Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by newtekie1, May 19, 2009.
update me newtekie
AthlonX2 | Intel | Core i5 2500K @ 4.7Ghz | 114.8329 | 24.4234 | 64-bit | AVX
TRWOV | Intel | Pentium 4 3.4E @ 3.4Ghz | 003.1966 | 000.940176 | 32-bit |
TRWOV | AMD | Athlon 64 FX-60 @ 2.6Ghz | 005.2404 | 002.015538 | 32-bit |
Wow, amount of CPU cache really seems to effect results, that E3400 did terrible.
Zyky | Intel | Celeron E3400 @ 3.667GHz | 007.46143 | 002.03475 | 64-bit |
Zyky | Intel | Celeron E3400 @ 3.750GHz | 006.08398 | 001.62239 | 64-bit |
Zyky | Intel | Mobile Core 2 Duo T9300 @ 2.5GHz | 017.17917 | 006.87167 | 64-bit | Penryn IDA active
Performance steadily decreased (temperature issues likely)
Zyky | Intel | Mobile Core 2 Duo T9500 @ 2.6GHz | 017.12522 | 006.58662 | 64-bit | Penryn IDA active
Zyky | Intel | Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 2.4GHz | 016.25911 | 006.77453 | 64-bit |
Zyky | Intel | Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 3.258GHz | 040.35176 | 012.38544 | 64-bit |
Zyky | Intel | Core I7 920 @ 3.520GHz | 045.95407 | 013.05513 | 64-bit | Turbo & Hyperthreading enabled, 4 thread run
The formatting is wrong, you have to put the clock speed with the CPU model: "Core I7 920 3.52Ghz"
Oops, sorry about that missed the "and clock" in the formatting requirement, fixed.
I will reinstall Win8 and see if it works then I will post results
Kiska | Intel | Core 2 Duo P8400 @ 2.26Ghz | 014.4423 | 6.3904 | 32-bit | Running Windows 8 Developer Preview
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
TRWOV | AMD | Athlon 64 FX-60 @ 2.6Ghz | 007.8418 | 003.016086 | 64-bit |
wow Working in a 64bit environment the FX60 really spreads its wings, isn't it? In XP I got 5.24Gflops :shadedshu
TRWOV | Intel | Pentium G620 @ 2.6Ghz | 017.7977 | 006.8452 | 64-bit |
Yes in 64-bit there is room for more bandwidth to go though the cpu and memory whereas 32-bit it can only support 2.9 GB of RAM at any time in the test or not.
Has anyone done an before and after of the BD FX patches, not looking at anyone in particular ???? Renq ????
I found the second one helped me a little (thread ordering) but the core parking one didn't install not surprising as I don't have an AMD FX 4100 or better CPU
agent00skid | AMD | A6-3500 2,1 Ghz | 017,55337 | 008,35874 | 64-bit | Turbo disabled
Cool Mike | Intel | 3930K@4.8Ghz | 146.04723 | 030.42650625 | 64-bit |
aquinus | Intel | Intel Core i7 3820 @ 4.536GHz | 100.472
Frick | Intel | Core 2 Duo T5300 @ 1.73Ghz | 6,766125 | 3,911054913294798 | 64 bit | 95 C under load!
I think I've come across the answer to this riddle, at least in my case: if I leave the Turbo Boost at AUTO it doesn't go beyond 3.1Ghz (2,3,4 cores) and 3.3Ghz for 1 core but if set it manually it can go up to 3.5Ghz for 4 cores and 3.7Ghz for 1 core.
My GFLOPS went from 80 to 90 @ 3.5Ghz so I think tigger's is actually running at 3.7Ghz or something.
Phenom | AMD | Phenom II X4 955BE @3.7 GHz | 049.29 | 013.32 | 64 bit | RAM @ 1600 MHz, NB 2800 MHz
By itsakjt at 2012-08-19
IamEzio | Intel | Core 2 Duo E8400 @3.6GHz | 024.33305 | 006.759180555555556 | 64-bit
Hey Itsakjt your HT link is abit slow do you have it set on auto or did you manually set it to 1600MHz .... It should be set at 2000MHz on an AM3 mobo and CPU
Yes Athlonite I know. It was 2000 MHz when all was stock. But as soon as I set the DRAM frequency manually from 1333 MHz to 1600 MHz via the DRAM multiplier, HT was automatically set to 1600 MHz. I don't know why but I think the HT operates at the same speed as the RAM does. I tried increasing it to 2000 MHz again manually but I didn't find any difference in memory bandwidth and gigaflops. Also my CPU/NB(IMC) is running at 2800 MHz. Should I increase my HT to 2000 MHz? What do you say? And how will I spot the difference?
If you've already tried it and not noticed any difference then just leave it as it is I just thought it was weird not being as fast as it should be for the CPU/Socket type
my dram frequency isn't tied to my HT/NB bus speed only the FSB
All modern AMD processors DRAM speed is based off of the NB frequency. I know this because I used to have the same exact processor as you. Also HT isn't locked to the NB speed, they can (obviously) run independently.
I'm calling shenanigans.
renq | Intel | Celeron G530 @ 2,4GHz | 016.862375 | 007.02598958(3) | Win 8 x64 RTM
Better than a FX-4100@ 4,2G :shadedshu
Sorry, haven't been here for a while, so that request slipped, however, as my FX-4100 result was done in Win 8 Developer Preview, which supposedly "Bulldozed" correctly, the result should stand.
Have sold my 4100 ages ago, but bow considering going AMD once again just for fun- 5600K prolly.
RAM speed (in MHz)= FSB*multiplier
Increasing NB and HT-link speeds improves the memory throughput (MB/s), but the speed (MHz) stays the same.
Correct me if my memory is letting me down (again )
Care to have a(nother) go @ 2,4GHz?
My G530 does a bit better in terms of gflops/MHz regardless of the additional 1MB of L3 cache on the Pentium G620.
IamEzio | intel | Core i5-3470 @3.2GHz | 084.85266 | 021.213165 | Windows 8 RTM 64 Bit
Separate names with a comma.