Multi-Core Prime

[t.phase]

Originally Posted by Aquinus

So you're telling me that an i7 3770k is just as fast as a i5-3330? That's not better than a i5-3330 being faster than an i7 3820. Even if you forget memory and HT for a minute. Clock speeds should make certain CPUs run faster than others. I find it hard to believe that a quad-core that runs slower than another quad-core is performing better and it's not like we're comparing two disparate types of CPUs.

A benchmark really should show the i7s being a good chunk faster than the i5 even more so in a multi-threaded environment.

Still doesn't sound right.

i5 3330 @ 3200Mhz - 18/19 sec
i7 3770k - 12/13 sec

What is wrong?

[Aquinus]

Originally Posted by t.phase

i5 3330 @ 3200Mhz - 18/19 sec
i7 3770k - 12/13 sec

What is wrong?

That the 3820 at 4.5Ghz is gives the same scores a a 3.2Ghz i5 and that your 3770k is scoring as high as an Intel 6-core CPU. I find it even more strange that it doesn't scale with HT (at all). Which are usually signs of much needed software optimizations because I can tell you that there is a big gap in multi-threaded performance between the i5-3330 and the i7-3820 and your benchmark isn't show it. It is also showing perfect (over perfect,) performance scaling when you add more cores which is the sign of a software problem.

Are you outputting the data your generating so we can confirm the validity of the output?

Just one more thing. The status says that between 0 and 100 million that 5,761,456 primes where found. According to the prime number theorem shouldn't that number be more like 5,428,681?

[Melvis]

That is one crappy score with this X6 Going by the scores my X6 is 3.5x slower then a Q9400

[AphexDreamer]

Originally Posted by Melvis

That is one crappy score with this X6 Going by the scores my X6 is 3.5x slower then a Q9400

It doesn't like AMD's I think. My FX6100 did worse than quad as well.

[Melvis]

Originally Posted by AphexDreamer

It doesn't like AMD's I think. My FX6100 did worse than quad as well.

Agreed, but my FX 8350 did do a pretty good score to be honest. So I don't know

[ThE_MaD_ShOt]

Originally Posted by Melvis

That is one crappy score with this X6 Going by the scores my X6 is 3.5x slower then a Q9400

Originally Posted by AphexDreamer

It doesn't like AMD's I think. My FX6100 did worse than quad as well.

Originally Posted by Melvis

Agreed, but my FX 8350 did do a pretty good score to be honest. So I don't know

I too have to agree. I think it hates Amd. I think I should have faired better then a tad under 1 min.

[Novulux]

[CrackerJack]

[t.phase]

The benchmark is developed using and AMD FX 8350 CPU It doesn't hate AMD, just single thread performance on AMD is lower than Intel. I work now on a much more CPU intensive benchmark, optimized for perfect parallelism and multithreading. I will be back soon with news!

[Aquinus]

Originally Posted by t.phase

The benchmark is developed using and AMD FX 8350 CPU It doesn't hate AMD, just single thread performance on AMD is lower than Intel. I work now on a much more CPU intensive benchmark, optimized for perfect parallelism and multithreading. I will be back soon with news!

Then AMD's CPU should be doing better because its not single threaded performance that is lacking. There is also no scaling with HT enabled. I wouldn't call that optimized. I'm still going to mention how the 950 scores lower than my 3820 despite faster clocks, a better ipc, and faster memory. In places where you would expect improvement, your benchmark offers none. Your benchmark says that an 8-core AMD CPU is half as fast as an i5 (heck even a core 2 quad) quad-core and it says that an i5 is just as fast as an i7. Everything I've been seeing is telling me that this is not optimized because then it would scale properly.

[rickss69]

It should be clear by now that this is for data gathering purposes rather than any real benefit for the one running the "benchmark".

[Aquinus]

Originally Posted by rickss69

It should be clear by now that this is for data gathering purposes rather than any real benefit for the one running the "benchmark".

Obviously, unless you really think a 950 is faster than a 3820 or if a C2Q is faster than a 8350. I haven't been able to see any consistant results, which concerns me with what is actually being calculated. The point is that stuff looks weird and we can't validate what is happening behind the scenes.

[t.phase]

OK, thanks all for testing this. The software is optimized for multicore but the algorithm is not that complex and may not reveal 100% accurate the differences between different CPU's.

Having this experience and this goal, I developed a new benchmark, witch use a far more complex multithreaded algorithm. Multi Core PI.

The old benchmark Multi Core Prime is no longer in development. I hope you will find this benchmark more useful and will reveal more accurate performance differences between platforms.

Multi Core PI calculates PI decimals using Bailey–Borwein–Plouffe formula. The benchmark is using a multithreaded algorithm written in C++ and provide excellent parallelism. Multi Core PI is written in Visual C++ using MFC and Win32API.

How it works

A slider will help you set the decimals of PI, from 10.000 to 100.000. Default is 80.000. Just hit Run benchmark button to start benching your CPU.

Submit to HWBOT

First, press Take Screenshot button. A screenshot and a XML datafile will be created. Attentio! CPUZ must be running!
Second, follow the link provided on the dialog and submit your datafile to HWBOT.

Supported operating systems

Microsoft Windows XP / Server 2003
Microsoft Windows Vista / 7
Microsoft Windows 8 / Server 2012

His own thread

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/sh...26#post2841926

Download link

http://www.pcgamingxtreme.ro/

[AphexDreamer]

[zsolt_93]

I am not sure if this test is any better. 15 Seconds difference and the fx has +2 cores and +1300MHz/core.

[t.phase]

Is 27% faster. The FX. The test is accurate. Remember, singlethreading performance on Intel is far superior than singlethreading performance on AMD. +2 cores at +1300Mhz don't do more than 27%.

The FX 8350 requires about 4200MHZ with 8 cores to match i5 at 3200Mhz with 4 cores. Thread / Thread, Intel is about 50% faster. Do the math, how many cores + you have to supply to overcome this?

So, I think this test is very accurate. Please test some more.

[AphexDreamer]

Is it possible to make a beanchmark that were more FX optimized? To utilize the modules more efficiently?

[t.phase]

Originally Posted by AphexDreamer

Is it possible to make a beanchmark that were more FX optimized? To utilize the modules more efficiently?

It is developed using an FX 8350... is optimized, it uses efficiently all the cores [check task manager].

[rickss69]

My question is how is this benchmark going to help anyone make any kind of decision regarding their hardware? The only thing I have seen thus far is that raising cpu clock speed will result in a quicker conclusion of the test...any other tweaking has little effect.

[Aquinus]

Originally Posted by t.phase

It is developed using an FX 8350... is optimized, it uses efficiently all the cores [check task manager].

Just because it "uses 100% cpu" doesn't mean it's efficiently using all the cores. Your benchmark "uses" all hyper-threading threads but still doesn't yield any significant performance improvement.

[t.phase]

Originally Posted by Aquinus

Just because it "uses 100% cpu" doesn't mean it's efficiently using all the cores. Your benchmark "uses" all hyper-threading threads but still doesn't yield any significant performance improvement.

Check Multi Core PI...

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/sh...26#post2841926

[Aquinus]

Originally Posted by t.phase

Check Multi Core PI...

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/sh...26#post2841926

Saying it and doing it are two different things. You know, I'm going to bitterly fight this considering your benchmark says an i7 950 is faster than my i7 3820 and how HT doesn't scale. Those are signs that something is wrong. This still doesn't change the fact that 100% in the CPU task manager doesn't mean multi-core resources are being optimized (even more so since HT doesn't give any improvement.)