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

Processor GFlops Compilation

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by newtekie1, May 19, 2009.

  1. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,965 (6.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,047
    Table Updated.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU More than 25k PPD
  2. Athlonite

    Athlonite

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,932 (1.13/day)
    Thanks Received:
    491
    average GFlops = all runs added together \ divided by number of runs

    so your twilyth your avg gflops would workout to be 138.8102 \ 5 = 27.76204
     
  3. AphexDreamer

    AphexDreamer

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    7,116 (2.67/day)
    Thanks Received:
    917
    Location:
    C:\Program Files (x86)\Aphexdreamer\
    I'm sad :( I can run folding@Home for days and play games and what not with out a single crash but I can't do more than one run of this burn in test.

    1.48 votls @ 4095mhz. Any tips to make it stable? Temps 43C Idle.
     
  4. twilyth Guest

    It's not really stable unless you can run at full load for at the very least, several hours, w/o any problems. You'll probably need to tweak a few of the parameters that are normally involved in getting a good overclock beyond where they are now - if it's possible to do safely. If not, you'll have to settle for a slower speed.

    I think that question is worthy of it's own thread though and I don't think the OP would want this thread to go off on that kind of tangent. I'm just guessing but it is pretty narrowly focused, and seriously, I think you would get a good response. :toast:
     
  5. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,276 (11.59/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,560
    best make your own thread.
     
  6. Hardi

    Hardi

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    Messages:
    19 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Add Me

    just some undervolting stabilty testing, but might as well add this to the list too.

    Hardi | AMD | Athlon II X3 435 @ 2.9GHz | 025.1375 | 08.668 | 64bit |

    [​IMG]
     
  7. exodusprime1337

    exodusprime1337

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,188 (0.88/day)
    Thanks Received:
    342
    add me

    Exodusprime1337 | AMD | Amd Phenom II 1090t @ 4.265Ghz | 080.1186 | 64bit | 6 threads on water 1.50v.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2010
  8. AphexDreamer

    AphexDreamer

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    7,116 (2.67/day)
    Thanks Received:
    917
    Location:
    C:\Program Files (x86)\Aphexdreamer\
    Ok Understood guys, however I think its temp issue for me. No matter what voltage I give it as soon as it hits 63C it BSODs. So bottom line is I need a better cooling solution.
     
  9. trickson

    trickson OH, I have such a headache

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,494 (1.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    956
    Location:
    Planet Earth.
    Did mine on MAX settings .

    trickson Intel Q9650 @ 4.0GHz 47.3793 64-bit

    I see mine there but you have the wrong OS listed and I updated some as well .
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Jul 22, 2010
  10. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,965 (6.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,047
    Table updated.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU More than 25k PPD
  11. AphexDreamer

    AphexDreamer

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    7,116 (2.67/day)
    Thanks Received:
    917
    Location:
    C:\Program Files (x86)\Aphexdreamer\
    Adde Me

    YAY Finally got it stable! And its faster than before! :D

    AphexDreamer | AMD | Amd Phenom II 965 @ 4047Mhz | 130.71 | 64bit | 4 threads Air 1.496 Volts.


    [​IMG]


    I'm so happy :)

    AVG Came out to be 52.444 GFlops
     
  12. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,965 (6.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,047
    Table updated.
     
    AphexDreamer says thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU More than 25k PPD
  13. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,276 (11.59/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,560
    there was a typo in mine (NB clocks) so i went and abused my mod powers and edited it in the first post.

    (typo was my fault, btw)
     
  14. Hayder_Master

    Hayder_Master

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Messages:
    5,176 (2.20/day)
    Thanks Received:
    638
    Location:
    IRAQ-Baghdad
    nice thread, i will upload my results soon
     
  15. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,276 (11.59/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,560
    could someone with an i7 run this test, but do it with and without HT enabled? i'm curious about how the Gflops per thread will be affected, and how much performance HT actually adds in this kind of situation.


    for example, sorting by average Gflops and dividing by threads:

    10.77 on my cores, averaged

    fitseries xeon at 4.5Ghz (900Mhz faster!)
    7.59 Gflops per thread

    what makes me curious here, is that if the HT cores are doing really badly at this test, then disabling HT would let us know how much of the score is from the real cores, how much from the HT, and let us get a performance per core comparison between i7 and thuban
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2010
  16. joytime360

    joytime360 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2007
    Messages:
    187 (0.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13
    i will try it
     
    Mussels says thanks.
  17. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,965 (6.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,047
    I'll try it.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU More than 25k PPD
  18. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,965 (6.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,047
    Add Me

    Wow some interesting results for you Mussels:

    newtekie1 | Intel | Core i7 875K@3.6GHz | 043.9826 | 12.2174 | 64-bit| Hyperthreading ON and 8 Threads
    newtekie1 | Intel | Core i7 875K@3.6GHz | 048.9807 | 13.6057 | 64-bit| Hyperthreading ON and 4 Threads
    newtekie1 | Intel | Core i7 875K@3.6GHz | 049.3956 | 13.7210 | 64-bit| Hyperthreading OFF and 8 Threads
    newtekie1 | Intel | Core i7 875K@3.6GHz | 050.6025 | 14.0562 | 64-bit| Hyperthreading OFF and 4 Threads


    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2010
    Crunching for Team TPU More than 25k PPD
  19. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,276 (11.59/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,560
    k so the ones i'm interested in:

    HT off/4 threads
    [​IMG]

    newtekie1 | Intel | Core i7 875K@3.6GHz | 050.6025 | 14.0562 | Hyperthreading OFF and 4 Threads

    60.60 / 8 = 15.15 per thread

    thats about what i'd expect - per core, you're faster than my thuban... but you got 2 less cores, so my multithreaded performance leaps ahead.

    HT on/8 threads
    [​IMG]

    newtekie1 | Intel | Core i7 875K@3.6GHz | 043.9826 | 12.2174 | Hyperthreading ON and 8 Threads

    43.98 / 8 = 5.4975 per thread


    so.... not only are the HT threads slower than the real cores, they slow down the whole thing overall?

    If i was on i7 right now, i'd be disabling HT for sure :p
     
  20. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,965 (6.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,047
    You mean 50.60 / 4 = 12.65

    Still faster per core, but your extra 2 physical cores pushes you ahead of me.

    And hyperthreading really seems to throw this application for a loop. Even with HT off and 8 threads, the Windows scheduler seems to do a better job switching between the threads then Hyperthreading does.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU More than 25k PPD
  21. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,276 (11.59/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,560

    i'm dividing by threads, not by cores. if i still screwed something up, lemme know.. its late here
     
  22. somebody

    somebody New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2009
    Messages:
    127 (0.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    27
    AFAIK that's not how it works. One core has 2 threads when HT is on, it's still one core but by having 2 threads while one thread is not working the execution units 100% it leaves some room for the other thread to execute. If you were to run linpack with only one thread on core 1 say, the result would probably be very close if you did the same on just using the second thread on core 1. Problem is with linpack running on one thread it will already saturates the core leaving not much in the way of spare execution cycles so using 2 threads on the same core will likely result in ~half the execution speed for each thread wrt using just one thread on one core.

    Something else you might find surprising is the core temperature differential when running linpack on just one core. ;)
     
  23. trickson

    trickson OH, I have such a headache

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,494 (1.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    956
    Location:
    Planet Earth.
    I redid mine this time normal setting and with windows 7 64 bit .

    trickson Intel Q9650 @ 4.0GHz 53.3787 13.34 64-bit
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Jul 22, 2010
  24. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,965 (6.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,047
    The one you are using that scored 50.60 is 4 cores and 4 threads. With 4 cores and 8 threads I got 49.39.:toast:
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2010
    Crunching for Team TPU More than 25k PPD
  25. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,965 (6.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,047
    Table Updated.

    Very nice score on that Q9650 Trickson! Amazing what 775 is still capable of
     
    trickson says thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU More than 25k PPD

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

Share This Page