1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Geekbench

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by lemonadesoda, Mar 18, 2009.

  1. BarbaricSoul

    BarbaricSoul

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2008
    Messages:
    5,077 (2.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,978
    coming right up, 2600k system at 4.2ghz.
    lemonadesoda says thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  2. BarbaricSoul

    BarbaricSoul

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2008
    Messages:
    5,077 (2.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,978
    Geekbench score- 12797

    http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1317942

    I do got to say I like how it does both single core and multi core benching and comparison. And I can confirm it uses all 8 processing threads of my 2600k(watched task manager while benching)

    Name ....... | CPU . | Speed .. | MemoryType | GBScore | Integer | FP . | Memory | StreamScore | GeekScore/Ghz | comment
    BarbaricSoul | 2600k | 4.20 Ghz | DDR3 1600 | 12797 .... | 13242 |1682 | 7976 .... | 9384 ....... | 3046.9 ........... | 2600k system in system specs
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2012
    Crunching for Team TPU
  3. lemonadesoda

    lemonadesoda

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,245 (2.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    963
    Was that Geekbench version 2.4.x or 2.1.x? http://www.sendspace.com/file/zputtn Please use v2.1.x for this thread. The results are (unfortunately) not compatible.

    @all. Please post your result in the correct submission format, so I can copy+paste into the table. Thanks! Example here

    Last edited: Dec 6, 2012
  4. trickson

    trickson OH, I have such a headache

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,494 (1.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    956
    Location:
    Planet Earth.

    Attached Files:

  5. BarbaricSoul

    BarbaricSoul

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2008
    Messages:
    5,077 (2.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,978
    Crunching for Team TPU
  6. MetalRacer

    MetalRacer

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2007
    Messages:
    859 (0.34/day)
    Thanks Received:
    697
    Location:
    The Lone Star State
  7. MetalRacer

    MetalRacer

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2007
    Messages:
    859 (0.34/day)
    Thanks Received:
    697
    Location:
    The Lone Star State
  8. Aquinus

    Aquinus Resident Wat-man

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,929 (6.53/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,912
    Location:
    Concord, NH
    Aquinus | i7 3820 | 4.62 Ghz | DDR3-2400 (10-12-11-33-1T) | 13131 | 13827 | 15091 | 8923 | 12254 | 2842 | 128.6Mhz bclk

    [​IMG]

    Attached Files:

  9. Melvis

    Melvis

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,543 (1.53/day)
    Thanks Received:
    510
    Location:
    Australia
    Melvis | Phenom II X4 965 | 3.4 Ghz | DDR3 1333 | 6317 | 7353 | 8291 | 2960 | 2501 | 1858 | Windows 7 64

    Attached Files:

  10. chevy350

    chevy350

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2009
    Messages:
    196 (0.11/day)
    Thanks Received:
    38
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2012
  11. BarbaricSoul

    BarbaricSoul

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2008
    Messages:
    5,077 (2.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,978
    Crunching for Team TPU
  12. Melvis

    Melvis

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,543 (1.53/day)
    Thanks Received:
    510
    Location:
    Australia
    Melvis | AMD A8-5600k | 3.8 Ghz | DDR3 1333 | 6063 | 6427 | 7646 | 3884 | 3612 | 1596 | Customers Comp

    CPU-Z said it only hit 3.8GHz, its meant to do 3.9 :confused:

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Dec 3, 2012
  13. lemonadesoda

    lemonadesoda

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,245 (2.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    963
    I make that 4204 Geekscore / Ghz

    Could you kindly rerun that under Geekbech 4.1.x (see OP). Thanks.
  14. JrRacinFan

    JrRacinFan Served 5k and counting ...

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    19,414 (7.23/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4,483
    Location:
    Youngstown, OH
    @Aquinus

    Look into reducing TRFC a tad. Might help your ram latency. Help squeak even a little more performance out of your build. :)
  15. chevy350

    chevy350

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2009
    Messages:
    196 (0.11/day)
    Thanks Received:
    38
    Yes I can re-run with the earlier version, just paid for the unlock a year or so ago and like to keep it updated. As far as the score/ghz I tried following the op but it wasn't very clear as to which score to use since your example shows a score that wasn't listed in your example post lol.....will get the results updated with the 4.1.x later tonight when I get home from work :toast:
  16. lemonadesoda

    lemonadesoda

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,245 (2.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    963
    Great, thanks

    The Geekscore / Clock speed = Take the main overall result / your actual OC clockspeed

    ++++++++++++

    Anyone else browsing this thread... please add your result, esp if you run a Xeon or AMD dual / quad CPU system.
  17. Arctucas

    Arctucas

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,763 (0.60/day)
    Thanks Received:
    290
  18. chevy350

    chevy350

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2009
    Messages:
    196 (0.11/day)
    Thanks Received:
    38
    Well I would re-run and re-post but get this from op link


    Download not available

    The file of the above link no longer exists. This could be for several reasons:

    The file was deleted by the user who uploaded it.
    The file contained illegal contents and was deleted from our servers by our Anti-Abuse team.
    The link is incorrect.
    The server is busy and can not process the request.

    File not found. (e029a7af)

    :banghead::banghead:
  19. Aquinus

    Aquinus Resident Wat-man

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,929 (6.53/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,912
    Location:
    Concord, NH
    Good thing to know. I usually leave TRFC on auto, I figured the motherboard/memory has a better idea for how long and often it should refresh. Do you know much about secondary memory timings? I usually leave them alone. It was my impression that improvements are minimal on most secondary timings unless they're way off.

    I really need to do some thorough testing with my rig to find out exactly what limits on what components are there because there is a lot to configure on SB-E. I can get a decent overclock out of it but I feel like it wants to go faster but can't. Maybe it's just me wanting it to go faster and it doesn't. :p (Not to say that it is slow, it certainly is not.)
  20. lemonadesoda

    lemonadesoda

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,245 (2.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    963
    Here is my copy of v2.1.4. Not sure how long the upload will stay there. Perhaps this could be transferred to TPU/downloads... I'll PM Mr W1zzard

    http://www.sendspace.com/file/zputtn
  21. W1zzard

    W1zzard Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    14,639 (3.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    11,375
    chevy350 and lemonadesoda say thanks.
  22. Arctucas

    Arctucas

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,763 (0.60/day)
    Thanks Received:
    290
  23. MetalRacer

    MetalRacer

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2007
    Messages:
    859 (0.34/day)
    Thanks Received:
    697
    Location:
    The Lone Star State
    chevy350 and lemonadesoda say thanks.
  24. lemonadesoda

    lemonadesoda

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,245 (2.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    963
    I'll upload the re-run. But in general don't worry about which 2.1.x version you use... they are pretty close results and well within a reasonable tolerance of +/-3%. The problem is when someone uses 2.4.x, or 64bit, where the results can be quite different. To put it all into perspective, the idea of the table isn't about small %, but seeing the order of magnitude differences between old and new, and atom vs. xeon. etc.
    chevy350 says thanks.
  25. chevy350

    chevy350

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2009
    Messages:
    196 (0.11/day)
    Thanks Received:
    38
    Yup I just noticed that as well, grabbed the 2.1.4 that was upped so I'll get it re-run....and in 32-bit as well lol. I paid the small fee to run the 64-bit and was just out of habit to run it on 64 instead of 32 :cool:

    Edited results in post #111 big change over the 64-bit results lol
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2012
    lemonadesoda says thanks.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page