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.

Page 6 of 19
  1. Oct 16, 2008 at 10:26 AM #126

    DanTheBanjoman Señor Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,481 (2.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,382
    Should say x86, are you sure you're not running the original file? Apparently it worked for Luke so I didn't completely screw up here:)
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  2. Oct 16, 2008 at 10:30 AM #127
    lemonadesoda

    lemonadesoda

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,372 (1.60/day)
    Thanks Received:
    992
    My results on 2.7Ghz Q6600 AGP 2GB DDR1 system.

    time: 10,478ms
    thru: 25,019 KCU/s

    [​IMG]

    WOW, My results are a lot fast than some Q6600 overclocked to 3.2GHz. Is the program buggy, or is DDR1 with it's lower latency than DDR2 helping out here?
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  3. Oct 16, 2008 at 10:31 AM #128
    Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    45,921 (9.82/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,471
    Location:
    Australalalalalaia.
    it did work, i had to redownload.

    Luke MSN'd be and said he had to do the same thing, so i guess the upload was the wrong one briefly.
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  4. Oct 16, 2008 at 10:36 AM #129

    DanTheBanjoman Señor Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,481 (2.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,382
    At first I'd say cache, though it's a different URL so that shouldn't be it. Perhaps temp stuff of whatever tool you're using to unpack. Or other magical reasons.
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  5. Oct 16, 2008 at 10:43 AM #130
    Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    45,921 (9.82/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,471
    Location:
    Australalalalalaia.
    it *did* work - i edited the post!

    I downloaded it the second it was uploaded, and it didnt work. got it again moments ago and it worked. Same post now has both results in it, and the x86 wtfpwned the x64
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  6. Oct 17, 2008 at 12:59 AM #131
    freakshow

    freakshow

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2007
    Messages:
    972 (0.25/day)
    Thanks Received:
    137
    here is an update on mine score 7200 @ 4.17ghz and mem 1100mhz:toast:

    [​IMG]
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Oct 17, 2008
    10 Year Member at TPU
  7. Oct 17, 2008 at 2:02 AM #132

    theonetruewill New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2006
    Messages:
    2,996 (0.77/day)
    Thanks Received:
    240
    Location:
    London - Close your eyes and you'll see me
    time: 5,746ms
    throughput: 22,811 KCU/s

    E8400 @ 4.23 - I will get this to 4.4 at some point for proper benching.
     

    Attached Files:

    10 Year Member at TPU
  8. Oct 17, 2008 at 8:35 PM #133

    SLK320 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2 (0.00/day)
    Thanks Received:
    0
    [​IMG][​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2008
  9. Oct 17, 2008 at 11:01 PM #134
    Chicken Patty

    Chicken Patty WCG Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    28,595 (8.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    12,693
    Location:
    Miami, Florida
    nice clock bro, Have you had any luck going any higher?
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  10. Oct 18, 2008 at 12:08 AM #135
    Tatty_One

    Tatty_One Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    19,452 (4.62/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,731
    Location:
    Worcestershire, UK
    Best yet, I needed top spot back! Q9650 @4.4gig....sorry about speedstep being enabled! This chip is now starting to break in, got her to boot to windows at 4.6gig but at the high FSB's required (for a quad....510+) she dont like them much, but I can now run 24/7 at 4.1gig on just 1.29V on air :D Idle temps at 31C.....low 60's load.
     

    Attached Files:

    10 Year Member at TPU
  11. Oct 19, 2008 at 10:52 AM #136

    xubidoo

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2007
    Messages:
    888 (0.25/day)
    Thanks Received:
    70
    Location:
    Lancs,UK
    Download rig :)
     

    Attached Files:

  12. Oct 19, 2008 at 11:04 AM #137

    xubidoo

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2007
    Messages:
    888 (0.25/day)
    Thanks Received:
    70
    Location:
    Lancs,UK
    Q6600 @3.2ghz in 32bit mode
     

    Attached Files:

  13. Oct 19, 2008 at 8:19 PM #138
    Tatty_One

    Tatty_One Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    19,452 (4.62/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,731
    Location:
    Worcestershire, UK
    Tried a run at 4.5gig on the Q9650, gets a bit toasty at load at that speed and voltage.....anyone smell burning? :eek:

    5.387
    48,662
     

    Attached Files:

    10 Year Member at TPU
  14. Oct 19, 2008 at 8:26 PM #139
    RadeonX2

    RadeonX2 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,197 (0.37/day)
    Thanks Received:
    180
    Location:
    Asia, PH
    insane :twitch:
     
    Tatty_One says thanks.
  15. Oct 19, 2008 at 8:30 PM #140
    Tatty_One

    Tatty_One Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    19,452 (4.62/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,731
    Location:
    Worcestershire, UK
    Not sure if thats an insult or compliment :D....but thanked you anyways!
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  16. Oct 19, 2008 at 8:35 PM #141
    RadeonX2

    RadeonX2 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,197 (0.37/day)
    Thanks Received:
    180
    Location:
    Asia, PH
    lol dude I will never ever insult any1 here so that's a compliment lol

    freaking fast chip u got there...
     
  17. Oct 19, 2008 at 9:14 PM #142
    lemonadesoda

    lemonadesoda

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,372 (1.60/day)
    Thanks Received:
    992
    Apologies for quoting myself, but can anyone explain why I am STOMPING on the Q6600 results posted by others? Others are on DDR2 with 3.2Ghz OC on CPU. I am on DDR1 with just 2.7Ghz OC on CPU. Only when others get over 3.2 do they beat my DDR1 system. Results seem odd. Could the benchmark be "funny" in the way it calculates its performance stats?

    I cant believe that DDR1 is so much faster (latency) than DDR2, that it can make a 2.7 beat a 3.2, or can it?
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  18. Oct 20, 2008 at 1:43 AM #143
    btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    33,681 (9.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    17,219
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    Whoa! easy..you wouldn't want to be left with a ₤300 cookie. It's not even edible :laugh:

    :toast:
     
  19. Oct 20, 2008 at 4:57 AM #144

    roofsniper New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2007
    Messages:
    42 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2
    possibly a ton of small calculations that finish quickly so a lower latency would be a better advantage. trying settings ur latency to 5-5-5-15 and see if you take a huge hit.
     
  20. Oct 20, 2008 at 5:13 AM #145
    exodusprime1337

    exodusprime1337

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,213 (0.63/day)
    Thanks Received:
    360
    here's a new submission by me, turns out 32bit mode seems to yield a higher score?? idk what that's all about.

    [​IMG]
     
  21. Oct 20, 2008 at 5:15 AM #146

    wolf2009 Guest

    u gotta change your custom title :D
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  22. Oct 20, 2008 at 7:06 AM #147

    MKmods Case Mod Guru

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,697 (1.66/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,748
    Location:
    Nevada
    can I play too...
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2008
  23. Oct 20, 2008 at 8:26 AM #148
    Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    45,921 (9.82/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,471
    Location:
    Australalalalalaia.
    what a terrible screenshot, its barely readable. at least use MSpaint and just cut the rest of the desktop off, if you have to make it smaller.
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  24. Oct 20, 2008 at 8:48 AM #149

    xubidoo

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2007
    Messages:
    888 (0.25/day)
    Thanks Received:
    70
    Location:
    Lancs,UK
    Probably because a lot of the Early results were done in AMD64 mode which seems to be considerably slower than the x86 mode that you used.
     
  25. Oct 20, 2008 at 9:49 AM #150
    lemonadesoda

    lemonadesoda

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,372 (1.60/day)
    Thanks Received:
    992
    ^^ x86 vs. AMD64 version? Ah, that might explain it. So we need TWO scoreboards. And "Generic Benchmark" should be updated to the OUTPUT screen clearly shows WHICH code was run.
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
Page 6 of 19

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