computer $2400 computer
cpu AMD K6 200 mhz AMD K6-2 300 mhz Intel Pentium II 400 mhz
motherboard FIC PA-2007 FIC VA-503+ Asus P2B-S
RAM 32 MB SDRAM 64 MB SDRAM 128 MB SDRAM
video card Matrox Mystique 220 PCI 4MB Diamond Viper V330 AGP 4MB Intense 3D Voodoo PCI 6MB
3d accelerator none Creative 3D Blaster II none
hard drive Western Digital IDE 1.6GB IBM DeskStar IDE 8.4GB Quantum Viking II Ultra2 SCSI 4GB
CD-ROM drive Hi-Val IDE 24x Creative IDE 32x Plextor Ultraplex Ultra Wide SCSI 32x

We first tested the file transfer rates of each computer's hard drive and CD-ROM drive. To test the hard drives, we measured the amount of time it took to make a copy of a large file (175 megabytes) on the same hard drive as the original. To test the CD-ROM drives, we measured the amount of time it took to copy of another large file (107 megabytes) from a CD to the hard drive.

file tranfer benchmarks (MB/sec, higher is better)
  $600 computer $1200 computer $2400 computer
file transfer HD to self 0.97 1.45 2.43
file transfer CD-ROM to HD 0.61 1.67 3.55

POV-Ray is a free 3d scene rendering program that can be found at http://www.povray.org. 3d rendering is very CPU intensive, making it a good tool to use in benchmark tests. We recorded the amount of time each computer took to render the sample scene "torus1.pov" (included with the program) in both 320x240 and 640x480 resolution.

POV-Ray rendering benchmarks (rendering time in seconds, lower is better)
  $600 computer $1200 computer $2400 computer
POV-Ray torus1 320x240 AA0.3 108 71 46
POV-Ray torus1 640x480 AA0.3 328 215 154

No set of benchmarks would be complete without the ever-popular Quake 2 "timedemo". Quake 2 is a 3d game played from a first-person perspective that requires lots of processing power to run smoothly. For this benchmark, we ran a timed demonstration ("timedemo") on each computer at two different resolutions and using both software rendering (completely done by the CPU) and OpenGL (mostly done by the video card) when possible. At the end of each demo we recorded the average number of frames per second at which the game was running. Frames per second is a measurement of how many times the player's point of view can be redrawn every second. We ran each test twice and averaged the results.

Quake 2 benchmarks (frames per second, higher is better)
  $600 computer $1200 computer $2400 computer
640x480 software 8.7 12.5 26.3
640x480 OpenGL n/a 38.3 18.5
800x600 software 6.5 9.4 20.1
800x600 OpenGL n/a 35.7 n/a


conclusions

Results from the file transfer tests were rather surprising; we had expected the CD-ROM transfer speed to be lower than the hard drive speed, but this was only the case with the $600 computer. Nevertheless, the performance of each computer in this test seemed fitting for its components. The drives in the $2400 computer were able to attain such high transfer rates because of the extremely high bandwidth of the SCSI interface. However, both the hard drive ($400) and the CD-ROM drive ($150) were relatively expensive compared to the IDE units found in the other two computers.

The second set of tests gave a good estimate of the differences in processing power between the three machines. The time differences between renderings loosely matched the differences in clock speeds between CPUs; the 400 mhz processor rendered scenes roughly twice as fast as the 200 mhz model, while the 300 mhz CPU was in between. Comparatively, the prices of these processors were less than proportional. The AMD 300 mhz unit was bought for less than a quarter of the cost of the Intel 400 mhz model, giving it a more favorable ratio of price to performance.

The Quake 2 benchmarks revealed just how much of a performance increase a good 3d accelerator can offer. The data from the software trials clearly shows how much slower the AMD K6-2 performed in comparison with the Intel Pentium II. However, when the 3D Blaster II (based on the Voodoo2 chipset) was utilized in OpenGL mode, it produced framerates that were much greater, even at 800x600 resolution. The $2400 computer was also able to use OpenGL, at least in 640x480 mode. However, its first generation Voodoo Rush-based card produced less than satisfactory results. A 3d accelerator can dramatically improve game performance, but at a high price. At $170, the 3D Blaster was the most expensive part of the $1200 computer.


0 8 . 3 1 . 1 9 9 8