Generic CPU Bench

[jbunch07]

X86 run at 2.9Ghz

 

[Mussels]

Worse scores... Why would I run x86?

you obviously never read the thread. the x86 version scores lots higher.

 

[Chicken Patty]

Worse scores... Why would I run x86?

I get much better results when I run x86 mode. See below, the difference:


NON X86 AT 3.4 GHz


X86 AT 3.2 GHZ, NOT 3.4GHZ, STILL MUCH BETTER SCORES

 

[Binge]

with x86, same setup as before 4.4ghz

 

[Chicken Patty]

^^^weird

 

[Binge]

Fixed! Ram was running at 533 instead of 710

 

[Black Panther]

The benchmark runs but doesn't work!

Awww, I so much wanted to beat DanTheBanjoman!!!

I mean... he holds the lowest score... and I wanted to beat that.

System specs:
Processor: Celeron 333Mhz Mendocino
Ram: 128MB DDR SDRAM PC100
Graphics: Nvidia Vanta 16MB (AGP)
Motherboard: Soltek SL-62C
Sound Card: Aztech AZT 2320 (ISA)
HDD: Maxtor 5400rpm 40GB.
OS: XP 32bit

I installed the dotnetfx 2.0 -- the benchmark 'runs' but doesn't bench...

Lol I'm surely not going to spend any money on this pc... but I'd love to get a score out of it...

I also have an even slower pc - 300Mhz and I think only 32Mb RAM (I still have to check the insides, long story, maybe I'll make a post in general nonsense about it) but I guess that since 333Mhz with 128MB RAM won't run it, neither will 300Mhz with 32MB RAM aye?

 

[jbunch07]

LOL needs more rams!

 

[Black Panther]

LOL needs more rams!

Actually inside it got a 512MB module, because that was what I had lying spare at the moment. But due to mobo limitations it doesn't recognise more than 128MB in each slot. So I bought another 512MB for cheap, in the hope of getting another 128MB recognised out of it. But it didn't work that way and the pc didn't boot with the additional module, no matter how much I played out with the latencies and Mhz...

So, how much RAM does this bench need to work? 256MB? 512MB?

Btarunr note: Hmmm... I think I still deserve the lowest score. Because the benchmark program functions but failed to bench due to insufficient hardware specs. What could be any lower than that?

 

[btarunr]

Btarunr note: Hmmm... I think I still deserve the lowest score. Because the benchmark program functions but failed to bench due to insufficient hardware specs. What could be any lower than that?

Dan will hate losing his rock-bottom rank, he holds both ends, so there's a challenge from both sides. Do I write it as "BlackPanther |Faileron 333MHz| Fail|Fail|Fa..|" ? jk.

Pass the test for a score.

 

[Black Panther]

Pass the test for a score.

Sux, I don't think I'll ever pass the test with that pc, unless I receive some ram sticks for free to test which work!

Do I write it as "BlackPanther |Faileron 333MHz| Fail|Fail|Fa..|" ?

Hilarious!

 

[jbunch07]

kinda makes me want to underclock my CPU and run only one core just to see what will happen?

 

[Black Panther]

kinda makes me want to underclock my CPU and run only one core just to see what will happen?

Heh, if it only worked on the 333Mhz system I could always underclock as well (and leave the test running overnight to probably get the result next morning!) and you won't be beating it with your processor

Btarunr, do you know what is the minimum requirements to run this test? As I mentioned previously I obtained a pc with a 300Mhz proc and 32MB RAM on Windows 98 (net framework 2.0 works on that) and I'd want to bench that (the thing is that I only have dual layer 8+GB dvd's to record on, the old pc doesn't have a dvd drive, both my laptop and desktop got no floppy drives, and Win98 doesn't recognise flash USB unless I manage to find a diskette with the driver for USB which I had recorded and put someplace like 5 months ago... )

I'll save the trouble to get the stuff for fighting for the rock-bottom rank if I know what minimum RAM the benchmark needs to complete its cycle.

 

[btarunr]

Btarunr, do you know what is the minimum requirements to run this test?

Windows with .NET 2.0 framework, x86 compatible processor, 64MB available memory per worker thread. For a single-core, I'd say 128 MB RAM at least, so the process has access to the full 65536K figure.

 

[Black Panther]

Btarunr, do you know what is the minimum requirements to run this test? /QUOTE]

Windows with .NET 2.0 framework, x86 compatible processor, 64MB available memory per worker thread.

That's weird. Then why doesn't it have "sufficient RAM" if I got a 512MB module with 128MB recognised?

Edit: wait a sec, I'll try again tomorrow using a clean boot. Probably my RAM had been used up by other stuff during the bench... and it needs a bit more than 67MB (of those 128MB) free to run the test. It's hard to get XP running on only 60MB though...

However my screenshot says that "I require 128MB of extra memory beyond the test set"... couldn't figure out what that means but I guess that if I somehow manage to leave ~67MB free memory I'll manage, even if I boot in DOS mode...

 

[btarunr]

Your screenie shows the app asking for 64 MB of memory to do the test. Weird. Let's ask Particle (author) the next time he shows up.

 

[Black Panther]

64MB available memory per worker thread

My guess is that those 64MB must be totally free for the benchmark. Hence if my XP had been using even only 80MB of those 128MB I have then the benchmark would still fail.

I'll try the test tomorrow and boot in safe mode dos command prompt in order to get the least RAM usage. It wouldn't hurt though to ask the creator if the 64MB must be system RAM or free RAM...

 

[Deleted member 3]

Dan will hate losing his rock-bottom rank, he holds both ends, so there's a challenge from both sides. Do I write it as "BlackPanther |Faileron 333MHz| Fail|Fail|Fa..|" ? jk.

Pass the test for a score.

I still have my old laptop somewhere, I could attempt to underclock that and get a worse score
Or, even easier, I could just run some other bench while running this

 

[Chicken Patty]

Fixed! Ram was running at 533 instead of 710

glad you finally figured it out, you had me worried for a bit there :Toast:

 

[Chicken Patty]

kinda makes me want to underclock my CPU and run only one core just to see what will happen?

a Light bulb just lit up in my head . Will try that later.

 

[Tatty_Two]

I still have my old laptop somewhere, I could attempt to underclock that and get a worse score
Or, even easier, I could just run some other bench while running this

I was thinking of putting my daugters hamster in it's wheel and connecting it up to my old electric abacus, I bet that gets lower than your lappy

 

[Black Panther]

I was thinking of putting my daugters hamser in it's wheel and connecting it up to my old electric abacus, I bet that gets lower than your lappy

Siggy material!!!

 

[Binge]

glad you finally figured it out, you had me worried for a bit there :Toast:

Yeah so was I. Problem I'm finding is that my board is more for underclocking and saving power than overclocking

 

[Chicken Patty]

Yeah so was I. Problem I'm finding is that my board is more for underclocking and saving power than overclocking

So its one of those low budget everyday use boards? I'm sure with a good board you can do lot better, an o/c further as well.

 

[Binge]

Actually it's more like you can under-volt REALLY far, and it seems overclocking the ram is also very easy. The FSB doesn't go far over 460, so I wouldn't consider it a board that pushes the edge? Though I haven't done enough tweaking I have dug up some info on the X48T-DQ6 and this is what I came up with... Mind you to get 4.0 ghz I had to run the proc at 1.32v before today.