Fastest processor for running a Dos box ?

[tangey]

Ok, I have a legacy in-house application that runs in a DOS box. For various reasons it isn't feasible to re-write for a windows OS.

Its a processor intensive task.

If I'm looking to buy a system that'll run this dos box as quickly as possible, what processor should I be looking for ? I'm not going to get the normally processing advantage of having a multi-core processor, so whats the best thing out there in general release that'll run a Dos app in a Dos window as quickly as possible.

 

[Davros]

benchnt

80486DX2 66mhz = 15.3
Core 2 Duo 2400mhz = 2057

so a modern cpu will be at least 130x faster than the cpu it was probably originally written for
if the program took an hour to run when you first got it, it will take < 30seconds now

so get any modern cpu,

 

[Blazkowicz]

he said "processor intensive", a chess engine or raytracer from 1992 will still like a faster CPU I believe.

fastest CPU bare none should be the core i5/i7.
fastest single core is the AMD Sempron 140. pretty good already. ultra cheap and low power.
but a core i5/i7 with "turbo mode", i.e. automatic o/c when only one core is exploited, should spank it. while wasting some of the power.

 

[ninelven]

Yep, the i5 or Sempron 140.

Phenom II x2 550 might be an option as well (easy to overclock with the unlocked multiplier).

 

[Davros]

would running 8 instances of the program be possible ?

 

[Blazkowicz]

Does it run faster under real DOS rather than in the ntvdm? The ntvdm is probably very efficient (at least CPU-wise, not sure of I/O), but I wonder.

 

[sebbbi]

I'm not going to get the normally processing advantage of having a multi-core processor.

Highest clocked Core 2 Solo is the best performing Intel single core CPU. However there are higher clocked Core 2 dual core CPUs around, so if the additional heat is not a problem, the highest clocked Core 2 dual core CPU would be the optimal choice (if you are looking for a Intel CPU). Do not get yourself a quad core I7 or Core 2. Neither have better single threaded performance as highest clocked Core 2 dual core CPUs.

 

[Frank]

Use a "bare" VM and run DOS on it. It'll be much faster than DOSbox.

 

[swaaye]

My impression, from how he worded his question, is that he's referring to NTVDM or maybe a 9x DOS box not the DosBox emulator.

 

[tangey]

Thanks for all the replies thus far.

The original post was done in shorthand to "cut to the chase". The program isn't really legacy, its been recently written, however the person writing it has no high level programming experience at all, he just knows how to write x86 code using MASM.

So I have a program, which currently runs under a winXp Dos comand line box. I need it to run like this (i.e. under windows and not a standalone Dos machine) as I need to be able to work with the files that it outputs with windows based programs.

The program is CPU intensive, so I'm looking to buy a PC box, the main criteria of which is to run this X86 Dos program in Dos window as quickly as possible, with the caveat that the PC isn't an esoteric solution.

 

[Zaphod]

That doesn't sound like a DOS app (one run under the NTVDM), rather a Win32 console app. Big difference.

 

[Davros]

depends, what compiler did he use ?

edit: tech me not to read the post properly, Masm it could very well be a proper dos app

 

[Zaphod]

It would have to be a very old version, no? I think whatever shipped for Visual C++ 6 a decade ago won't even install on less than Win2K. At least the current SDK won't and MS set that free in 2004. This isn't really my thing, though.

 

[Davros]

I think the latest version still compiles dos apps

 

[tangey]

It is not a win32 console app, its a dos app, he writes it on a standalone dos system, hands it to me, and I run in under a winXp dos box. It is a VERY old version of MASM debugged using a DOS program called Codeview.