AMD Athlon 800

by Anand Lal Shimpi on December 20, 1999 4:47 AM EST

SPECviewperf

The Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation, commonly known as SPEC, managed to come up with a synthetic benchmark with real world implications. By running specific "viewsets" SPECviewperf can simulate performance under various applications. To be more accurate, according to SPEC, "A viewset is a group of individual runs of SPECviewperf that attempt to characterize the graphics rendering portion of an ISV's application." While this method is by no means capable of identifying the performance of a card in all situations, it does help to indicate the strengths and weaknesses of a particular setup.

SPECviewperf 6.1.1 currently features five viewsets: the Advanced Visualizer, the DesignReview, the Data Explorer, the Lightscape and the ProCDRS-02 viewset. Before each benchmark set we've provided SPEC's own description of that particular viewset so you can better understand what that particular viewset is measuring, performance-wise.

Each viewset is divided into a number of tests, ranging from 4 to 10 in quantity. These tests each stress a different performance element in the particular application that viewset is attempting to simulate. Since all applications focus on some features more than others, each one of these tests is weighted meaning that each test affects the final score differently, some more than others.

All results are reported in frames per second, so the higher the value, the better the performance is. The last result given for each of the viewsets is the WGM or Weighted Geometric Mean. This value is, as the name implies, the Weighted Geometric Mean of all of the test scores. The formula used to calculate the WGM is as follows:

With n being the number of tests in a viewset and w being the weight of each test expressed as a number between 0.0 and 1.0.

If you'd like to know more about why a Weighted Geometric Mean is used, SPEC has an excellent article detailing just why, here.

We ran the SPECviewperf 6.1.1 package under NT for a high-end workstation performance comparison. In order to place the strain on the CPU, we replaced the GeForce 256 with a regular TNT2 Ultra which does not feature any on-board geometry acceleration thus offloading all transforming & lighting requests onto the CPU.

Expendable - 1024 x 768 AWadvs-03
Comments Locked

1 Comments

View All Comments

  • xrror - Friday, December 12, 2014 - link

    The thing to remember during this era is that coppermine P3's (or at least, any P3 with integrated cache) were pretty much stupid expensive, and unobtanium to get. While with the Athlon 800 you could actually buy one and not be on a wait list for 2 months.

    Also ugh, RAMBUS and 820 were just way too much money. BX @ 133 with a video card that could handle it - which Geforce 2 era cards started to be built for that was where it was at if you were Intel. Or you just waited like everyone else for the Athlon Thunderbird to come out... =)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now