Share your AIDA 64 cache and memory benchmark here

[d1nky]

latest version had a bunch of optimisations fixed

 

[itsakjt]

Is it just me but these benches ARE WAY DIFFERENT from the AIDA v2?

Yes they are different. True. Previous versions were Intel biased in the cache and memory benchmark section. The software tested the Intel system with larger sized memory blocks and tested AMD systems with smaller sized ones. In the new 3.0 version, it has been eliminated and both platforms are tested with equal blocks of memory.

 

[_JP_]

Current desktop.

 

[Aquinus]

Current desktop.
http://img.techpowerup.org/130716/cachemem.png

You should follow the rules.

Rules: Use the latest version of AIDA(currently 3.00.2500)

 

[drdeathx]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[de.das.dude]

Current desktop.
http://img.techpowerup.org/130716/cachemem.png

You should follow the rules.

 

[_JP_]

Alright, my bad...

Current desktop.

Spoiler: Tip for OP

Put the text in bold. It was so bland with all the thread I didn't even saw it.
Also, if it isn't too much to ask for, please sort that table. It's hard to read as it is (space between entries) and if sorted by ascending/descending values, it's a complete mess.

 

[Aquinus]

http://images.wikia.com/dragonball/images/9/9b/Watch-out-we-got-a-badass-over-here-meme.png

Or maybe the two versions can't be used interchangeably because the results will be different with the same hardware between the two.

 

[d1nky]

[url]http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/9222/w4uj.jpg[/URL]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

SLOOWWW downn there.......

wow!

update ya system specs otherwise i dont think you have that rig lol

 

[itsakjt]

[url]http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/9222/w4uj.jpg[/URL]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Hoorah, those are just awesome scores drdeathx. And real nice overclock. Intel should brag about overclocking as well like AMD does.

Current desktop.
http://img.techpowerup.org/130716/cachememtest2.png

Spoiler: Tip for OP

Put the text in bold. It was so bland with all the thread I didn't even saw it.
Also, if it isn't too much to ask for, please sort that table. It's hard to read as it is (space between entries) and if sorted by ascending/descending values, it's a complete mess.

Thanks for the tips. I have made the requested text bold. But sorry for the table, it is the best I can get. And it is impossible to go through all the posts, study the data and make the entries in ascending/descending order. Hope you understand.

@Both- Scores are added. Please check and verify. Thank you.

 

[_JP_]

You don't have to go trough all the replies again, just use the current data. The table sorts it out automatically, you just need to zero-out the numbers and delete the spaces.

EDIT:
Like this:

[table="head"]User| CPU model | Read(MBPS)| Write(MBPS)| Copy(MBPS)| Latency(ns)| Overclocked(Y/N)
itsakjt | Phenom II X4 955 | 020878 |011286 | 018047 | 51.8 | Y |
Grnfinger | i5 3570k | 027543 | 028224 | 026896 | 47.3 | Y |
PHaS3 | i5 2400 | 018927 | 020438 | 018857 | 71.2 | Y |
PHaS3 | i5 3230M | 018206 | 018371 | 017305 | 67.1 | N |
HammerON | i7 4770k | 027499 | 037458 | 029687 | 43.3 | Y |
btarunr | FX 8350 | 019660 | 015693 | 016679 | 72.5 | N |
Aquinus | i7 3820 | 053241 | 062719 | 053767 | 49.5 | Y |
DLGenesis | i7 3820 | 032048 | 031881 | 030650 | 55.6 | Y |
BiggieShady | i5 3570k | 024018 | 024667 | 023210 | 53.8 | N |
LAN_deRf_HA | i7 3770k | 031730 | 032937 | 031165 | 38.3 | Y |
natr0n | Phenom II X6 1100T | 021084 | 010664 | 018961 | 52.5 | Y |
cdawall | Phenom II X4 B97 | 018943 | 010027 | 016343 | 56.8 | Y |
de.das.dude | Phenom II X4 945 | 015371 | 007986 | 013464 | 60.6 | N(timings tweaked) |
natr0n | Phenom II X6 1100T | 021705 | 010665 | 019332 | 51.0 | Y |
Derek12 | Celeron G530 | 008272 | 000000 | 000000 | 75.2 | N |
Kursah | i5 760 | 022449 | 019407 | 021074 | 55.7 | Y |
marsey99 | i7 2600k | 031166 | 032828 | 031016 | 44.9 | Y |
PHaS3 | Phenom II X6 1100T | 021206 | 009947 | 017658 | 53.1 | Y |
erocker | i7 3770k | 031989 | 032606 | 030456 | 42.3 | Y |
DigitalUK | FX 8350 | 026043 | 020459 | 024349 | 57.9 | Y |
brandonwh64 | Phenom II X4 20? | 011093 |000000 |000000 | 73.2 | N |
erocker | A10 5800k | 024250 | 012935 | 020685 | 57.8 | Y |
DLGenesis | i7 3820 | 052940 | 060080 | 056125 | 50.4 | Y |
itsakjt | Phenom II X4 955 | 021045 | 011596 | 018094 | 51.5 | Y |
cadaveca | i7 3960X | 064371 | 068892 | 061494 | 53.6 | Y |
agent00skid | Phenom II N830 | 013182 | 006586 | 010183 | 72.5 | N |
puma99dk| i5 3570k | 023606 | 024374 | 022839 | 58.3 | Y |
drdeathx | i7 3930k | 037949 | 038228 | 034180 | 76.2 | N |
Delta6326 | Core2 Quad Q6600 | 008021 |000000 |000000 | 86.8 | Y |
Durvelle27 | A10 6800k | 020051 |000000 |000000 | 65.0 | N |
klva80 | i7 2670QM | 019591 | 020447 | 019324 | 75.4 | N |
kursah | i7 4770k | 030361 | 030851 | 026758 | 53.9 | N |
PHaS3 | 2 x Xeon E5520 | 032848 | 023269 | 032637 | 75.7 | N |
sampofin2 | i7 3820 | 051715 | 064590 | 055344 | 51.5 | Y |
Compgeke | Core 2 Quad Q6600 | 003865 | 003854 | 003672 | 99.1 | N |
klva80 | Sempron 145 | 009910 | 000000|000000 | 57.1 | N |
Compgeke | 2x Opteron 2384 | 014629 | 012312 | 012965 | 96.1 | N |
KapiteinKoek007 | i7 2600k | 023228 | 024728 | 023537 | 60.9 | Y |
eviltwin125 | FX 8320 | 027312 | 018373 | 024123 | 58.9 | Y |
eviltwin125 | FX 8320 | 027807 | 019549 | 024772 | 58.3 | Y |
LAN_deRf_HA | i7 3770k | 035349 | 036916 | 034699 | 36.9 | Y |
d1nky | FX 8350 | 029885 | 020439 | 026330 | 52.2 | Y |
kpo6969 | i5 3570k | 032255 | 032702 | 030735 | 52.2 | Y |
drdeathx | i7 3930k | 051516 | 053841 | 047748 | 55.9 | Y |
_JP_ | Core 2 Duo E7400 | 006591 | 005677 | 005582 | 91.6 | N |
[/table]
000000 = TRIAL VERSION (Values could not be obtained)

Now, if you click on each column header, it will be correctly sorted (except for columns without numerical values). (I already added an extra 0 to the above 10k values, because I don't know if DDR4+IB-E will be launched before AIDA64 3.10/3.20)

EDIT2: You could just quote this post and copy the table as it is, if you want.

EDIT3:

You should follow the rules.

Funny you should mention that but you didn't warn the OP about this rule...

Only the best scores of an individual are taken.

...not really being enforced by the OP.














Just messin' with ya (both)!

 

[itsakjt]

You don't have to go trough all the replies again, just use the current data. The table sorts it out automatically, you just need to zero-out the numbers and delete the spaces.

EDIT:
Like this:

[table="head"]User| CPU model | Read(MBPS)| Write(MBPS)| Copy(MBPS)| Latency(ns)| Overclocked(Y/N)
itsakjt | Phenom II X4 955 | 020878 |011286 | 018047 | 51.8 | Y |
Grnfinger | i5 3570k | 027543 | 028224 | 026896 | 47.3 | Y |
PHaS3 | i5 2400 | 018927 | 020438 | 018857 | 71.2 | Y |
PHaS3 | i5 3230M | 018206 | 018371 | 017305 | 67.1 | N |
HammerON | i7 4770k | 027499 | 037458 | 029687 | 43.3 | Y |
btarunr | FX 8350 | 019660 | 015693 | 016679 | 72.5 | N |
Aquinus | i7 3820 | 053241 | 062719 | 053767 | 49.5 | Y |
DLGenesis | i7 3820 | 032048 | 031881 | 030650 | 55.6 | Y |
BiggieShady | i5 3570k | 024018 | 024667 | 023210 | 53.8 | N |
LAN_deRf_HA | i7 3770k | 031730 | 032937 | 031165 | 38.3 | Y |
natr0n | Phenom II X6 1100T | 021084 | 010664 | 018961 | 52.5 | Y |
cdawall | Phenom II X4 B97 | 018943 | 010027 | 016343 | 56.8 | Y |
de.das.dude | Phenom II X4 945 | 015371 | 007986 | 013464 | 60.6 | N(timings tweaked) |
natr0n | Phenom II X6 1100T | 021705 | 010665 | 019332 | 51.0 | Y |
Derek12 | Celeron G530 | 008272 | 000000 | 000000 | 75.2 | N |
Kursah | i5 760 | 022449 | 019407 | 021074 | 55.7 | Y |
marsey99 | i7 2600k | 031166 | 032828 | 031016 | 44.9 | Y |
PHaS3 | Phenom II X6 1100T | 021206 | 009947 | 017658 | 53.1 | Y |
erocker | i7 3770k | 031989 | 032606 | 030456 | 42.3 | Y |
DigitalUK | FX 8350 | 026043 | 020459 | 024349 | 57.9 | Y |
brandonwh64 | Phenom II X4 20? | 011093 |000000 |000000 | 73.2 | N |
erocker | A10 5800k | 024250 | 012935 | 020685 | 57.8 | Y |
DLGenesis | i7 3820 | 052940 | 060080 | 056125 | 50.4 | Y |
itsakjt | Phenom II X4 955 | 021045 | 011596 | 018094 | 51.5 | Y |
cadaveca | i7 3960X | 064371 | 068892 | 061494 | 53.6 | Y |
agent00skid | Phenom II N830 | 013182 | 006586 | 010183 | 72.5 | N |
puma99dk| i5 3570k | 023606 | 024374 | 022839 | 58.3 | Y |
drdeathx | i7 3930k | 037949 | 038228 | 034180 | 76.2 | N |
Delta6326 | Core2 Quad Q6600 | 008021 |000000 |000000 | 86.8 | Y |
Durvelle27 | A10 6800k | 020051 |000000 |000000 | 65.0 | N |
klva80 | i7 2670QM | 019591 | 020447 | 019324 | 75.4 | N |
kursah | i7 4770k | 030361 | 030851 | 026758 | 53.9 | N |
PHaS3 | 2 x Xeon E5520 | 032848 | 023269 | 032637 | 75.7 | N |
sampofin2 | i7 3820 | 051715 | 064590 | 055344 | 51.5 | Y |
Compgeke | Core 2 Quad Q6600 | 003865 | 003854 | 003672 | 99.1 | N |
klva80 | Sempron 145 | 009910 | 000000|000000 | 57.1 | N |
Compgeke | 2x Opteron 2384 | 014629 | 012312 | 012965 | 96.1 | N |
KapiteinKoek007 | i7 2600k | 023228 | 024728 | 023537 | 60.9 | Y |
eviltwin125 | FX 8320 | 027312 | 018373 | 024123 | 58.9 | Y |
eviltwin125 | FX 8320 | 027807 | 019549 | 024772 | 58.3 | Y |
LAN_deRf_HA | i7 3770k | 035349 | 036916 | 034699 | 36.9 | Y |
d1nky | FX 8350 | 029885 | 020439 | 026330 | 52.2 | Y |
kpo6969 | i5 3570k | 032255 | 032702 | 030735 | 52.2 | Y |
drdeathx | i7 3930k | 051516 | 053841 | 047748 | 55.9 | Y |
_JP_ | Core 2 Duo E7400 | 006591 | 005677 | 005582 | 91.6 | N |
[/table]
000000 = TRIAL VERSION (Values could not be obtained)

Now, if you click on each column header, it will be correctly sorted (except for columns without numerical values). (I already added an extra 0 to the above 10k values, because I don't know if DDR4+IB-E will be launched before AIDA64 3.10/3.20)

EDIT2: You could just quote this post and copy the table as it is, if you want.

EDIT3:

Funny you should mention that but you didn't warn the OP about this rule...

...not really being enforced by the OP.














Just messin' with ya (both)!

Thanks a lot. The table is perfect. I quoted it and copied the entire table in the first post. However, the values are not arranged when I click the fields on the top. In your table it does that perfectly. I wonder what's happening. Any ideas?

Update : I don't know why but I think parts of the quote are not getting copied. I just pasted the quote in a new post here(deleted it after seeing) and still those hyperlinks are not there.

Update: Its working now. My internet connection was messing.

 

[Aquinus]

Funny you should mention that but you didn't warn the OP about this rule...

I assume the OP can take care of himself and can read the thread. Are you really trying to start an argument over something this trivial?

 

[HammerON]

This ends here folks. Show scores or move along.

 

[Maleko]

Mine

 

[Pixrazor]

here is mine

 

[_JP_]

Laptop.

Netbook.

 

[Grnfinger]

New rig

 

[itsakjt]

Table is updated. Sorry for being late. Internet was down.

 

[itsakjt]

Present clocks.

 

[itsakjt]

Here I go again. CPU at 4.2 GHz.

 

[SonDa5]

Trial version run.

My 24/7 OC.

 

[agent00skid]

CPU@3 GHz

I have no idea why the L2 cache is so slow. :S

 

[itsakjt]

CPU@3 GHz

http://img.techpowerup.org/130719/Capture046.jpg

I have no idea why the L2 cache is so slow. :S

Confirm one thing and then I will add it. Ain't the CPU running at 1.6 GHz?

 

[agent00skid]

It's running custom CnQ via FusionTweaker. Aida doesn't read it correctly.

So it is running at 3 GHz.