# Fritz Chess Benchmark - AMD vs. Intel vs. VIA



## lemonadesoda (Mar 31, 2009)

Fritz Chess benchmark is not so well known. However, I have found it to be a useful stress test benchmark that scales with cores and threads. It is one of the few tests that will set every CPU to 100% utilisation during the test.  I use it for measuring power at the wall, and relative performance for "crunch" rather than speed tests. 

The test is very quick to do, and the download doesnt need installing... just unzipping and running. Download Fritz here: link

Post your results in the following format: 
User | CPU | Clockspeed Ghz | Score (Relative) | Score per clock Ghz | Any Comment
 (copy and paste this line, then edit with your own data)

Click on the table headers to sort. However, pls note that the vB add-in for the table has a fwe bugs when sorting numerical data.


User | CPU | Clock | Fritz Chess Benchmark | per Ghz calculation | Comment

lemonadesoda | Atom 330 | 1.60 Ghz | 3.25 | 2.031 | Single channel DDR2
lemonadesoda | Q6600 | 2.70 Ghz | 15.30 | 5.667 | Dual channel DDR1
lemonadesoda | 2x Xeon E5420| 3.00 Ghz | 28.55 | 9.517| Overclocked BSEL mod
lemonadesoda | 2x Xeon E5472| 3.00 Ghz | 27.65 | 9.22 | FB-DIMM DDR2 800
lemonadesoda | P4EE Gallatin | 3.20 Ghz | 2.41 | 0.753 | Dual channel DDR without HT
lemonadesoda | P4EE Gallatin | 3.20 Ghz | 2.70 | 0.844 | Dual channel DDR with HT. HT adds 12%
ShadowFold | Athlon 7750BE | 3.20 Ghz | 7.87 | 2.447 | Two core processor
MRCL | E8400 | 4.14 GHz | 12.23 | 2.954 | Dual channel DDR2
DrPepper | Q6600 | 3.20 GHZ | 9.37 | 2.928 | Two cores only
Polarman | P2 - 940 | 3.00 Ghz | 15.20 | 5.067 | Dual channel DDR2
Supreme0verlord | 720BE | 3.52 Ghz | 13.17 | 3.741 | Dual Channel DDR2
Psychoholic  | i7 920 | 3.80 Ghz | 22.69 | 5.971 | Without HT
Psychoholic  | i7 920 | 3.80 Ghz | 28.46 | 7.489 | With HT. HT adds 25%
Newtekie1 | Xeon X3370 | 3.60 GHz | 20.68 | 5.74 | Vista x64(X3370=Q9650)
Newtekie1 | Xeon X3370 | 3.60 GHz | 10.77 | 2.99 | Vista X64 2 Cores Disabled
Newtekie1 | Atom N270 | 1.60 GHz | 1.55 | 0.968 | Vista x86 HT Enabled
Newtekie1 | Atom N270 | 1.60 GHz | 0.62 | 0.3875 | Vista x86 1 Processor(Couldn't figure out how to disable HT on my Eee)
Newtekie1 | Atom N270 | 1.71 GHz | 1.70 | 1.06 | Vista x86
Newtekie1 | Pentium D 805 | 2.66 GHz | 3.32 | 1.24 | Sever 2003
MRCL | Pentium III E| 0.85 GHz | 0.72 | 0.346 | HP Omnibook 6000
blkhogan | Phenom 9850 | 2.80 GHz | 13.64 | 4.871 | Dual Channel DDR2
Melvis | P4 | 2.40 GHz | 0.40 | 0.166 | POS!! Work Computer 
JrRacinFan | E1200 | 2.66 GHz | 7.12 | 2.67 | Dual Channel DDR2 @ 800mhz CL5
thebeephaha| Q6600 | 3.60 GHz | 18.09 | 5.025 | Dual channel DDR2
HammerON | E8500 | 4.33 GHz | 12.76 | 2.947 | Dual Channel DDR 2
Melvis | FX-57 | 2.80 GHz | 3.39 | 1.210 | Eat that P4's lol
HammerON | E8500 | 4.00 GHz | 11.77 | 2.942 | Dual Channel DDR2
FordGT90Concept | Core i7 920 | 2.77 GHz | 19.21 | 6.92 | 4 physical, 4 virtual cores (HT ON) - XP Professional x64 Edition - 3 x 2 GiB @ DDR3-1066 spec (tri-channel)  (2.67 GHz w/ Turbo ON)
FordGT90Concept | 2 x Xeon 5310 | 1.60 GHz | 16.54 | 10.3375 | SERVER, 8 cores - W2K3 x64 Edition - 8 x 1 GiB @ DDR2-667 spec (quad-channel)
hoss331 | Q9650 | 4.34 GHz | 25.51 | 5.880 | DDR2
btarunr | X4 9750 | 2.40 GHz | 11.64 | 4.85
CyberDruid | i7-920 | ??  | 20.94 |7.843 | Assu med 2.67 (stock) CPU speed. New to i7 lol HT enabled
JrRacinFan | E5200 | 3.33 Ghz | 9.53 | 2.86 | Dual Channel DDR2 @ 800mhz CL4
Newtekie1 | Athlon X2 4400+ | 2.80 GHz | 6.46 | 2.30 | Vista x64 Socket 939 Dual-Channel DDR1
Newtekie1 | Celeron 325 | 2.53 GHz | 1.47 | 0.58 | Server 2003
chuck216| Athlon X2 5600+| 2.90 GHz | 6.49 |2.24| Stock speeds
someone | E7200| 3.60 GHz| 10.93| 3.0361| Not bad. Can do better. DDR2 @ 1083MHz, 450FSB
disturbed117 | Athlon 64 | 2.40 Ghz | 2.68 |1288 | windows 7 RC
Mussels | Xeon E3120 | 3.80 GHz | 10.07 | 2.65 | 8GB ram @ 800 CL5
p_o_s_pc | Phenom 9100e | 2.40 Ghz | 9.98 | 4.12 |24/7 settings ram not tweaked
p_o_s_pc | Phenom 9100e | 2.40 Ghz | 11.52 | 4.8 |TLB patch disabled ram slightly tweaked
Cuzza | Mobile Core 2 Duo T5450 | 1.66 GHz | 4.94 | 2.98 
chuck216 | Phenom II 940 BE | 3.50 Ghz | 17.47 | 4.991 | 24/7 settings
3DSAGE | PII 720B.E X4 | 3.90 GHz | 19.61 | 5.028 | 2xChannel DDR2 800 4-4-4-15
Fatal | Phenom II 940 BE | 3.70 Ghz | 18.48 | 4.98 | 24/7
lemonadesoda | Atom 280 | 1.66 Ghz | 1.66 | 1.00 | SONY VAIO W netbook
JayliN | Q9550 | 2.91 GHz | 17.24 | 5.92 | Dual Channel DDR2@970 CL6 24/7
kenkickr|PII X3 705e|3.60 Ghz|14.02|3.894|
Chicken. Patty | Core i7 920 | 4.189 Ghz | 31.26 | 3.581 | 24/7 Crunching Settings, bunch of apps open
DanTheBanjoman | E5506 | 2.13 GHz | 22.36 | 10.49 | Stock speeds
Zubasa | Turion Ultra X2 ZM-80 | 2.10 Ghz | 4.87 | 2.32 | DDR2 800 Single Channel on HP Pavilion tx2502au Notebook
rickss69 | Core i7 965 | 4.205 GHz | 32.00 | 7.60 | Hot chip! Hot chip! Game rig
Cuzza | VIA C7 | 1.500 GHz| 1.01 | 0.673 | VIA nano-ITX board NX15000G
MoonPig | Intel Core2 Q9550 | 3.825 GHz | 21.82 | 5.7045 | DDR2 @ 5-5-5-15 900MHz - First Run
dcf-joe | Core i7 920 | 3.82 GHz | 29.09 | 7.6151 | HT On, Vista 64
liviuttn | AMD FX8350 | 4.0 GHz | 25.92 | 4.87 | 
link

Krazy Owl | E2180 | 2.0 GHz | 5.26 | 2.524 | Stock + DDR2-800
HammerON | i7 970 | 4.0 GHz | 29.52 | 7.43 |Win7 
link

rickss69 | Atom N270 | 1.6 Ghz | 1.55 (Relative) | 0.96875|Acer netbook
rickss69 | 980X | 4.0 Ghz | 30.64 (Relative) | 7.66 |gamer
uuuaaaaaa | AMD Phenom II X6 1100T | 4.013GHz | 29.23 | 7.284 |
Melvis | AMD FX 8350 | 4.0GHz | 26.42 | 6.605 |
Arctucas | i7 950 | 4273 MHz | 32.52 | 7.61
Durvelle27 | AMD FX 4100 | 4.6Ghz | 15.72 | | Dual Channel DDR3 1600MHz


WANTED
Atom vs. Nano vs. C7 is people have those! 
Xeon vs. Il Phenom
HT vs. no HT

Favourite "multicore" benchmarks, Fritz,  Geekbench, EVEREST PhotoWorxx


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 31, 2009)

lemonadesoda | Q6600 | 2.70 Ghz | 15.30 | 5.667 | Dual channel DDR1


----------



## ShadowFold (Mar 31, 2009)




----------



## DrPepper (Mar 31, 2009)

I wonder how two cores on my q6600 compare against a shadows kuma clock for clock.


----------



## ShadowFold (Mar 31, 2009)

Considering that the kuma is only 3mb and the Q6600 is 8mb..


----------



## MRCL (Mar 31, 2009)

MRCL | E8400 | 4.14 GHz | 12.23 | Dual Channel DDR2


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 31, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> Considering that the kuma is only 3mb and the Q6600 is 8mb..



Indeed but how much did that cost ?


----------



## ShadowFold (Mar 31, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> Indeed but how much did that cost ?



what? My Kuma was 60$, I got my 720BE for 76$.


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 31, 2009)

That cost less than half of my Quad. 






Surely more cache wouldn't make such a difference.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 31, 2009)

^^ I think your speedstep has kicked in. I doubt that 2 thread run speed was done at 2142 Mhz.

I just ran 2 cores on my Q6600 @ 2.7 Ghz = 2.956 per Ghz

Kuma = 2.447 per Ghz

Intel wins by 21% per clock on this benchmark.  Please note I am on DDR1 and a DDR2/3 Q6600 should do a lot better.


----------



## ShadowFold (Mar 31, 2009)

Intel wins this battle ...


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 31, 2009)

Yeah speedstep always does that to me. The speed was 3.2ghz.


----------



## Polarman (Apr 1, 2009)

Just gave it a try.

Polarman | P2 - 940 | 3.0Ghz | 15:20 | 5.07 | Dual Channel DDR2


----------



## DrPepper (Apr 1, 2009)

Isn't the phenom II meant to be faster than core 2 ?


----------



## Supreme0verlord (Apr 1, 2009)

Supreme0verlord | 720BE | 3.52Ghz | 13.17 | Dual Channel DDR2


----------



## Psychoholic (Apr 1, 2009)

Here's a run using my everyday settings (3.8ghz, NO HT)

Might give it another run later and see what HT does for it.


----------



## Psychoholic (Apr 1, 2009)

same settings with ht enabled.


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 1, 2009)

Newtekie1 | Xeon X3370 | 3.6GHz | 20.68 | 5.74 | Vista x64(X3370=Q9650)
Newtekie1 | Xeon X3370 | 3.6GHz | 10.77 | 2.99 | Vista X64 2 Cores Disabled
Newtekie1 | Atom N270 | 1.6GHz | 1.55 | 0.968 | Vista x86 HT Enabled
Newtekie1 | Atom N270 | 1.6GHz | 0.62 | 0.3875 | Vista x86 1 Processor(Couldn't figure out how to disable HT on my Eee)
Newtekie1 | Atom N270 | 1.71GHz | 1.70 | 1.06 | Vista x86
Newtekie1 | Pentium D 805 | 2.66GHz | 3.32 | 1.24 | Sever 2003


----------



## MRCL (Apr 1, 2009)

MRCL | Pentium III E| 846.5 MHz | 0.72 | 346 | HP Omnibook 6000






Lol


----------



## JrRacinFan (Apr 1, 2009)

Oh cool another benchmark!! I'll give a run at my 24/7 either later tonight or tomorrow!


----------



## Ketxxx (Apr 1, 2009)

I'll do a clean test when I haven't got a bunch of stuff running in the background.


----------



## blkhogan (Apr 1, 2009)

blkhogan | Phenom 9850 | 2.80GHz | 13.64 | Duel Channel DDR2


----------



## JC316 (Apr 1, 2009)

My CPU is on speed step. Speed was 3.75GHZ when I ran it.


----------



## 3dsage (Apr 1, 2009)

Heres my go, 
3DSAGE  | PII  720B.E X4 @ 3.9GHZ  |  19.61  | 5.028 | 2xChannel DDR2 800 4-4-4-15

Pretty close to the Core I7 @ 3.8GHZ (no HT)


----------



## Melvis (Apr 1, 2009)

Melvis | P4 | 2.4GHz | 0.40 | 0.166 | POS!! Work Computer 

Dam thats a bad score^ lol

Ill run the FX when i get home to show all those P4's how its done


----------



## chuck216 (Apr 1, 2009)

chuck216| Athlon 64 X2 5600+ Brisbane| 2.9 GHz | 6.49 |2.2379| Stock speeds


----------



## JrRacinFan (Apr 1, 2009)

Here's the e1200@ 2.66Ghz (C1E/EIST enabled)





JrRacinFan | e1200 | 2.66 Ghz | 7.12 | 2.67 | Dual Channel DDR2 @ 800mhz CL5


----------



## thebeephaha (Apr 1, 2009)

I get raped by an i7...

thebeephaha| Q6600 | 3.60 Ghz | 18.09 | 5.025 | Dual channel DDR2


----------



## HammerON (Apr 1, 2009)

HammerON | E8500 | 4.33 | 12.76 | 2.947 | Dual Channel DDR 2


----------



## Melvis (Apr 1, 2009)

Melvis | FX-57 | 2.8GHz | 3.39 | 1.210 | Eat that P4's lol


----------



## HammerON (Apr 1, 2009)

Didn't like the high core voltage on last clock so here is a run at 4.0 GHz:







HammerON | E8500 | 4.0 | 11.77 | 2.942 | Dual Channel DDR2


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 1, 2009)

Not sure if I did the math right on that score/clockspeed especially considering the number of cores involved...


FordGT90Concept - BY-2005 | Core i7 920 | 2.776 GHz (2.666 GHz w/ Turbo ON) | 19.21 | 6.92 | 4 physical, 4 virtual cores (HT ON) - Windows XP Professional x64 Edition - 3 x 2 GiB @ DDR3-1066 spec (tri-channel)

http://img.techpowerup.org/090401/by-2005.png


FordGT90Concept - SERVER | 2 x Xeon 5310 | 1.6 GHz | 16.54 | 10.3375 | 8 physical cores - Windows Server Standard x64 Edition - 8 x 1 GiB @ DDR2-667 spec (quad-channel)

http://img.techpowerup.org/090401/server.png


----------



## hoss331 (Apr 1, 2009)

hoss331 | Q9650 | 4.34 Ghz | 25.51 | 5.880 | DDR2

This is my 24/7 setup but ill do a ~4.8 run tomorrow.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Apr 1, 2009)

Might want to put that chart in order. Just seems like random numbers, I assume pre Ghz Calc would be showing how much your getting per Ghz, don't know if you would want to order it like that, or by the score. Will be more understandable then.


----------



## btarunr (Apr 1, 2009)

btarunr | X4 9750 | 2.40 GHz | 11.64 | 4.85


----------



## lemonadesoda (Apr 1, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> FordGT90Concept - SERVER | 2 x Xeon 5310 | 1.6 GHz | 16.54 | 10.3375 | 8 physical cores - Windows Server Standard x64 Edition - 8 x 1 GiB @ DDR2-667 spec (quad-channel)
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/090401/server.png



Phenominal performance on those Xeons 

The crunch per Ghz is very high. Could you say a little more about this system? Are you sure it is a 1.60Ghz, or is that the speedstep speed on idle? How many FBDIMM slots have you filled, and is the RAM x4, x8, single or dual rank? Thanks. 

Could you kindly Geekbench so I can look at the components of your Dual Xeon performance more closely. THANKS.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Apr 1, 2009)

1Kurgan1 said:


> Might want to put that chart in order. Just seems like random numbers, I assume pre Ghz Calc would be showing how much your getting per Ghz, don't know if you would want to order it like that, or by the score. Will be more understandable then.



I would love to sort it on score or score per Ghz, but the sort algorithm is buggy. It sort alphanumerically, but doesnt sort numbers very well. Try clicking the column headings to sort... and see what a good (or bad) job it does.

I wont sort manually. It takes too long, in fact, needs to be done for every new post. That really doubles up the work of keeping the table up to date. Just use the sort feature and "fix" it in your own minds eye.


----------



## CyberDruid (Apr 1, 2009)

User | CPU | Clockspeed | Score (Relative) | Score per clock Ghz | Any Comment

CyberDruid|920|1729.5 Corespeed X13 multi|20.94|7.8426966292134831460674157303371|Assumed 2.67 (stock) CPU speed. New to i7 lol. 
HT enabled


Not sure if I did that score per ghz correctly or not.

EDIT Ah crap apparently the 920 is running at 1.7ghz  now I gotta figure that out...


----------



## JrRacinFan (Apr 1, 2009)

Here's the e5200@3.33Ghz





JrRacinFan | E5200 | 3.33 Ghz | 9.53 | 2.86 | Dual Channel DDR2 @ 800mhz CL4


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 1, 2009)

Newtekie1 | Athlon X2 4400+ | 2.8GHz | 6.46 | 2.30 | Vista x64 Socket 939 Dual-Channel DDR1


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 1, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> Are you sure it is a 1.60Ghz, or is that the speedstep speed on idle?


1.6 GHz is stock on Xeon 5310.  




lemonadesoda said:


> How many FBDIMM slots have you filled, and is the RAM x4, x8, single or dual rank? Thanks.


It has 8 FB-DIMM slots, all of them (8 sticks total) have 1 GiB Kingston DDR-667 sticks in them.  There is an OCZ memory cooler sitting on top of the memory providing direct airflow across the modules.  It has two Delta 60x60x20 fans in it (the original fans died about a month or two ago, followed by the power supply ).  They should be running in a pair of quad-channel configurations.




lemonadesoda said:


> Could you kindly Geekbench so I can look at the components of your Dual Xeon performance more closely. THANKS.


http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/123984

Heh, everything multithreaded is through the roof.  Exactly what it was built to do.




lemonadesoda said:


> I would love to sort it on score or score per Ghz, but the sort algorithm is buggy. It sort alphanumerically, but doesnt sort numbers very well. Try clicking the column headings to sort... and see what a good (or bad) job it does.
> 
> I wont sort manually. It takes too long, in fact, needs to be done for every new post. That really doubles up the work of keeping the table up to date. Just use the sort feature and "fix" it in your own minds eye.


There's only two ways to fix it:
1) Zero-pad the values (e.g. values 10000 and 900 would require 900 be changed to 00900 because 0 comes before 1).
2) Explicitly declare the column as an integer or floating point value which sorts by value instead of by alpha/numeric order.  I doubt that feature is supported though because it complicates things as much as it simplifies them. XD


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 1, 2009)

Newtekie1 | Celeron 325 | 2.53GHz | 1.47 | 0.58 | Server 2003


----------



## lemonadesoda (Apr 1, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It has 8 FB-DIMM slots, all of them (8 sticks total) have 1 GiB Kingston DDR-667 sticks in them.
> Heh, everything multithreaded is through the roof.  Exactly what it was built to do.


Fact is, you are getting better performance per Ghz than my E5420's with a bigger cache. So, there must be something in your FBDIMM setup that is giving you milage. Could you kindly give more information. Are they x4 or x8. Are they single or dual RANK?




> There's only two ways to fix it:
> 2) Explicitly declare the column as an integer or floating point value which sorts by value instead of by alpha/numeric order.


 I found no such option (unfortunately) in the table add-in for vB. If you know of a way to do this; great! Tell.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Apr 1, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> I would love to sort it on score or score per Ghz, but the sort algorithm is buggy. It sort alphanumerically, but doesnt sort numbers very well. Try clicking the column headings to sort... and see what a good (or bad) job it does.
> 
> I wont sort manually. It takes too long, in fact, needs to be done for every new post. That really doubles up the work of keeping the table up to date. Just use the sort feature and "fix" it in your own minds eye.



Ah sorry about that, I didn't realize that the chart had the ability to auto sort, very nice!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 2, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> Fact is, you are getting better performance per Ghz than my E5420's with a bigger cache. So, there must be something in your FBDIMM setup that is giving you milage. Could you kindly give more information. Are they x4 or x8. Are they single or dual RANK?


I have no idea.

It has four of these kits in this motherboard.


You got your processors overclocked 500 MHz.  Work/clock is a measure of efficiency.  The farther they are overclocked, the less efficient they become.  If you return the clocks to stock, it may match or exceed mine.  The harder the processor is worked, the more often it has to clear the pipes and try again (lost efficiency).


----------



## chuck216 (Apr 2, 2009)

chuck216 said:


> chuck216| Athlon 64 X2 5600+ Brisbane| 2.9 GHz | 6.49 |2.2379| Stock speeds



you missed mine


----------



## lemonadesoda (Apr 2, 2009)

chuck216 said:


> you missed mine



It's a conspiracy chuck! 

Added.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Apr 2, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I have no idea.
> 
> It has four of these kits in this motherboard.



Your StreamScore is very high. (Geekbench). Much higher than mine even though memory is at the same speed and my CPUs are nearly twice the speed.  It is therefore a memory bottlenecked bechmark.

The only logical reason for your superior performance is the RANKING of your FBDIMM. Your sticks are dual rank, which are known to be faster than single rank (mine). So with 8 sticks you are running 16 ranks vs. my 4 ranks. That means you can handle more simultaneous reads and writes.

We all know that single access read or write on FBDIMM is slow. But it is interesting to see that for multi-threaded independent read and simultaneous write there IS some scaling with the FBDIMM memory architecture. But to get the most out of it you need more RANK.

So, if I want an extra bit of performance, I need to swap my single rank FBDIMMs for dual rank.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Apr 2, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> Your StreamScore is very high. (Geekbench). Much higher than mine even though memory is at the same speed and my CPUs are nearly twice the speed.  It is therefore a memory bottlenecked bechmark.
> 
> The only logical reason for your superior performance is the RANKING of your FBDIMM. Your sticks are dual rank, which are known to be faster than single rank (mine). So with 8 sticks you are running 16 ranks vs. my 4 ranks. That means you can handle more simultaneous reads and writes.
> 
> ...



What?  Just kidding, got you for the most part, but I think I'm going to write this down and say it to random people and see what kind of judgment they pass on me


----------



## lemonadesoda (Apr 2, 2009)

Yeah, LOL. FBDIMM is a PITA to understand and manage. This whole channel and rank business is a real pest. ESPECIALLY since many people use passive RAM heatsinks that mean you can only use alternate RAM slots. If you dont use big passive sinks you HAVE to use a fan cooler on the memory. 

With FBDIMM there are the following issues to "manage"

1./ Number of channels (you can do single, dual and quad channel not just dual channel like regular DDR).  On some pimp server boards I believe octo channel was also possible.

2./ Number of ranks. You can have one, two, or four ranks per channel, however, many board limit you to a maximum of 16 ranks in total, so you cant over rank you memory channels. (Still with me? LOL)

3./ There are x4 and x8 arrangement of the memory.  The x4 is a higher density RAM, has the benefit of a newer feature set, BUT, usually has lower rank, ie. single rank. So while it is newer and better, you need more sticks to get the best performance.

4./ 1.5v and 1.8v.  FBDIMM gets horribly horribly hot (talking 80°C easy unless there is active cooling) and draws a hell of a lot of power. This is due to the on-stick memory controller.  Everyone wants the 1.5v sticks fpr obvious reasons but they are not compatible with older chipsets that require 1.8v sticks.  But the 1.5v are rare and expensive and in fact have stopped being manufactured for supply/demand/bankruptcy reasons.

5./ FBDIMM reads and writes at the same time using different "pins" in the socket. That is GREAT for simultaneous reads and writes, but BAD for "only" reading or "writing" due to lower bandwidth on just read or just write.  In practice, FBDIMM has a higher bandwidth on "copy" and simultaneous read and write than regular DDR2 at the same clock. ie ideal for servers. BUT, FBDIMM doesnt have the ultra-high single function bandwidth of overclocked DDR2 or DDR3, and is therefore terrible at many single thread memory benchmarks.

>> The technology of FBDIMM is very similar to PCIe. ie it is serial data across multiple lines, rather than, parallel data on one bus. (are you still with me?)

OK - so now you've got an idea of the headache of FBDIMM. So knowing how best to use the memory architecture can be real hit or miss.
And now you know why people using FBDIMM are always asking DIMM questions. LOL


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 2, 2009)

FBDIMM uses far fewer physical connections to the memory controller and that is its primary advantage.  DDR2 really can't use more than 4 DIMMs because of the physical connections to the memory controller.  Still using DDR2, FB-DIMM can manage dozens of DIMMs (48 or 96, can't remember).  AMD has been addressing this issue by having a hive-mind kind of memory pool where every processor has its own dedicated DIMMs but the processors are capable of making memory requests with other processors.  Intel wanted to avoid that and their answer to the problem was FB-DIMM.  Yes, it has some performance and thermal drawbacks but when you need 192 GiB of RAM, you need 192 GiB of RAM.


----------



## Ketxxx (Apr 2, 2009)

Heres my clean run.

User | CPU | Clockspeed | Score (Relative) | Score per clock Ghz | Any Comment

Me , E7200, 3.6GHz,       10.93,                   3.0361,                   Not bad. Can do better. DDR2 @ 1083MHz, 450FSB


----------



## disturbed117 (Jul 16, 2009)

*had a go at it*

disturbed117 | Athlon 64 | 2.40ghz | 2.68 |1288 | windows 7 RC


----------



## Mussels (Jul 16, 2009)

Mussels | Xeon E3120 | 3.8GHz | 10.07 | 2.65 | 8GB ram @ 800 CL5


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Jul 16, 2009)

p_o_s_pc | Phenom 9100e | 2.4ghz | 9.98 | 4.12 |24/7 settings ram not tweaked


----------



## Mussels (Jul 16, 2009)

you know what would have been better than performance per GHz? performance per core...


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Jul 16, 2009)

p_o_s_pc | Phenom 9100e | 2.4ghz | 11.52 | 4.8 |TLB patch disabled ram slightly tweaked


----------



## Cuzza (Jul 16, 2009)

because I can....

Cuzza | Mobile Core 2 Duo T5450 | 1.66 GHz | 4.94 | 2.98


----------



## chuck216 (Jul 17, 2009)

Didn't realize I hadn't posted a run for my Phenom II:

chuck216 | Phenom II 940 BE | 3.5 Ghz | 17.47 | 4.991 | 24/7 settings


----------



## 3dsage (Jul 18, 2009)

3dsage said:


> Heres my go,
> 3DSAGE  | PII  720B.E X4 @ 3.9GHZ  |  19.61  | 5.028 | 2xChannel DDR2 800 4-4-4-15
> 
> Pretty close to the Core I7 @ 3.8GHZ (no HT)
> ...



Add me to the list please, even though I sold this cpu about 2 or 3 months ago


----------



## Fatal (Jul 18, 2009)

Fatal | Phenom II 940 BE | 3.7 Ghz | 18.48 | 4.98 | 24/7


----------



## mtosev (Jul 18, 2009)

Vista SP1


----------



## lemonadesoda (Sep 4, 2009)

SONY VAIO W netbook. Note throttling of CPU on CPU-Z screenshot. Run was at 1.66 Ghz.






Lemonadesoda | Atom 280 | 1.66 Ghz | 1.66 | 1.00 | SONY VAIO W netbook


----------



## JayliN (Sep 6, 2009)

JayliN | Q9550 | 2.91 | 17.24 | 5.92 | Dual Channel DDR2@970 CL6 24/7


----------



## Chicken Patty (Sep 6, 2009)

Here is my contribution.  How do I get the Per GHz calculation?


Chicken. Patty / Core i7 920 / 4189 / 31.26 / 3.581 / 24/7 Crunching Settings, bunch of apps open


----------



## Zubasa (Sep 6, 2009)

Zubasa | Turion Ultra X2 |  2100Mhz | Score (Relative) | Score per clock Ghz | DDR2 800 Single Channel


----------



## lemonadesoda (Sep 6, 2009)

Chicken Patty said:


> How do I get the Per GHz calculation?



Er, you get the score and divide by your clock freq. using a calculator, Excel, or in your head.

Or do I also need to explain what "divide" means?

PS. Chicken and Zubasa, please repost with the full data in the copy+paste line. I'm on the road and doing all of this from my ipaq214. Ta.


----------



## kenkickr (Sep 6, 2009)

kenkickr|PII X3 705e|3.6Ghz|14.02|3.894|


----------



## Chicken Patty (Sep 6, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> Er, you get the score and divide by your clock freq. using a calculator, Excel, or in your head.
> 
> Or do I also need to explain what "divide" means?
> 
> PS. Chicken and Zubasa, please repost with the full data in the copy+paste line. I'm on the road and doing all of this from my ipaq214. Ta.



Thank you, I have edited my post.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Sep 6, 2009)

DanTheBanjoman | E5506 | 2.13 GHz | 22.36 | 10,49 | Stock speeds


----------



## lemonadesoda (Sep 6, 2009)

Dan, I dont understand why your results are so low. That's not much better than your old Xeon 54xx's.  CONFUSED.  Are you running JUST ONE E5506. No cant be from your second screenshot.  How are your results from other benchmarks? Are you happy with the setup?


----------



## Zubasa (Sep 6, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> PS. Chicken and Zubasa, please repost with the full data in the copy+paste line. I'm on the road and doing all of this from my ipaq214. Ta.



Zubasa | Turion Ultra X2 ZM-80 | 2.1Ghz | 4.87 | 2.32 | DDR2 800 Single Channel on HP Pavilion tx2502au Notebook


----------



## Deleted member 74752 (Sep 7, 2009)

rickss69 | Core i7 965 | 4205.5MHz | 32.00  | 3.65 | Hot chip! Hot chip! Game rig


----------



## Cuzza (Sep 10, 2009)

*Ran it on the C7*

Cuzza | VIA C7 | 1500MHz| Score 1.01 | 0.673 | VIA nano-ITX board NX15000G


----------



## lemonadesoda (Sep 10, 2009)

^I'm quite impressed with the C7 score.  Is it passive or active cooled at that speed?

Who has got a VIA Nano to test?


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Sep 10, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> Dan, I dont understand why your results are so low. That's not much better than your old Xeon 54xx's.  CONFUSED.  Are you running JUST ONE E5506. No cant be from your second screenshot.  How are your results from other benchmarks? Are you happy with the setup?



Only 2.0 GHz, no HTT , and I don't own any 5400's, just 5300's and 5100's.

As it currently stands, overlocking options are non existent. I can change the BCLK by like 5mhz, that's it. Seems to be the same issue as with early i7's. Apart from that not a single BIOS option, have to wait for some way to unlock something. Be it memory clock, strap or whatever. Either way, I'll wait for some company to make some overclockable motherboard or eventually replace the CPU's with something faster. So far performance is about the same as my previous setup minus the memory bottleneck.


----------



## MoonPig (Sep 10, 2009)

MoonPig | Intel Core2 Q9550 | 3825MHz | Score: 21.82 | 5.7045 | DDR2 @ 5-5-5-15 900MHz - First Run


----------



## Cuzza (Sep 10, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> ^I'm quite impressed with the C7 score.  Is it passive or active cooled at that speed?
> 
> Who has got a VIA Nano to test?



Active. I wish VIA would get off their butts and roll out the Nano processor to more of their products.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Sep 10, 2009)

^ no, no.  It's already slow enough and at the bottom of the list.  What was quite impressive was the performance per Ghz... which was up there with P4.

I'll take a passive, faster, Atom over a C7 anyday. But a Nano? WHO KNOWS: WHERE ARE THEY? Talk about product launch fail.


----------



## Cuzza (Sep 10, 2009)

oops, looks like you read my post before the edit! actually I don't have that option, I misread the manual on that one (only just got this board 2 days ago)

For sure Atom is better than C7. I mean C7 still stuck at 90nm for fucks sake! make it at 32nm you probably wouldn't need a heatsink. sort your shit out via.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Sep 10, 2009)

here's my run
BarbaricSoul | Intel Core2 Q9650 | 4050MHz | Score: 22.68 | 10887 | DDR2 @ 5-5-5-15 900MHz


----------



## lemonadesoda (Sep 10, 2009)

Barbaric, you need to fix your scoreboard post. Please read OP for what each box needs to contain.


----------



## dcf-joe (Sep 10, 2009)

dcf-joe | Core i7 920 | 3.82 GHz | 29.09 | 7.6151 | HT On, Vista 64


----------



## lemonadesoda (Jan 22, 2013)

lemonadesoda | 2x Xeon E5472| 3.00 Ghz | 27.65  | 9.22 | FB-DIMM DDR2 800


----------



## liviuttn (Jan 22, 2013)

*Fritz  chess*

liviuttn, amd FX8350  default 4 ghz, 16 gb ram ddr3 1600 mhz, 25,92, 4,87.


----------



## Krazy Owl (Jan 22, 2013)

Krazy Owl | E2180 | 2.0GHz | 5.26 | 2.524 | Stock + DDR2-800


----------



## HammerON (Jan 22, 2013)

HammerON | i7 970 | 4.0 GHz | 29.52 | 7.43 |Win7


----------



## Deleted member 74752 (Feb 9, 2013)

Here is the Atom you requested...

rickss69 | Atom N270 | 1.6 Ghz | 1.55 (Relative) |  0.96875|Acer netbook


----------



## Deleted member 74752 (Feb 9, 2013)

rickss69 | 980X | 4.0 Ghz | 30.64 (Relative) | 7.66 |gamer


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Feb 10, 2013)

uuuaaaaaa | AMD Phenom II X6 1100T | 4.013GHz | 29.23 | 7.284 |


----------



## Melvis (Feb 10, 2013)

Melvis | AMD FX 8350 | 4.0GHz | 26.42 | 6.605 |


----------



## Arctucas (Feb 10, 2013)

Arctucas | i7 950 | 4273 MHz | 32.52 | 7.61


----------



## Deleted member 74752 (Feb 10, 2013)

Btw, the download link is no longer active.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Feb 10, 2013)

Durvelle27 | AMD FX 4100 | 4.6Ghz | 15.72 |  | Dual Channel DDR3 1600MHz


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Feb 10, 2013)

rickss69 said:


> Btw, the download link is no longer active.



I may upload/send you the file if you want.


----------



## Deleted member 74752 (Feb 10, 2013)

uuuaaaaaa said:


> I may upload/send you the file if you want.



Oh I have it already...was just letting them know so it could be changed on the first page.  http://www.chess.com/download/view/fritz-12-benchmark


----------



## lemonadesoda (Nov 15, 2013)

Lets see some new CPUs in this list!


----------



## Bugler (Nov 17, 2013)

I tested my i5-3570: (at 3.8 Ghz)


----------



## Compgeke (Feb 2, 2015)

It's been quite a while but I also ran this on the new server. It'll be nice to have some new systems in here anyways as there's not a whole lot .

Compgeke| 2x Xeon X5472 | 3.2 GHz | 25.73 | 3860 | Dell Poweredge R510


----------



## micropage7 (Feb 2, 2015)

micropage7 | pentium G2020 | 2.90 Ghz | 8.89 | win 7 ultimate


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 2, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK | Athlon ii x4 640 | 3.5 Ghz | 16.84) | 8084 |  O/C FROM 3.0GHZ


This is my 700th post.  ....and a damn good one it is too. 

 No swearing/panties or tangenting you will have noticed im sure.


----------

