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

Generic CPU Bench

Discussion in 'Overclocking & Cooling' started by btarunr, Oct 12, 2008.

  1. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,552 (11.25/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,644
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    I came across this 25 KB (!) benchmark application called Generic CPU Bench (ver. LOL.OMG). It appears to be a multi-threaded CPU benchmark. After finishing the bench, it also gives you the option to capture screenshots. The test starts as soon as the app is executed, so I'd suggest you start the app from a cmd shell or risk letting mouse movements mess with the score. The author of this app is Xtreme Member Particle. It requires .NET 2.0 framework.

    What a Phenom X4 9750 at stock speed churns out:

    [​IMG]

    Measurements are the time taken to crunch, and the throughput. Have fun pwning my score, and be nice to eachother.

    Scoreboard (Overall):
    Rank Member Processor Clock Speed (MHz) Avg. Crunch Time (ms) Throughput (KCU/s) Remarks
    1 1 Binge Core i7 920 (8 threads) 4474 5636 93025 Highest Throughput
    2 2 fitseries3 Core i7 920 (8 threads) 4280 5948 88145
    3 3 dark2099 Core i7 920 (8 threads) 4200 6005 87309
    4 4 Chicken_Patty Core i7 920 (8 threads) 4192 6040 86803
    5 5 DanTheBanjoman 2x Xeon L5310 (8 threads) 2702 10442 50210
    6 6 fitseries3 Core 2 Extreme QX9650 4605 5357 48935
    7 7 Tatty One Core 2 Quad Q9650 4500 5387 48662
    8 8 dipsta Core 2 Extreme QX9650 4450 5775 45393
    9 9 DOM Xeon X3350 3800 6376 41114
    10 10 mlee49 Core 2 Quad Q9450 3800 6469 40523
    11 11 RadeonX2 Core 2 Quad Q6600 4104 6864 38191
    12 12 fitseries3 Core 2 Quad Q6600 3900 7333 35749
    13 13 Mussels Core 2 Quad Q6600 3600 8157 32137
    14 14 SLK320 Phenom X4 9850 BE 3411 8393 31234
    15 15 MKmods Phenom X4 9950 BE 3250 8671 30232
    16 16 xubidoo Core 2 Quad Q6600 3204 8872 29547
    17 17 Chicken Patty Phenom X4 9950 BE 3412 8894 29474
    18 18 DirkDiggler Core 2 Quad Q6600 3200 8961 29254
    19 19 OzzmanFloyd120 Phenom X4 9850 3100 9024 29050
    20 20 FordGT90Concept 2x Xeon 5310 (8 threads) 1600 18132 28915
    21 21 revin Core 2 Extreme QX6700 2995 9399 27891
    22 22 ASharp Phenom X4 9850 BE 3000 9567 27401
    23 23 Xtant25 Core 2 Duo E8600 5250 4794 27341 Quickest Crunch
    24 24 wolf2009 Core 2 Quad Q9450 3200 9595 27321
    25 25 fitseries3 Core 2 Duo E8600 5200 4878 26872
    26 26 lemonadesoda Core 2 Quad Q6600 2700 10478 25019
    27 27 jbunch07 Phenom X4 9850 BE 2900 10483 25007
    28 28 SLK320 Phenom X4 9850 BE 3485 10508 24947
    29 29 alexp999 Core 2 Quad Q6600 3200 10703 24493
    30 30 erocker Core 2 Quad Q6600 3204 10773 24333
    31 31 Binge Core 2 Duo E8600 4500 5407 24241
    32 32 theonetruewill Core 2 Duo E8400 4320 5651 23194
    33 33 marsey99 Core 2 Duo E8200 4200 5790 22638
    34 34 merkk Phenom X4 9850 BE 3107 11714 22379
    35 35 btarunr Phenom X4 9750 2400 11776 22261
    36 36 freakshow Core 2 Duo E7200 4170 5942 22059
    37 37 Black Panther Core 2 Quad Q9450 2667 11929 21975
    38 38 Boneface Core 2 Duo E8400 3820 6097 21498
    39 39 mullered07 Core 2 Duo E7200 3990 6148 21319
    40 40 Boneface Core 2 Duo E8400 3825 6383 20535
    41 41 kid41212003 Phenom X4 9750 2700 13640 19219
    42 42 mlee49 Core 2 Duo E8200 3400 7225 18141
    43 43 Silverel 2x Xeon 5130 (4 threads) 2000 14470 18116
    44 44 DanTheBanjoman 2x Core Duo (4 threads) 2000 14806 17705
    45 45 tigger Core 2 Duo E6750 3840 7428 17646
    46 46 xubidoo Core 2 Duo E7200 3200 7568 17319
    47 47 Arctucas Core 2 Duo E6750 3700 7635 17167
    48 48 Inioch Core 2 Duo E8500 3166 7646 17143
    49 49 oli ramsay Core 2 Duo E8400 4000 7706 17009
    50 50 cdawall Celeron E1200 3584 7914 16562
    51 51 exodusprime1337 Athlon64 X2 5000+ BE 3468 8306 15780
    52 52 JrRacinFan Celeron E1200 3400 8310 15773
    53 53 DirkDiggler Pentium E2160 3200 8951 14643
    54 54 OzzmanFloyd120 Athlon64 X2 5000+ BE 3250 9020 14531
    55 55 Luke Core 2 Duo E6600 3105 9150 14325
    56 56 Luke Core 2 Duo T9300 2493 9910 14226
    57 57 3dsage Athlon64 X2 5000+ 3172 9265 14147
    58 58 Black Panther Core 2 Duo E4300 3000 10067 13020
    59 59 chuck216 Athlon64 X2 5600+ 2900 10086 12995
    60 60 fitseries3 Core 2 Duo E7200 3180 10310 12713
    61 61 Zehnsucht Core 2 Duo E6600 3200 10743 12201
    62 62 Silverel Athlon64 X2 5000+ BE 3200 11384 11514
    63 63 FordGT90Concept Opteron 180 2400 12236 10712
    64 64 overclocker Core 2 Duo T7500 2200 12936 10132
    65 65 Inioch Core 2 Duo T5600 1828 15560 8424
    66 66 RadeonX2 Core 2 Quad Q6600 (downcore to 1) 3600 7824 8376
    67 67 Silverel Core 2 Duo T7100 1800 16724 7837
    68 68 wolf2009 Pentium 4 630 2400 18468 7097
    69 69 JrRacinFan Celeron D 347 4597 9759 6715
    70 70 Melvis Athlon64 FX 57 2800 10313 6355
    71 71 ascstinger Sempron (K7) 2000 13881 4721
    72 72 xubidoo Athlon XP 2800+ 2000 14783 4433
    73 73 wolf2009 Pentium 4 520 2800 16783 3905
    74 74 wolf2009 Pentium 4 2.80A 2800 17503 3744
    75 75 ascstinger Atom N220 1.6 GHz 1600 35636 3678
    76 76 Luke 2x Pentium III-EB (2 threads) 800 39032 3358
    77 77 jbunch07 Celeron M 410 1467 21569 3038
    78 78 MKmods Athlon MP 1.2 GHz 1200 24762 2647
    79 79 DanTheBanjoman Pentium III-M 1.2 GHz 1196 25381 2582


    Scoreboard (Dual Core):
    Rank Member Processor Clock Speed (MHz) Avg. Crunch Time (ms) Throughput (KCU/s)
    1 1 Xtant25 Core 2 Duo E8600 5250 4794 27341
    2 2 fitseries3 Core 2 Duo E8600 5200 4878 26872
    3 3 Binge Core 2 Duo E8600 4500 5407 24241
    4 4 theonetruewill Core 2 Duo E8400 4320 5651 23194
    5 5 marsey99 Core 2 Duo E8200 4200 5790 22638
    6 6 freakshow Core 2 Duo E7200 4000 6030 21737
    7 7 Boneface Core 2 Duo E8400 3820 6097 21498
    8 8 mullered07 Core 2 Duo E7200 3990 6148 21319
    9 9 mlee49 Core 2 Duo E8200 3400 7225 18141
    10 10 tigger Core 2 Duo E6750 3840 7428 17646
    11 11 xubidoo Core 2 Duo E7200 3200 7568 17319
    12 12 Arctucas Core 2 Duo E6750 3700 7635 17167
    13 13 Inioch Core 2 Duo E8500 3166 7646 17143
    14 14 oli ramsay Core 2 Duo E8400 4000 7706 17009
    15 15 cdawall Celeron E1200 3584 7914 16562
    16 16 exodusprime1337 Athlon64 X2 5000+ BE 3468 8306 15780
    17 17 JrRacinFan Celeron E1200 3400 8310 15773
    18 18 DirkDiggler Pentium E2160 3200 8951 14643
    19 19 OzzmanFloyd120 Athlon64 X2 5000+ BE 3250 9020 14531
    20 20 Luke Core 2 Duo E6600 3105 9150 14325
    21 21 Luke Core 2 Duo T9300 2493 9910 14226
    22 22 3dsage Athlon64 X2 5000+ 3172 9265 14147
    23 23 Black Panther Core 2 Duo E4300 3000 10067 13020
    24 24 chuck216 Athlon64 X2 5600+ 2900 10086 12995
    25 25 fitseries3 Core 2 Duo E7200 3180 10310 12713
    26 26 Zehnsucht Core 2 Duo E6600 3200 10743 12201
    27 27 Silverel Athlon64 X2 5000+ BE 3200 11384 11514
    28 28 FordGT90Concept Opteron 180 2400 12236 10712
    29 29 overclocker Core 2 Duo T7500 2200 12936 10132
    30 30 Inioch Core 2 Duo T5600 1828 15560 8424
    31 31 Silverel Core 2 Duo T7100 1800 16724 7837


    Scoreboard (Quad Core):
    Rank Member Processor Clock Speed (MHz) Avg. Crunch Time (ms) Throughput (KCU/s)
    1 1 Binge Core i7 920 (8 threads) 4474 5636 93025
    2 2 fitseries3 Core i7 920 (8 threads) 4280 5948 88145
    3 3 dark2099 Core i7 920 (8 threads) 4200 6005 87309
    4 4 Chicken_Patty Core i7 920 (8 threads) 6040 86803
    5 5 fitseries3 Core 2 Extreme QX9650 4605 5357 48935
    6 6 Tatty One Core 2 Quad Q9650 4500 5387 48662
    7 7 dipsta Core 2 Extreme QX9650 4450 5775 45393
    8 8 DOM Xeon X3350 3800 6376 41114
    9 9 mlee49 Core 2 Quad Q9450 3800 6469 40523
    10 10 RadeonX2 Core 2 Quad Q6600 4104 6864 38191
    11 11 fitseries3 Core 2 Quad Q6600 3900 7333 35749
    12 12 Mussels Core 2 Quad Q6600 3600 8157 32137
    13 13 SLK320 Phenom X4 9850 BE 3411 8393 31234
    14 14 MKmods Phenom X4 9950 BE 3250 8671 30232
    15 15 xubidoo Core 2 Quad Q6600 3204 8872 29547
    16 16 Chicken Patty Phenom X4 9950 BE 3412 8894 29474
    17 17 DirkDiggler Core 2 Quad Q6600 3200 8961 29254
    18 18 OzzmanFloyd120 Phenom X4 9850 3100 9024 29050
    19 19 revin Core 2 Extreme QX6700 2995 9399 27891
    20 20 ASharp Phenom X4 9850 BE 3000 9567 27401
    21 21 lemonadesoda Core 2 Quad Q6600 2700 10478 25019
    22 22 jbunch07 Phenom X4 9850 BE 2900 10483 25007
    23 23 SLK320 Phenom X4 9850 BE 3485 10508 24947
    24 24 alexp999 Core 2 Quad Q6600 3200 10703 24493
    25 25 erocker Core 2 Quad Q6600 3204 10773 24333
    26 26 merkk Phenom X4 9850 BE 3107 11714 22379
    27 27 btarunr Phenom X4 9750 2400 11776 22261
    28 28 Black Panther Core 2 Quad Q9450 2667 11929 21975
    29 29 wolf2009 Core 2 Quad Q9450 2660 12584 20832
    30 30 kid41212003 Phenom X4 9750 2700 13640 19219


    Scoreboard (Single Core):
    Rank Member Processor Clock Speed (MHz) Avg. Crunch Time (ms) Throughput (KCU/s)
    1 1 RadeonX2 Core 2 Quad Q6600 (downcore to 1) 3600 7824 8376
    2 2 wolf2009 Pentium 4 630 2400 18468 7097
    3 3 JrRacinFan Celeron D 347 4597 9759 6715
    4 4 Melvis Athlon64 FX 57 2800 10313 6355
    5 5 ascstinger Sempron (K7) 2000 13881 4721
    6 6 xubidoo Athlon XP 2800+ 2000 14783 4433
    7 7 wolf2009 Pentium 4 520 2800 16783 3905
    8 8 wolf2009 Pentium 4 2.80A 2800 17503 3744
    9 9 ascstinger Atom N220 1.6 GHz 1600 35636 3678
    10 10 jbunch07 Celeron M 410 1467 21569 3038
    11 11 MKmods Athlon MP 1.2 GHz 1200 24762 2647
    12 12 DanTheBanjoman Pentium III-M 1.2 GHz 1196 25381 2582


    Scoreboard (Multi-Socket):
    Rank Member Processors Clock Speed (MHz) Avg. Crunch Time (ms) Throughput (KCU/s)
    1 1 DanTheBanjoman 2x Xeon L5310 (8 threads) 2702 10442 50210
    2 2 FordGT90Concept 2x Xeon 5310 (8 threads) 1600 18132 28915
    3 3 Silverel 2x Xeon 5130 (4 threads) 2000 14470 18116
    4 4 DanTheBanjoman 2x Core Duo (4 threads) 2000 14806 17705
    5 5 Luke 2x Pentium III-EB (2 threads) 800 39032 3358


    Files (attached below):

    The first file you see below, is the original app by Particle. It runs in 32-bit or 64-bit modes, depending on the environment (CPU + OS) it's in. The second file contains a modified app that runs in 32-bit mode regardless of which environment it is in. It was later observed in this thread, that processors perform better with the app running 32-bit. Both apps require Windows with .NET 2.0 framework installed.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Dec 22, 2008
  2. NastyHabits

    NastyHabits

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    Messages:
    1,075 (0.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    614
    Location:
    Oakland, CA
    It doesn't launch on my P-35 :(
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2008
  3. alexp999

    alexp999 Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Messages:
    8,045 (3.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    862
    Location:
    Dorset, UK
    Here's mine, had to let people see a bit of my background :p

    [​IMG]

    Expected to score a bit better than that over a Phenom (no offence), be interesting to see what higher clocked CPU's will do.
     
  4. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,552 (11.25/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,644
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    CPU and PF usage during the run:

    [​IMG]

    So the app indeed is stressing all available cores/threads.
     
  5. alexp999

    alexp999 Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Messages:
    8,045 (3.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    862
    Location:
    Dorset, UK
    Wtf, I got this after I ran it again to check, PF and CPU usage. Re-ran three times and get approx the same. :wtf:

    [​IMG]

    :confused: I guess my first one was a dud? :ohwell:
     
  6. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,552 (11.25/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,644
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    Maybe because from your first run, the memory already has that large 256M block in successive tests? Just blind-guessing.

    Edit: A wee little improvement for me:

    [​IMG]
     
  7. erocker

    erocker Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    39,660 (13.29/day)
    Thanks Received:
    14,054
    How did you get it to run through CMD? C:/run/Generic CPU Bench.exe? :eek:
     
  8. exodusprime1337

    exodusprime1337

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,188 (0.88/day)
    Thanks Received:
    342
    wow my 5000 sucks i guess lol

    [​IMG]
     
  9. alexp999

    alexp999 Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Messages:
    8,045 (3.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    862
    Location:
    Dorset, UK
    I had to make the file one word or it wouldnt run. For me I changed it to "genericbench.exe" then it was fine
     
    NastyHabits and erocker say thanks.
  10. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,552 (11.25/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,644
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    Just run it like any other app. Open a shell, x:\directory where it's stored\app.exe

    Else place the app on your desktop, single click it to select, park your mouse somewhere, hit enter. This drill is just for accuracy. Click to run if you want.
     
  11. JrRacinFan

    JrRacinFan Served 5k and counting ...

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    19,414 (7.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4,483
    Location:
    Youngstown, OH
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  12. alexp999

    alexp999 Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Messages:
    8,045 (3.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    862
    Location:
    Dorset, UK
    Throughput is what I would expect, but wow on the time! :eek:

    Anyone any good at programming to find out what this tiny app is actually doing? And where it is getting 64bm of data per core/thread from?
     
    JrRacinFan says thanks.
  13. sneekypeet

    sneekypeet Unpaid Babysitter Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Messages:
    21,563 (6.99/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,098
    this test is GHEY I've run it 6 times and got 6 different scores?????
     
  14. alexp999

    alexp999 Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Messages:
    8,045 (3.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    862
    Location:
    Dorset, UK
    I was thinking it didnt seem consistent. Just need someone to dive into the exe and find out what its doing... :confused:
     
  15. erocker

    erocker Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    39,660 (13.29/day)
    Thanks Received:
    14,054
    Yaaay! Teh awesomezzz ZOMG!! kthnxbye! :p
    [​IMG]
     
  16. JrRacinFan

    JrRacinFan Served 5k and counting ...

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    19,414 (7.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4,483
    Location:
    Youngstown, OH
    Ran it again and got very close to the same score alex.

    [​IMG]
     
  17. sneekypeet

    sneekypeet Unpaid Babysitter Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Messages:
    21,563 (6.99/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,098
    hey Alex my Dual is doing the same as Jr.s on time!
     
    JrRacinFan says thanks.
  18. Arctucas

    Arctucas

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,768 (0.59/day)
    Thanks Received:
    290
    Zomg!?
     

    Attached Files:

  19. alexp999

    alexp999 Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Messages:
    8,045 (3.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    862
    Location:
    Dorset, UK
    Maybe it only does one core at a time or something? So more cores equals longer time but better throughput :confused:
     
  20. JrRacinFan

    JrRacinFan Served 5k and counting ...

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    19,414 (7.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4,483
    Location:
    Youngstown, OH
    If that is true my 4.6Ghz Single core would whip ass then. Lets see what happens, will post back with a ss.
     
  21. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,552 (11.25/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,644
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    As for the scoreboard ranking, it's getting ranked taking the throughput into account, this is a multi-threaded bench afterall. I'm trying to work out a formula for an index that takes into account the throughput, crunch time, thoroughput : core count ratio, etc., so the dual-core speed demons aren't left unrewarded in the rank column. Until then we'll use the throughput.
     
  22. Silverel

    Silverel New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1,769 (0.71/day)
    Thanks Received:
    233
    Location:
    Detroit, MI
    [​IMG][​IMG]

    :toast:
     
  23. tigger

    tigger I'm the only one

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2006
    Messages:
    10,183 (3.28/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,399
    Heres mine.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  24. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,552 (11.25/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,644
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    I don't get it. How come the same chip (A64X2 5000+BE) w/ higher OC perform worse :confused:

    Something isn't right with this bench.
     
    sneekypeet says thanks.
  25. JrRacinFan

    JrRacinFan Served 5k and counting ...

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    19,414 (7.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4,483
    Location:
    Youngstown, OH
    Bench with Janet

    Celeron D 347 @ 4.6Ghz

    EDIT: I think you are correct alex, its all in the throughput.
     

    Attached Files:

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

Share This Page