# Generic CPU Bench



## btarunr (Oct 12, 2008)

I came across this 25 KB (!) benchmark application called Generic CPU Bench (ver. LOL.OMG). It appears to be a multi-threaded CPU benchmark. After finishing the bench, it also gives you the option to capture screenshots. The test starts as soon as the app is executed, so I'd suggest you start the app from a cmd shell or risk letting mouse movements mess with the score. The author of this app is Xtreme Member Particle. It requires .NET 2.0 framework.

What a Phenom X4 9750 at stock speed churns out:







Measurements are the time taken to crunch, and the throughput. Have fun pwning my score, and be nice to eachother.

Scoreboard (Overall):


Rank|Member|Processor|Clock Speed (MHz)|Avg. Crunch Time (ms)|Throughput (KCU/s)|Remarks
1|Binge|Core i7 920 (8 threads)|4474|5636|93025|Highest Throughput
2|fitseries3|Core i7 920 (8 threads)|4280|5948|88145|
3|dark2099|Core i7 920 (8 threads)|4200|6005|87309|
4|Chicken_Patty|Core i7 920 (8 threads)|4192|6040|86803
5|DanTheBanjoman|2x Xeon L5310 (8 threads)|2702|10442|50210|
6|fitseries3|Core 2 Extreme QX9650|4605|5357|48935
7|Tatty One|Core 2 Quad Q9650|4500|5387|48662|
8|dipsta|Core 2 Extreme QX9650|4450|5775|45393|
9|DOM|Xeon X3350|3800|6376|41114|
10|mlee49|Core 2 Quad Q9450|3800|6469|40523|
11|RadeonX2|Core 2 Quad Q6600|4104|6864|38191|
12|fitseries3|Core 2 Quad Q6600|3900|7333|35749|
13|Mussels|Core 2 Quad Q6600|3600|8157|32137|
14|SLK320|Phenom X4 9850 BE|3411|8393|31234|
15|MKmods|Phenom X4 9950 BE|3250|8671|30232|
16|xubidoo|Core 2 Quad Q6600|3204|8872|29547|
17|Chicken Patty|Phenom X4 9950 BE|3412|8894|29474
18|DirkDiggler|Core 2 Quad Q6600|3200|8961|29254
19|OzzmanFloyd120|Phenom X4 9850|3100|9024|29050
20|FordGT90Concept|2x Xeon 5310 (8 threads)|1600|18132|28915|
21|revin|Core 2 Extreme QX6700|2995|9399|27891|
22|ASharp|Phenom X4 9850 BE|3000|9567|27401
23|Xtant25|Core 2 Duo E8600|5250|4794|27341| Quickest Crunch
24|wolf2009|Core 2 Quad Q9450|3200|9595|27321|
25|fitseries3|Core 2 Duo E8600|5200|4878|26872|
26|lemonadesoda|Core 2 Quad Q6600|2700|10478|25019
27|jbunch07|Phenom X4 9850 BE|2900|10483|25007
28|SLK320|Phenom X4 9850 BE|3485|10508|24947
29|alexp999|Core 2 Quad Q6600|3200|10703|24493|
30|erocker|Core 2 Quad Q6600|3204|10773|24333|
31|Binge|Core 2 Duo E8600|4500|5407|24241|
32|theonetruewill|Core 2 Duo E8400|4320|5651|23194
33|marsey99|Core 2 Duo E8200|4200|5790|22638|
34|merkk|Phenom X4 9850 BE|3107|11714|22379|
35|btarunr|Phenom X4 9750|2400|11776|22261|
36|freakshow|Core 2 Duo E7200|4170|5942|22059
37|Black Panther|Core 2 Quad Q9450|2667|11929|21975
38|Boneface|Core 2 Duo E8400|3820|6097|21498
39|mullered07|Core 2 Duo E7200|3990|6148|21319
40|Boneface|Core 2 Duo E8400|3825|6383|20535|
41|kid41212003|Phenom X4 9750|2700|13640|19219
42|mlee49|Core 2 Duo E8200|3400|7225|18141
43|Silverel|2x Xeon 5130 (4 threads)|2000|14470|18116
44|DanTheBanjoman|2x Core Duo (4 threads)|2000|14806|17705 
45|tigger|Core 2 Duo E6750|3840|7428|17646|
46|xubidoo|Core 2 Duo E7200|3200|7568|17319
47|Arctucas|Core 2 Duo E6750|3700|7635|17167|
48|Inioch|Core 2 Duo E8500|3166|7646|17143
49|oli ramsay|Core 2 Duo E8400|4000|7706|17009|
50|cdawall|Celeron E1200|3584|7914|16562|
51|exodusprime1337|Athlon64 X2 5000+ BE|3468|8306|15780
52|JrRacinFan|Celeron E1200|3400|8310|15773|
53|DirkDiggler|Pentium E2160|3200|8951|14643
54|OzzmanFloyd120|Athlon64 X2 5000+ BE|3250|9020|14531
55|Luke|Core 2 Duo E6600|3105|9150|14325
56|Luke|Core 2 Duo T9300|2493|9910|14226|
57|3dsage|Athlon64 X2 5000+|3172|9265|14147|
58|Black Panther|Core 2 Duo E4300|3000|10067|13020
59|chuck216|Athlon64 X2 5600+|2900|10086|12995
60|fitseries3|Core 2 Duo E7200|3180|10310|12713
61|Zehnsucht|Core 2 Duo E6600|3200|10743|12201
62|Silverel|Athlon64 X2 5000+ BE|3200|11384|11514
63|FordGT90Concept|Opteron 180|2400|12236|10712|
64|overclocker|Core 2 Duo T7500|2200|12936|10132
65|Inioch|Core 2 Duo T5600|1828|15560|8424
66|RadeonX2|Core 2 Quad Q6600 (downcore to 1)|3600|7824|8376|
67|Silverel|Core 2 Duo T7100|1800|16724|7837
68|wolf2009|Pentium 4 630|2400|18468|7097|
69|JrRacinFan|Celeron D 347|4597|9759|6715
70|Melvis|Athlon64 FX 57|2800|10313|6355|
71|ascstinger|Sempron (K7)|2000|13881|4721|
72|xubidoo|Athlon XP 2800+|2000|14783|4433
73|wolf2009|Pentium 4 520|2800|16783|3905
74|wolf2009|Pentium 4 2.80A|2800|17503|3744|
75|ascstinger|Atom N220 1.6 GHz|1600|35636|3678
76|Luke|2x Pentium III-EB (2 threads)|800|39032|3358|
77|jbunch07|Celeron M 410|1467|21569|3038
78|MKmods|Athlon MP 1.2 GHz|1200|24762|2647|
79|DanTheBanjoman|Pentium III-M 1.2 GHz|1196|25381|2582|

Scoreboard (Dual Core):


Rank|Member|Processor|Clock Speed (MHz)|Avg. Crunch Time (ms)|Throughput (KCU/s)
1|Xtant25|Core 2 Duo E8600|5250|4794|27341|
2|fitseries3|Core 2 Duo E8600|5200|4878|26872
3|Binge|Core 2 Duo E8600|4500|5407|24241|
4|theonetruewill|Core 2 Duo E8400|4320|5651|23194
5|marsey99|Core 2 Duo E8200|4200|5790|22638
6|freakshow|Core 2 Duo E7200|4000|6030|21737 
7|Boneface|Core 2 Duo E8400|3820|6097|21498
8|mullered07|Core 2 Duo E7200|3990|6148|21319
9|mlee49|Core 2 Duo E8200|3400|7225|18141
10|tigger|Core 2 Duo E6750|3840|7428|17646
11|xubidoo|Core 2 Duo E7200|3200|7568|17319
12|Arctucas|Core 2 Duo E6750|3700|7635|17167|
13|Inioch|Core 2 Duo E8500|3166|7646|17143|
14|oli ramsay|Core 2 Duo E8400|4000|7706|17009|
15|cdawall|Celeron E1200|3584|7914|16562|
16|exodusprime1337|Athlon64 X2 5000+ BE|3468|8306|15780
17|JrRacinFan|Celeron E1200|3400|8310|15773|
18|DirkDiggler|Pentium E2160|3200|8951|14643
19|OzzmanFloyd120|Athlon64 X2 5000+ BE|3250|9020|14531
20|Luke|Core 2 Duo E6600|3105|9150|14325
21|Luke|Core 2 Duo T9300|2493|9910|14226
22|3dsage|Athlon64 X2 5000+|3172|9265|14147|
23|Black Panther|Core 2 Duo E4300|3000|10067|13020
24|chuck216|Athlon64 X2 5600+|2900|10086|12995
25|fitseries3|Core 2 Duo E7200|3180|10310|12713
26|Zehnsucht|Core 2 Duo E6600|3200|10743|12201
27|Silverel|Athlon64 X2 5000+ BE|3200|11384|11514
28|FordGT90Concept|Opteron 180|2400|12236|10712|
29|overclocker|Core 2 Duo T7500|2200|12936|10132
30|Inioch|Core 2 Duo T5600|1828|15560|8424
31|Silverel|Core 2 Duo T7100|1800|16724|7837

Scoreboard (Quad Core):


Rank|Member|Processor|Clock Speed (MHz)|Avg. Crunch Time (ms)|Throughput (KCU/s)
1|Binge|Core i7 920 (8 threads)|4474|5636|93025|
2|fitseries3|Core i7 920 (8 threads)|4280|5948|88145|
3|dark2099|Core i7 920 (8 threads)|4200|6005|87309|
4|Chicken_Patty|Core i7 920 (8 threads)|6040|86803
5|fitseries3|Core 2 Extreme QX9650|4605|5357|48935
6|Tatty One|Core 2 Quad Q9650|4500|5387|48662
7|dipsta|Core 2 Extreme QX9650|4450|5775|45393|
8|DOM|Xeon X3350|3800|6376|41114
9|mlee49|Core 2 Quad Q9450|3800|6469|40523|
10|RadeonX2|Core 2 Quad Q6600|4104|6864|38191
11|fitseries3|Core 2 Quad Q6600|3900|7333|35749
12|Mussels|Core 2 Quad Q6600|3600|8157|32137|
13|SLK320|Phenom X4 9850 BE|3411|8393|31234|
14|MKmods|Phenom X4 9950 BE|3250|8671|30232|
15|xubidoo|Core 2 Quad Q6600|3204|8872|29547|
16|Chicken Patty|Phenom X4 9950 BE|3412|8894|29474
17|DirkDiggler|Core 2 Quad Q6600|3200|8961|29254
18|OzzmanFloyd120|Phenom X4 9850|3100|9024|29050
19|revin|Core 2 Extreme QX6700|2995|9399|27891|
20|ASharp|Phenom X4 9850 BE|3000|9567|27401
21|lemonadesoda|Core 2 Quad Q6600|2700|10478|25019
22|jbunch07|Phenom X4 9850 BE|2900|10483|25007
23|SLK320|Phenom X4 9850 BE|3485|10508|24947
24|alexp999|Core 2 Quad Q6600|3200|10703|24493
25|erocker|Core 2 Quad Q6600|3204|10773|24333
26|merkk|Phenom X4 9850 BE|3107|11714|22379
27|btarunr|Phenom X4 9750|2400|11776|22261|
28|Black Panther|Core 2 Quad Q9450|2667|11929|21975
29|wolf2009|Core 2 Quad Q9450|2660|12584|20832
30|kid41212003|Phenom X4 9750|2700|13640|19219

Scoreboard (Single Core):


Rank|Member|Processor|Clock Speed (MHz)|Avg. Crunch Time (ms)|Throughput (KCU/s)
1|RadeonX2|Core 2 Quad Q6600 (downcore to 1)|3600|7824|8376|
2|wolf2009|Pentium 4 630|2400|18468|7097|
3|JrRacinFan|Celeron D 347|4597|9759|6715
4|Melvis|Athlon64 FX 57|2800|10313|6355|
5|ascstinger|Sempron (K7)|2000|13881|4721
6|xubidoo|Athlon XP 2800+|2000|14783|4433
7|wolf2009|Pentium 4 520|2800|16783|3905
8|wolf2009|Pentium 4 2.80A|2800|17503|3744|
9|ascstinger|Atom N220 1.6 GHz|1600|35636|3678
10|jbunch07|Celeron M 410|1467|21569|3038
11|MKmods|Athlon MP 1.2 GHz|1200|24762|2647|
12|DanTheBanjoman|Pentium III-M 1.2 GHz|1196|25381|2582

Scoreboard (Multi-Socket):


Rank|Member|Processors|Clock Speed (MHz)|Avg. Crunch Time (ms)|Throughput (KCU/s)
1|DanTheBanjoman|2x Xeon L5310 (8 threads)|2702|10442|50210|
2|FordGT90Concept|2x Xeon 5310 (8 threads)|1600|18132|28915|
3|Silverel|2x Xeon 5130 (4 threads)|2000|14470|18116
4|DanTheBanjoman|2x Core Duo (4 threads)|2000|14806|17705
5|Luke|2x Pentium III-EB (2 threads)|800|39032|3358|

Files (attached below):

The first file you see below, is the original app by Particle. It runs in 32-bit or 64-bit modes, depending on the environment (CPU + OS) it's in. The second file contains a modified app that runs in 32-bit mode regardless of which environment it is in. It was later observed in this thread, that processors perform better with the app running 32-bit. Both apps require Windows with .NET 2.0 framework installed.


----------



## NastyHabits (Oct 12, 2008)

It doesn't launch on my P-35


----------



## alexp999 (Oct 12, 2008)

Here's mine, had to let people see a bit of my background 






Expected to score a bit better than that over a Phenom (no offence), be interesting to see what higher clocked CPU's will do.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 12, 2008)

CPU and PF usage during the run:






So the app indeed is stressing all available cores/threads.


----------



## alexp999 (Oct 12, 2008)

Wtf, I got this after I ran it again to check, PF and CPU usage. Re-ran three times and get approx the same. 






 I guess my first one was a dud?


----------



## btarunr (Oct 12, 2008)

Maybe because from your first run, the memory already has that large 256M block in successive tests? Just blind-guessing.

Edit: A wee little improvement for me:


----------



## erocker (Oct 12, 2008)

How did you get it to run through CMD?  C:/run/Generic CPU Bench.exe?


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Oct 12, 2008)

wow my 5000 sucks i guess lol


----------



## alexp999 (Oct 12, 2008)

erocker said:


> How did you get it to run through CMD?  C:/run/Generic CPU Bench.exe?



I had to make the file one word or it wouldnt run. For me I changed it to "genericbench.exe" then it was fine


----------



## btarunr (Oct 12, 2008)

erocker said:


> How did you get it to run through CMD?  C:/run/Generic CPU Bench.exe?



Just run it like any other app. Open a shell, x:\directory where it's stored\app.exe

Else place the app on your desktop, single click it to select, park your mouse somewhere, hit enter. This drill is just for accuracy. Click to run if you want.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Oct 12, 2008)




----------



## alexp999 (Oct 12, 2008)

JrRacinFan said:


>



Throughput is what I would expect, but wow on the time! 

Anyone any good at programming to find out what this tiny app is actually doing? And where it is getting 64bm of data per core/thread from?


----------



## sneekypeet (Oct 12, 2008)

this test is GHEY I've run it 6 times and got 6 different scores?????


----------



## alexp999 (Oct 12, 2008)

sneekypeet said:


> this test is GHEY I've run it 6 times and got 6 different scores?????



I was thinking it didnt seem consistent. Just need someone to dive into the exe and find out what its doing...


----------



## erocker (Oct 12, 2008)

Yaaay! Teh awesomezzz ZOMG!!  kthnxbye!


----------



## JrRacinFan (Oct 12, 2008)

Ran it again and got very close to the same score alex.


----------



## sneekypeet (Oct 12, 2008)

hey Alex my Dual is doing the same as Jr.s on time!


----------



## Arctucas (Oct 12, 2008)

Zomg!?


----------



## alexp999 (Oct 12, 2008)

sneekypeet said:


> hey Alex my Dual is doing the same as Jr.s on time!



Maybe it only does one core at a time or something? So more cores equals longer time but better throughput


----------



## JrRacinFan (Oct 12, 2008)

If that is true my 4.6Ghz Single core would whip ass then. Lets see what happens, will post back with a ss.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 12, 2008)

As for the scoreboard ranking, it's getting ranked taking the throughput into account, this is a multi-threaded bench afterall. I'm trying to work out a formula for an index that takes into account the throughput, crunch time, thoroughput : core count ratio, etc., so the dual-core speed demons aren't left unrewarded in the rank column. Until then we'll use the throughput.


----------



## Silverel (Oct 12, 2008)




----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Oct 12, 2008)

Heres mine.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 12, 2008)

I don't get it. How come the same chip (A64X2 5000+BE) w/ higher OC perform worse  

Something isn't right with this bench.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Oct 12, 2008)

*Bench with Janet*

Celeron D 347 @ 4.6Ghz

EDIT: I think you are correct alex, its all in the throughput.


----------



## alexp999 (Oct 12, 2008)

Shut down some background tasks and it gets me back on top!  (for now at least, till someone comes waiding in with their Extreme Edition quad at a trillion Gig,  )


----------



## kid41212003 (Oct 12, 2008)

Weird, lol.


----------



## vega22 (Oct 12, 2008)

heres my 24/7 clocks





will run bench clocks w i cba


----------



## Luke (Oct 12, 2008)

This is on my laptop will do my desktop later


----------



## vega22 (Oct 12, 2008)

just looking and either tigger has his os stripped to the bone or x86 is faster than x64 :?


----------



## Binge (Oct 12, 2008)




----------



## btarunr (Oct 12, 2008)

Nice score, but are you sure about the speeds? Is EIST/ SpeedStep turned on, or something?


----------



## vega22 (Oct 12, 2008)

yea, binge is running 4.4ghz under load m8


----------



## Binge (Oct 12, 2008)

marsey99 said:


> yea, binge is running 4.4ghz under load m8



You got that right.   I can't get away from it turning itself down, nor would I want that really


----------



## Silverel (Oct 12, 2008)

btarunr said:


> I don't get it. How come the same chip (A64X2 5000+BE) w/ higher OC perform worse
> 
> Something isn't right with this bench.



It's happened before actually. I keep my memory stock, makes for less sync issues. Tends to help out in benches where memory isn't as necessary. wPrime32 did the same thing.


----------



## RadeonX2 (Oct 12, 2008)

hi I'm new here...

Q6600 @ 3.0GHz


----------



## alexp999 (Oct 12, 2008)

RadeonX2 said:


> hi I'm new here...
> 
> Q6600 @ 3.0GHz



Wtf? How can a Q6600 @ 3 Ghz be faster than mine and erockers @ 3.2Ghz 

Something defo aint right with this BM, we need a programmer to find out whats going on.


----------



## Inioch (Oct 12, 2008)

I seem to be getting quite consistent results. All within like 5% of each other.

So heres mine:


----------



## RadeonX2 (Oct 12, 2008)

alexp999 said:


> Wtf? How can a Q6600 @ 3 Ghz be faster than mine and erockers @ 3.2Ghz
> 
> Something defo aint right with this BM, we need a programmer to find out whats going on.



well that was my first run mems running 833 MHz 2x1GB kingston

here's my new bench

RadeonX2	Core 2 Quad Q6600     4104	6.864ms   38,191


----------



## JrRacinFan (Oct 12, 2008)

Hi RadeonX2!

First off, welcome to TPU! Second, whats your memory clocks and timings in that run?


----------



## RadeonX2 (Oct 12, 2008)

JrRacinFan said:


> Hi RadeonX2!
> 
> First off, welcome to TPU! Second, whats your memory clocks and timings in that run?



hi there  912MHz DDR2 5-5-5-15


----------



## JrRacinFan (Oct 12, 2008)

RadeonX2 said:


> hi there  912MHz DDR2 5-5-5-15



What board and ram you have? Maybe some CL4 timings at the same speed will crunch even more.


----------



## RadeonX2 (Oct 12, 2008)

JrRacinFan said:


> What board and ram you have? Maybe some CL4 timings at the same speed will crunch even more.



this is a year old PC 

board is Asus Commando cant do CL4 timings anymore Im using a crappy Kingston value rams


----------



## Luke (Oct 12, 2008)

my desktop

the weird thing is that it is slower then my laptop when my desktop is faster in every other cpu test


----------



## Mussels (Oct 12, 2008)

and my contribution.






9,475ms
27,667 KCU's (ZOMG!)

highest throughput belong to me


----------



## JrRacinFan (Oct 12, 2008)

RadeonX2 said:


> this is a year old PC
> 
> board is Asus Commando cant do CL4 timings anymore Im using a crappy Kingston value rams



Ahhh good ole Asus Commando! And your runnin a quad on that  . . . .  P965 Goodness! Yeah, thats one thing you cant do CL4 at high fsb 

@Mussells

I hate to disappoint but RadeonX2 has the highest right now. Also, not a bad run!


----------



## Mussels (Oct 12, 2008)

JrRacinFan said:


> @Mussels
> 
> I hate to disappoint but RadeonX2 has the highest right now. Also, not a bad run!



damnnnnnnnnnnnn him. why cant i ever make it 1st in the benchies threads.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 12, 2008)




----------



## DOM (Oct 12, 2008)




----------



## merkk (Oct 12, 2008)

Phenom 9850BE clock @3.107 ghz


----------



## RadeonX2 (Oct 12, 2008)

ei guys I have suggestion why not separate Intel processors from AMD processors column so that AMD will have its own top 1 in benchmarking


----------



## btarunr (Oct 12, 2008)

From the results so far, it can be deduced that:

The results get very inconsistent sometimes
The test is multi-threaded, quad-core chips have a genuine advantage over dual-core ones
The test is cache-intensive
Having a broad system bus helps (effective FSB for Intel, HyperTransport link speed for AMD)
The test flows large amounts of data through the available cores/threads


----------



## ascstinger (Oct 12, 2008)

2.0Ghz (200x10) AMD Sempron (aka neutered athlon xp)


----------



## Boneface (Oct 12, 2008)

Well heres mine


----------



## Zehnsucht (Oct 12, 2008)

How about a scoring system, throughput/time = LOL.OMG generic cpu bench points?


----------



## Binge (Oct 12, 2008)

lol wow a xenon and q6600 are the reigning champs


----------



## Zehnsucht (Oct 12, 2008)

Binge said:


> lol wow a xenon and q6600 are the reigning champs



X3350 = Q9450


----------



## btarunr (Oct 12, 2008)

Let's not have an AMD-Intel demarcation, but how about a dual-quad demarcation? A lot of these C2D scores are mighty impressive.


----------



## DOM (Oct 12, 2008)




----------



## Fitseries3 (Oct 12, 2008)

e7200 at 3.18ghz...






gonna try the e8600 at 5ghz now.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Oct 12, 2008)

q6600 at 3.9ghz


----------



## NastyHabits (Oct 12, 2008)

Still won't run on my P-35, but here's my score on my lowly (and ancient) Prescott P4 @ 3.0 GHz.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Oct 12, 2008)

e8600 @ 4.6ghz fastest time yet i believe


----------



## btarunr (Oct 12, 2008)

omfg!

I'll split the dual and quad core lists.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Oct 12, 2008)

btarunr said:


> omfg!



more coming....


----------



## DOM (Oct 12, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> e8600 @ 4.6ghz fastest time yet i believe



damn you  

i need a 8600 or 8500 but gots no money 

still got the Highest Throughput


----------



## wolf2009 (Oct 12, 2008)

Q9450 @ stock


----------



## roofsniper (Oct 12, 2008)

cpu clock isn't everything for this program. the memory plays a big role as well. so you could have better ram but have a lower cpu clock and still beat a a cpu with a better clock but slower ram.


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 12, 2008)

well i took a look at the program for you guys i havent dove into it a whole lot...but i may beable to explain the diffirences in scores.


the program reserves 64mb of data for each core present on the system. It then forces all this data at one time through the cache of the CPU. however through the 64mb that it allocates it allocates this data in 3 diffirent types

16bit data
32bit data
64bit data

and allocates 16mb for each bit type. the diffireces in scores will probably var because it is mapping 16mb of 16bit info in a matrix fashion and so on and so forth since in programs like sciencemark it takes longer time to process higher matrix levels of data the same assumption can be made here. the scores may differ by alot or a little because since were dealing with small its of data in the cache any diffirence can affect the scores greately at that speed. For example opening the start manu and letting it run as apposed to having it closed are things that could affect its score much like it chaning from 3:59 to 4:00 could.


----------



## Particle (Oct 12, 2008)

Hey guys.  I was surprised to see this thing spreading around here this morning.  I wrote it yesterday for a few of us over at XS to play around with.  I see there are a lot of questions about how this thing ticks.  I'd be happy to answer some questions if you'd like.  I'm just thrilled to see people having fun with it.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 12, 2008)

Tell us more about it. Keep up the good work!


----------



## DOM (Oct 12, 2008)

btarunr my last run was at 3.8GHz 

well vista 64bit its slower @ 3.6GHz
8.550ms
30,660 KCU/s


----------



## Particle (Oct 12, 2008)

Over on another forum, we were having a discussion about SuperPI and if it was a relevant indication of CPU speed (stemming from the AMD vs Intel performance it demonstrates), and I decided to make a humorously themed benchmark ("Generic CPU Benchmark") to throw into the discussion for us to play with.  At first, I was going to implement a Pi-solving algorithm, but after ten minutes or so into the project I thought--"Don't we have enough of these already?"  So, I decided to go a different direction.  Instead of finding Pi, I decided to test the sorts of commonly used mathematical operations that make up real programs.  This includes a battery of operations such as multiplication, division, modulo, square roots, etc.  Since real programs pull data from somewhere, manipulate it, and put it back, I also decided to it would be more realistic to manipulate a large data set than just play exclusively in the CPU's cache.  As such, this program benefits from _both_ raw CPU speed and also memory speed--just like real apps do.  Despite the humorous interface, the core of the app is a serious crunching routine.

The indicated throughput (KCU/s) is a real reflection on the amount of work done by your system.  It may vary between runs a bit, but that is reflective of what's actually going on on your computer at the time.  Time elapsed doesn't necessarily mean everything.  For example, a single-core processor with hyper-threading for instance will end up running two worker threads.  While each would take longer to complete than a single one would on the same CPU, it is crunching a dataset that is twice as large.  As such, throughput will likely be a little higher despite the longer completion time.


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 12, 2008)

Looks good, I'll give this one a try sometime!


----------



## btarunr (Oct 12, 2008)

@ Particle: How would you explain the somewhat significant spread in scores between runs? Do build on this idea. Teh interwebs needs multi-threaded benches.


----------



## roofsniper (Oct 12, 2008)

i don;t know what problems people are having with getting different scores. i have ran the benchmark around 200 times and everytime i have ran it it is around 10 points of my normal score except for the first run after system startup.


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 12, 2008)

Here's my go......Q9650 @ 4.410gig................


----------



## Fitseries3 (Oct 13, 2008)

ROFL!!!!!

you cant touch this!


----------



## DOM (Oct 13, 2008)

i cant see it


----------



## btarunr (Oct 13, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> ROFL!!!!!
> 
> you cant touch this!



I can't see it either.  Bigger image pls 

(the CPU-Z, I mean)


----------



## Fitseries3 (Oct 13, 2008)

ok.... now look ^^^


----------



## Binge (Oct 13, 2008)

I loled, good job Fit


----------



## Fitseries3 (Oct 13, 2008)

5.2ghz....


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 13, 2008)

Not much throughput there


----------



## Fitseries3 (Oct 13, 2008)

no but time looks good.


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 13, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> no but time looks good.



VERY good, but he's right, it is a bit erratic, I just ran it again at my 24/7 speed of 4gig, all proggies open, nothing tweaked and beat my 4.4gig score...........


----------



## Fitseries3 (Oct 13, 2008)

i ran it like 12 times to see if i could get a lower score and it was really close every time.


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 13, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> i ran it like 12 times to see if i could get a lower score and it was really close every time.



Lol, just ran it again, exactly the same but I had the last pic still pasted in my clipboard aka virtual memory and even better again at 4gig..............


----------



## Particle (Oct 13, 2008)

26,000 KCU/s?  That's more than I get on my AMD quad.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 13, 2008)

Phenoms with HT 3.0 fare better than those on HT 1.1 (2000 MT/s) interfaces.


----------



## vega22 (Oct 13, 2008)

i still think 86/64 has big impact on this bm and should be in the tables.

i also think that with this bm being so lightweight that having background app/services running has little impact because it uses so little resource.

it seems to like low latency and high clocks, but dont we all


----------



## Fitseries3 (Oct 13, 2008)

btarunr... idk if ya saw but... my 5.2ghz bench is better than my 5ghz run. i'll have more soon as well. i got one at 5.3ghz but didnt grab the screeny off of the bench computer for posting here.



q9650 soon


----------



## Zehnsucht (Oct 13, 2008)

E6600 @ 3.2 GHz


----------



## roofsniper (Oct 13, 2008)

marsey99 said:


> i still think 86/64 has big impact on this bm and should be in the tables.
> 
> i also think that with this bm being so lightweight that having background app/services running has little impact because it uses so little resource.
> 
> it seems to like low latency and high clocks, but dont we all



it puts all cpu cores on 100% load and uses 200mb of ram. with firefox on in the background in got 200 Kcus off my normal score.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 13, 2008)

@roofsniper- pl. post a larger image. Use TPU's free image hosting.


----------



## RadeonX2 (Oct 13, 2008)

that Xeon will be needing a little bit more stretch in OC like 4ghz+


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 13, 2008)

here is mine:


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 13, 2008)

a better run:


----------



## AphexDreamer (Oct 13, 2008)

How are the older Phenoms doing better than the newer ones?


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 13, 2008)

AphexDreamer said:


> How are the older Phenoms doing better than the newer ones?



Don't know bro, I'll tell you something, my 9850BE was faster clock for clock than my 9950.  Guess I just didn't get a good chip this time around.  I got the 0831 CPCW stepping, the ones that are pretty quick and do 3.6 Ghz pretty much out the box are the 0836 DPDW stepping 9950's, unluckily I wansn't able to get a hold of one


----------



## btarunr (Oct 13, 2008)

Next scoreboard update this Wednesday. Thanks for the tests so far.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 13, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Next scoreboard update this Wednesday. Thanks for the tests so far.



no problem dude, great little benchmark, and its quick to do!!


----------



## xu^ (Oct 13, 2008)

Q6600


----------



## xu^ (Oct 13, 2008)

E7200 @ 3.2ghz


----------



## DOM (Oct 13, 2008)

RadeonX2 said:


> that Xeon will be needing a little bit more stretch in OC like 4ghz+



well thats all this old mobo lets me go  it was fun while it lasted


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Oct 13, 2008)




----------



## Mussels (Oct 13, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


>



hahahah, oh shit man.


----------



## oli_ramsay (Oct 13, 2008)

Here be mine^

CPU e8400 @ 4ghz


----------



## wolf2009 (Oct 13, 2008)

Having fun at work


----------



## Luke (Oct 13, 2008)

Well here is my Dual P3 800mhz server


----------



## Particle (Oct 13, 2008)

I'm going to publish a version that's locked into running in 32-bit when I get home.  That should help even things out since this program just won't run as fast in 64-bit no matter what I do to it.


----------



## Silverel (Oct 13, 2008)




----------



## Deleted member 3 (Oct 13, 2008)

Now get me that 32 bit version


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 13, 2008)

A small improvement, again just at 4gig...........


----------



## wolf2009 (Oct 14, 2008)

Q9450 @ 3.2 Ghz


----------



## freakshow (Oct 14, 2008)

here is mine E7200 @ 4Ghz


----------



## btarunr (Oct 15, 2008)

- Scoreboards Updated with fresh entries

- Added new scoreboard for multi-socket setups


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Oct 15, 2008)

I took the liberty of forcing it to 32 bit mode, added it to this thread. (post #1 that is)


----------



## mullered07 (Oct 15, 2008)

heres mine cpu at 4ghz


----------



## Inioch (Oct 15, 2008)

Here is my lappy try.


----------



## NastyHabits (Oct 16, 2008)

I got it to run at last.  Here's my results:


----------



## ASharp (Oct 16, 2008)

Well, here's my result. Oddly, it seems to buck the trend of others as I'm at a lowly 3GHz on my 9850 but I'm passing others with higher clocks.


----------



## Boneface (Oct 16, 2008)

Heres my new one


----------



## Luke (Oct 16, 2008)

Update of my desktop rig using the 32 bit version big difference


----------



## Mussels (Oct 16, 2008)

x86 version

weirdly, it still says x64?


edit: redownloaded and it worked. guess there was a bad up for a while.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Oct 16, 2008)

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


----------



## lemonadesoda (Oct 16, 2008)

My results on 2.7Ghz Q6600 AGP 2GB DDR1 system.

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







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?


----------



## Mussels (Oct 16, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> 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



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.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Oct 16, 2008)

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.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 16, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> 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.



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


----------



## freakshow (Oct 17, 2008)

here is an update on mine score 7200 @ 4.17ghz and mem 1100mhz


----------



## theonetruewill (Oct 17, 2008)

time: 5,746ms
throughput: 22,811 KCU/s

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


----------



## SLK320 (Oct 17, 2008)




----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 17, 2008)

SLK320 said:


>



nice clock bro, Have you had any luck going any higher?


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 18, 2008)

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   Idle temps at 31C.....low 60's load.


----------



## xu^ (Oct 19, 2008)

Download rig


----------



## xu^ (Oct 19, 2008)

Q6600 @3.2ghz in 32bit mode


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 19, 2008)

Tried a run at 4.5gig on the Q9650, gets a bit toasty at load at that speed and voltage.....anyone smell burning? 

5.387
48,662


----------



## RadeonX2 (Oct 19, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> Tried a run at 4.5gig on the Q9650, gets a bit toasty at load at that speed and voltage.....anyone smell burning?
> 
> 5.387
> 48,662



insane


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 19, 2008)

RadeonX2 said:


> insane



Not sure if thats an insult or compliment ....but thanked you anyways!


----------



## RadeonX2 (Oct 19, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> Not sure if thats an insult or compliment ....but thanked you anyways!



lol dude I will never ever insult any1 here so that's a compliment lol 

freaking fast chip u got there...


----------



## lemonadesoda (Oct 19, 2008)

lemonadesoda said:


> My results on 2.7Ghz Q6600 AGP 2GB DDR1 system.
> 
> time: 10,478ms
> thru: 25,019 KCU/s


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?


----------



## btarunr (Oct 20, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> Tried a run at 4.5gig on the Q9650, gets a bit toasty at load at that speed and voltage.....anyone smell burning?
> 
> 5.387
> 48,662



Whoa! easy..you wouldn't want to be left with a ₤300 cookie. It's not even edible


----------



## roofsniper (Oct 20, 2008)

lemonadesoda said:


> 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?



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.


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Oct 20, 2008)

here's a new submission by me, turns out 32bit mode seems to yield a higher score?? idk what that's all about.


----------



## wolf2009 (Oct 20, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> Tried a run at 4.5gig on the Q9650, gets a bit toasty at load at that speed and voltage.....anyone smell burning?
> 
> 5.387
> 48,662



u gotta change your custom title


----------



## MKmods (Oct 20, 2008)

can I play too...


----------



## Mussels (Oct 20, 2008)

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.


----------



## xu^ (Oct 20, 2008)

lemonadesoda said:


> 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?



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.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Oct 20, 2008)

^^ 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.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Oct 20, 2008)

lemonadesoda said:


> ^^ 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.



Read the thread.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Oct 20, 2008)

anandtech said:
			
		

> The other macro-ops fusion enhancement is that now 64-bit instructions can be fused together, whereas in the past only 32-bit instructions could be. It’s a slight performance improvement but 64-bit code could see a performance improvement on Nehalem


Fundamentally, on Core 2 is better executing 32 bit code than 64 bit code. The ONLY time 64-bit code will win over 32 bit code is when using shed loads of 64-bit data, which can be done "in one step" rather than multiple step under 32 bit.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Oct 20, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Read the thread.


I dont find that a helpful, friendly or useful comment in any way. 

The OP has been frequently updated. There is no request to use and report ONLY the x86 bench. The scoreboard needs to be ONE or the OTHER, or there needs to be TWO scoreboards. Clarity required in OP.

DONT make users have to read 156 posts for some buried information that you have at your fingertips.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 20, 2008)

lemonadesoda said:


> I dont find that a helpful, friendly or useful comment in any way.
> 
> The OP has been frequently updated. There is no request to use one bench or the other. The scoreboard needs to be ONE or the OTHER, or there needs to be TWO scoreboards.



everyones moved over to the x86 version as it gives faster results. when i posted results in x64, i was told to use the x86 version.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Oct 20, 2008)

Although it is a bit of work for btar, then AMD64 results should therefore be taken out of the table, and the OP should mention this requirement.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Oct 20, 2008)

lemonadesoda said:


> I dont find that a helpful, friendly or useful comment in any way.
> 
> The OP has been frequently updated. There is no request to use one bench or the other. The scoreboard needs to be ONE or the OTHER, or there needs to be TWO scoreboards.



Yet the problem and solution are both in this thread, so reading it is both helpful and useful. Would it be friendlier if I'd give you a lolly or icecream when you're reading it? Or does that only work for dentists?


----------



## lemonadesoda (Oct 20, 2008)

Try not to be so grumpy in the morning.  The problem is rudeness. The solution is courtesy and information.

You're right, they're both in the thread!

P.S. I'll call you on the ice-cream please.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 20, 2008)

lemonadesoda said:


> Try not to be so grumpy in the morning.  The problem is rudeness. The solution is courtesy and information.
> 
> You're right, they're both in the thread!
> 
> P.S. I'll call you on the ice-cream please.



grab me a cornetto on the way, plz.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Oct 20, 2008)

lemonadesoda said:


> Try not to be so grumpy in the morning.  The problem is rudeness. The solution is courtesy and information.
> 
> You're right, they're both in the thread!
> 
> P.S. I'll call you on the ice-cream please.




Agreed, courtesy = read the thread. According to your logic we have the same discussion every page because people should not read the thread. If you take the courtesy to read up on a thread it won't get stuck in an endless loophole. 

Also I do agree that bta could add the information to the op, that's a different matter though.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 20, 2008)

it doesnt matter if the scoreboards include x86 or x64, because it seems x86 is faster on every system. That means, anyone can run the x86 and compare to everyone else.

We would only need a seperate scoreboard, if x64 was faster, and therefore not everyone could run it.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 20, 2008)

Originally, the app was made such that it will run 64-bit in a 64-bit environment. So it's by your choice, you're forcing it to run 32-bit, why should I prescribe which app you run? As for mentioning in the scoreboards, it will make a clutter out of an already sumo 1st post. I can add a column on the first table mentioning which environment the thing was run on, but wouldn't the take the fun off ranking people based on the throughput, and the remarks? Those who secured high scores in 64-bit and left, would be owned by people who optionally chose to force 32-bit in a 64-bit environment. Your environment is part of your system, just as your processor. The app should behave in relation to your environment, so I wouldn't spoil the scoreboards with "he has the highest score, but he forced 32-bit on 64-bit". Let it be abstract. If someone is interested in how you did it, he'll be a nice student and go through the thread. If you benched on 64-bit and want an improved score, use the second app..you choose what to bench it on.

There are people who benched on 64-bit and left the thread, so I'm neither removing the original app, nor removing 64-bit entries.

Added a little note for newcomers to this thread.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Oct 20, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Originally, the app was made such that it will run 64-bit in a 64-bit environment. So it's by your choice, you're forcing it to run 32-bit, why should I prescribe which app you run?



You don't have to prescribe, though some pointers on how to improve scores are welcomed by many.


----------



## SLK320 (Oct 20, 2008)

Scores in x86 mode.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 20, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> You don't have to prescribe, though some pointers on how to improve scores are welcomed by many.



Alright, added that hint.


----------



## Xtant25 (Oct 20, 2008)

*Heres mine E8600 @ 5250Mhz On Modded Mach II Phasechange.*


----------



## MKmods (Oct 20, 2008)

Yea AMD, ever upward





I switched memory to 1T


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 20, 2008)

^^hey MKMOds, great scores dude, I just got my new ram, so time to play


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 21, 2008)

looks like running forced 32 bit did a huge difference for me.  My best at 3.4 GHz was about 23.5K.  Now at 3.2GHz I got 28242


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 21, 2008)

best run till date


----------



## OzzmanFloyd120 (Oct 21, 2008)

Man, I wish I had access to my phenom rig right now


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 21, 2008)

OzzmanFloyd120 said:


> Man, I wish I had access to my phenom rig right now



where is it?


----------



## OzzmanFloyd120 (Oct 21, 2008)

Chicken Patty said:


> where is it?



It's up in Traverse City at my parent's house. I'm moving and I left it up there because it's a bulky PC and the wifi on it was giving me crap. Right now I'm using the rig from my case mod.


----------



## MKmods (Oct 21, 2008)

sweet, broke 30K


----------



## Silverel (Oct 21, 2008)

Yeah... the server was actually running when I did this. Scores might be a little low


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 21, 2008)

Does anyone actually know what this application is working with?  Is it using addition, subtraction, multiplication, and/or division?  Is it operating on floating-point decimals or integers?  Are they 64-bit or 32-bit operations?  Does it only support up to 4 cores?


----------



## Particle (Oct 21, 2008)

Sorry I took so long.  When I get home from work, I often don't feel like doing much of anything except watch an episode of DS9 and relax.  

For anyone who wants it, here's an x86 locked version.  It also reports how the individual threads behave.

Edit:
Looks like I'm a little late to the party on this one.  Someone use Corflags?


----------



## OzzmanFloyd120 (Oct 21, 2008)

Anybody else just get this error message when they try to open it?


----------



## Particle (Oct 21, 2008)

You need the .NET 2.0 framework.

.NET 2.0 Framework x86
.NET 2.0 Framework x86-64


----------



## roofsniper (Oct 21, 2008)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Does anyone actually know what this application is working with?  Is it using addition, subtraction, multiplication, and/or division?  Is it operating on floating-point decimals or integers?  Are they 64-bit or 32-bit operations?  Does it only support up to 4 cores?



it probably does as many cores as you have. the highest i have seen is 8 cores so far.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 21, 2008)

hey mk mods, it just keeps getting better and better for you


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Oct 21, 2008)

Particle said:


> Sorry I took so long.  When I get home from work, I often don't feel like doing much of anything except watch an episode of DS9 and relax.
> 
> For anyone who wants it, here's an x86 locked version.  It also reports how the individual threads behave.
> 
> ...



Guilty.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 22, 2008)

roofsniper said:


> it probably does as many cores as you have. the highest i have seen is 8 cores so far.


This is what prompted me to ask:
http://img.techpowerup.org/081021/Capture002.jpg

It's a quad-core and the "Processor" combobox is not grayed out meaning more than one is installed.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 22, 2008)

FordGT90Concept said:


> This is what prompted me to ask:
> http://img.techpowerup.org/081021/Capture002.jpg
> 
> It's a quad-core and the "Processor" combobox is not grayed out meaning more than one is installed.



5130 is a dual-core. It shows 4 threads since there might be two of those installed. Updating scores...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 22, 2008)

btarunr said:


> 5130 is a dual-core. It shows 4 threads since there might be two of those installed. Updating scores...


Ah, 5310/5130.  Oops.  Someone is gonna slap me...


I ran it on my comps (x64 and x86) I attached the results...

Server is 2 x Xeon 5310 @ 1.6 GHz w/ 8 GB RAM
BY-2005 is Opteron 180 @ 2.4 GHz w/ 3 GB RAM

Neither are overclocked...

x86 scored consistently better than x64 dispite being on AMD64 (XP x64) and EM64T (Server 2003 x64).


----------



## Melvis (Oct 22, 2008)

Here is mine, not that good is it? =/  Stock speeds 2.8


----------



## btarunr (Oct 22, 2008)

Updated scores. Good to see Dan having company in the multi-socket chart.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Server is 2 x Xeon 5310 @ 1.6 GHz w/ 8 GB RAM



Say, is that a L5310, the same chips Dan is using?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 22, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Say, is that a L5310, the same chips Dan is using?


The "L" version is low power.  Mine definitely aren't.  They'll run at 80+C if you let em. XD

I'm writing a "CrawlerBench" application by the way.  It will be capable of running no fewer than 16 different benchmarks.


----------



## Melvis (Oct 22, 2008)

Wait a sec does that mean my score comes in at second spot for the single core scores?


----------



## OzzmanFloyd120 (Oct 22, 2008)

Thanks for the help guys


----------



## btarunr (Oct 22, 2008)

Bigger screenie please?


----------



## OzzmanFloyd120 (Oct 22, 2008)

Sorry, for some reason TPU has been scaling down my images lately.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Oct 22, 2008)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The "L" version is low power.  Mine definitely aren't.  They'll run at 80+C if you let em. XD



Mine top at around 65C with fans on lowest. Then again mine don't run at stock speeds.


----------



## mlee49 (Oct 22, 2008)

e8200@3.2GHz

Three run average:

7696 ms
17033 KCU/s


----------



## Silverel (Oct 22, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Updated scores. Good to see Dan having company in the multi-socket chart.



Yar, my new job is in the Server group at my company. I do Build and Deploy, with a bit of R&D and prototyping. At the moment, I'm working on a Boot from SAN setup with failover capabilities. The last group couldn't get it working right, so they gave it to me to handle on my own. It's fun so far. lol

I was going to post an SS of the Server that is currently booting off the storage drives, but the scores were marginal differences. Maybe when I get some different hardware to play with I'll come back.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Oct 22, 2008)

Now leave me my score alone tatty.


----------



## dipsta (Oct 22, 2008)

qx9650@4.45ghz

49393 th
5775 crunch


----------



## chuck216 (Oct 23, 2008)

Here's my Athlon 64 X2 5600+ Brisbane at stock speeds:


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 23, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Mine top at around 65C with fans on lowest. Then again mine don't run at stock speeds.


Mine are at stock and with the fans running at "full throttle" (~3000 RPM), it scratches at 60C under full, 8-core load.  At the lowest speed, the processors run at 80-84C.  When it gets close to 85C you can hear the fan RPMs skyrocket to 6000 RPM to bring it back down a bit.  Mine run hot, real hot (80w TDP vs 50w TDP).


----------



## JrRacinFan (Oct 23, 2008)

*Update! Add this*


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 23, 2008)

Fook, Dan's above me again!


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Oct 23, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> Fook, Dan's above me again!



Once I changed cooling I might be able to go higher. Voltage is still only at 1.3v.
Just need some time and space to install all the crap. And need a small piece of tubing.


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 23, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Once I changed cooling I might be able to go higher. Voltage is still only at 1.3v.
> Just need some time and space to install all the crap. And need a small piece of tubing.



Naaaa dont bother Dan, if you get too far ahead I wont be able to catch U!


----------



## overclocker (Oct 24, 2008)

i got 10,132 on a gateway FX


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 24, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> Naaaa dont bother Dan, if you get too far ahead I wont be able to catch U!



 LOL  Great advise hehe.


----------



## jbunch07 (Oct 24, 2008)

here is mine at stock speed.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 24, 2008)

tonight, i'm going to be doing some testing with two cores and then with three cores enabled.  See what effect it has on the score and things like that.  Should be interesting.


----------



## jbunch07 (Oct 24, 2008)

3Ghz run.


----------



## overclocker (Oct 24, 2008)

overclocker said:


> i got 10,132 on a gateway FX



Hey i want to be added


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 24, 2008)

overclocker said:


> Hey i want to be added



you gotta wait until they do the next update dude.


----------



## roofsniper (Oct 25, 2008)

Chicken Patty said:


> tonight, i'm going to be doing some testing with two cores and then with three cores enabled.  See what effect it has on the score and things like that.  Should be interesting.



hmmmm i never thought about doing that. sounds like a good idea tho id like to see how it comes out.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 25, 2008)

roofsniper said:


> hmmmm i never thought about doing that. sounds like a good idea tho id like to see how it comes out.




http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=73298&page=12

start from post 279


----------



## overclocker (Oct 25, 2008)

lol kk


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 25, 2008)

overclocker said:


> lol kk



I did those results myself last night, pretty interesting if you ask me.


----------



## jbunch07 (Oct 25, 2008)

So it looks like a 500Mhz OC was good for ruffly 3500 more. Going by my stock and OCed run.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 25, 2008)

Hey Jbunch, does your mobo support CPU tweak???


----------



## jbunch07 (Oct 25, 2008)

Not that I'm aware of, I've never seen it in the bios, but then again I've never looked for it, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 25, 2008)

jbunch07 said:


> Not that I'm aware of, I've never seen it in the bios, but then again I've never looked for it, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't.



yeah I think only the ASUS boards have it.  My M3A32 had it and my M3A79 have it.  I enabled it and it made a really big difference in performance, thought if maybe you had it off, you can enable it and see a boost too!


----------



## jbunch07 (Oct 25, 2008)

Chicken Patty said:


> yeah I think only the ASUS boards have it.  My M3A32 had it and my M3A79 have it.  I enabled it and it made a really big difference in performance, thought if maybe you had it off, you can enable it and see a boost too!



Well the next time in my BIOS tinkering around I'll look for it.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 25, 2008)

jbunch07 said:


> Well the next time in my BIOS tinkering around I'll look for it.



Cool, let me know if you have it or find it.


----------



## jbunch07 (Oct 25, 2008)

Ok sure thing.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 25, 2008)

ha, I almost beat my old score at 3.3 GHz, only that I am at 3.2 GHz now


----------



## jbunch07 (Oct 25, 2008)

It's interesting how this benchmark works, sometimes its consistent and sometimes its not. When my cpu was at stock speed it would give me the exact same result every time.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 25, 2008)

jbunch07 said:


> It's interesting how this benchmark works, sometimes its consistent and sometimes its not. When my cpu was at stock speed it would give me the exact same result every time.



same result as mine, or just consistent??


----------



## jbunch07 (Oct 25, 2008)

Well my cpu at 3ghz got me 21,323 your at 3.2ghz got you 26873 that a 200mhz difference with ruffly a 6k score difference, however my cpu OCed 500mhz only gave me about 3500 score difference... see what im saying?


----------



## vega22 (Oct 25, 2008)

Particle said:


> I'm going to publish a version that's locked into running in 32-bit when I get home.  That should help even things out since this program just won't run as fast in 64-bit no matter what I do to it.



so i wasnt tripping  going to have a bash with 32bit version


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 25, 2008)

jbunch07 said:


> Well my cpu at 3ghz got me 21,323 your at 3.2ghz got you 26873 that a 200mhz difference with ruffly a 6k score difference, however my cpu OCed 500mhz only gave me about 3500 score difference... see what im saying?



yeah I do.  I got you now.  Yeah it is pretty inconsistent at times, but its a pretty good benchmark nonetheless.


----------



## jbunch07 (Oct 25, 2008)

Chicken Patty said:


> yeah I do.  I got you now.  Yeah it is pretty inconsistent at times, but its a pretty good benchmark nonetheless.



yeah, I like it it's very simple and to the point!


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 25, 2008)

jbunch07 said:


> yeah, I like it it's very simple and to the point!



yeah thats why i like it too!  Plus its quick


----------



## vega22 (Oct 25, 2008)

*Add Me*

crispy cornflakes a level benchmark field and a good card on for ufc tonight, its a good day 











fyi i left the thread as it was clear that my 64bit os was being retarded for what ever reason and i still think that it should be noted in the charts.


----------



## Black Panther (Oct 25, 2008)

*Desktop E4300 1.8Ghz @ 3.0Ghz:*





*Laptop Q9450 2.66Ghz @ stock:*


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 25, 2008)

^^^thats not a bad score for a Q9450 inside a lappy


----------



## jbunch07 (Oct 25, 2008)

I dont even want to know what my lappy scores, It has an Intel Mobile at 1.4ghz


----------



## DirkDiggler (Oct 25, 2008)

Not bad for a CPU that I bought for $75 bucks, can't wait for my Q6600 to come in the mail, then we'll see how she really does.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Oct 25, 2008)

Awwe cmon Dirk you can do better, I know your chips got more than that in it. What's your ram speed and timings set at?

PS:Welcome to TPU!


----------



## modder (Oct 25, 2008)

Q9450@3616 Mhz 
http://img.techpowerup.org/081025/Capture005117.jpg


----------



## DirkDiggler (Oct 25, 2008)

JrRacinFan said:


> Awwe cmon Dirk you can do better, I know your chips got more than that in it. What's your ram speed and timings set at?
> 
> PS:Welcome to TPU!




This chip will do 3.4 with some more vcore, but gets too hot under my Tuniq cooler.  I just set it to 400x8 and put the RAM on the 2 divider, set it and forget it type OCing lol.  I used to spend weeks messing with RAM timings etc when I was playing with my DFI NF4-SLI-DR, but that gets quite old after a while.  RAM timings are stock 5-5-5-15 2T @ 800MHz.  Thanks for the warm welcome.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Oct 25, 2008)

DirkDiggler said:


> This chip will do 3.4 with some more vcore, but gets too hot under my Tuniq cooler.  I just set it to 400x8 and put the RAM on the 2 divider, set it and forget it type OCing lol.  I used to spend weeks messing with RAM timings etc when I was playing with my DFI NF4-SLI-DR, but that gets quite old after a while.  RAM timings are stock 5-5-5-15 2T @ 800MHz.  Thanks for the warm welcome.



Completely understood. I was just thinking since you go tthe quad coming, just give it hell and clock the crap outta it


----------



## Black Panther (Oct 25, 2008)

Next Monday I want to bench the Celeron 333Mhz I had taken to work...


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 25, 2008)

welcome aboard Dirk, keep the results coming, if it gets too hot, put your rig inside your freezer heheheh.


----------



## theonetruewill (Oct 27, 2008)

Update to my score:
Crunch: 5651
Throughput: 23194


----------



## jbunch07 (Oct 27, 2008)

Oh this is just sad!


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 28, 2008)

^^^hahaha, come on, its still running strong at least


----------



## MKmods (Oct 28, 2008)

Ha Ha.. Mark = Last Place




do you think if I plug in a 9800GTX X2 it will bottleneck the cpu?


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 28, 2008)

MKmods said:


> Ha Ha.. Mark = Last Place
> 
> 
> 
> ...



damn haha, 1.6v for 1.2 GHz.  How much would it take to have that puppy running at 5.0 GHz. hehehehehe 10 stage LN2 cooling+ cascade+DICE+water, all inside a freezer heheheh.  Oh and 3.0vcore


----------



## Binge (Oct 28, 2008)

theonetruewill said:


> Update to my score:
> Crunch: 5651
> Throughput: 23194



That's an 8400?!!?  omfg


----------



## btarunr (Oct 28, 2008)

MKmods said:


> Ha Ha.. Mark = Last Place



Not yet.



MKmods said:


> do you think if I plug in a 9800GTX X2 it will bottleneck the cpu?



If you find s462 + PCI-Express boards


----------



## Binge (Oct 28, 2008)

This is all I can muster with my E8600 @4.4ghz :-.  I wonder what you guys are doing to get those results.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 28, 2008)

Binge said:


> This is all I can muster with my E8600 @4.4ghz :-.  I wonder what you guys are doing to get those results.



they're running the x86 version, as you should be.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 28, 2008)

Binge said:


> This is all I can muster with my E8600 @4.4ghz :-.  I wonder what you guys are doing to get those results.



Running the second app that's attached to the 1st post. It will force x86 mode.

.beaten.


----------



## Binge (Oct 28, 2008)

Worse scores... Why would I run x86?


----------



## jbunch07 (Oct 28, 2008)

X86 run at 2.9Ghz


----------



## Mussels (Oct 28, 2008)

Binge said:


> Worse scores... Why would I run x86?



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


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 28, 2008)

Binge said:


> 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 (Oct 28, 2008)

with x86, same setup as before 4.4ghz


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 28, 2008)

^^^weird


----------



## Binge (Oct 28, 2008)

Fixed!  Ram was running at 533 instead of 710


----------



## Black Panther (Oct 28, 2008)

*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 (Oct 28, 2008)

LOL needs more rams!


----------



## Black Panther (Oct 28, 2008)

jbunch07 said:


> 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 (Oct 28, 2008)

Black Panther said:


> *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 (Oct 28, 2008)

btarunr said:


> 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! 



btarunr said:


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


Hilarious!


----------



## jbunch07 (Oct 28, 2008)

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


----------



## Black Panther (Oct 28, 2008)

jbunch07 said:


> 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 (Oct 28, 2008)

Black Panther said:


> *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 (Oct 28, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Black Panther said:
> 
> 
> > *Btarunr*, do you know what is the minimum requirements to run this test? /QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## btarunr (Oct 28, 2008)

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 (Oct 28, 2008)

btarunr said:


> 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 (Oct 28, 2008)

btarunr said:


> 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 (Oct 28, 2008)

Binge said:


> 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 (Oct 28, 2008)

jbunch07 said:


> 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_One (Oct 28, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> 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 (Oct 28, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> 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 (Oct 28, 2008)

Chicken Patty said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2008)

Binge said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2008)

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.


----------



## RadeonX2 (Oct 29, 2008)

here's my run Q6600 @ 3GHz running @ single core 

EDIT:


----------



## RadeonX2 (Oct 29, 2008)

new run:

can I be posted at single core category?

Q6600 @ 3.6GHz on single core


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 29, 2008)

Binge said:


> 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.



so I guess this board has its advantages.  4GHz at ultra low voltages heheheh.


----------



## DirkDiggler (Nov 1, 2008)

Got the Q6600 G0 in, used the same bios settings as my old E2160; 400x8, RAM :2, Auto Vcore.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Nov 1, 2008)

*dirkdiggler* mind a shot of CPUz for that run?  Would be nice to see what clocks and stuff.


----------



## DirkDiggler (Nov 1, 2008)

Chicken Patty said:


> *dirkdiggler* mind a shot of CPUz for that run?  Would be nice to see what clocks and stuff.




My bad, updated previous post and bettered the score a bit somehow.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Nov 1, 2008)

DirkDiggler said:


> My bad, updated previous post and bettered the score a bit somehow.



thanks bro, thats a nice score buddy


----------



## ascstinger (Nov 2, 2008)

ran about 20 times to try and knock that pentium 4 out with my eeepc... might have a go with oc'ing and see If I cant post something similar to what the sempron chucked out





atom (singlecore, with HT) @ 1.6Ghz


----------



## RadeonX2 (Nov 2, 2008)

tnx 4 updating

here's my run again on different cores

Q6600 3.6GHz DUAL-core











Q6600 3.6GHz TRI-core


----------



## jbunch07 (Nov 2, 2008)

you forgot me partner. 

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1036232&postcount=251


----------



## btarunr (Nov 2, 2008)

I'm sorry, updated.


----------



## jbunch07 (Nov 2, 2008)

thank you sir!


----------



## Fitseries3 (Nov 3, 2008)




----------



## Arctucas (Nov 3, 2008)

New score with the 'Forced' version and a FSB bump.


----------



## Binge (Nov 3, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


>



I hate you fit...


----------



## mlee49 (Nov 3, 2008)

UPDATE:







That should put me in the top ten of the Dual Cores!


----------



## Chicken Patty (Nov 3, 2008)

MLee49, get that CPU higher man come on


----------



## mlee49 (Nov 4, 2008)

Chicken Patty said:


> MLee49, get that CPU higher man come on



I'm working on it   I think I can hit 3.8~4 if I keep tinkering with things.  Temps are nice, 45C on load @ 3hrs Prime. I'll take it since my CPU heatsink is running passive


----------



## Chicken Patty (Nov 4, 2008)

mlee49 said:


> I'm working on it   I think I can hit 3.8~4 if I keep tinkering with things.  Temps are nice, 45C on load @ 3hrs Prime. I'll take it since my CPU heatsink is running passive



WTF?  Why?  So far looking good, with higher clocks, it'll yield some nice numbers


----------



## mlee49 (Nov 4, 2008)

Why passivly cooled? The damn thing is 160mm long and touches on the side intake fans. It's huge!


----------



## Chicken Patty (Nov 4, 2008)

mlee49 said:


> Why passivly cooled? The damn thing is 160mm long and touches on the side intake fans. It's huge!



damn dude, got a pic of it?


----------



## mlee49 (Nov 4, 2008)

CP, the red arrows are the only other options I have to put fans in this case.  The green ones show my airflow.  It's kind of an old pic, doesn't have the 3870x2.







here's a pic of the hs next to a cd:

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1023924&postcount=261


----------



## Chicken Patty (Nov 4, 2008)

^^^ damn man that is a big ass cooler hehehehe.  Thanks for hte pic though, very detailed


----------



## wolf2009 (Nov 4, 2008)

So when is core i7 going to rock this bench ?


----------



## mlee49 (Nov 4, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> So when is core i7 going to rock this bench ?



As soon as Fit picks it up! 

Any guesstimations on preformance?  I dont think it'll replace #1, but should be in top five for sure!


----------



## wolf2009 (Nov 4, 2008)

mlee49 said:


> As soon as Fit picks it up!
> 
> Any guesstimations on preformance?  I dont think it'll replace #1, but should be in top five for sure!



#1 for sure, by quite a margin .


----------



## Mussels (Nov 4, 2008)

mlee49 said:


> As soon as Fit picks it up!
> 
> Any guesstimations on preformance?  I dont think it'll replace #1, but should be in top five for sure!



from what i've seen, a 2.66GHz i7 matches a 3GHz core 2. 4GHz seems possible, even on the intel boards (using turbo mode) so it comes down to how well they OC on enthusiast hardware


----------



## Binge (Nov 4, 2008)

Bored D:


----------



## dark2099 (Nov 17, 2008)

Sorry for the moment fit.


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 17, 2008)

Damn them crunch times are crap


----------



## Chicken Patty (Nov 17, 2008)

^^^72k, s**t.   God damn thats awesome.


----------



## dark2099 (Nov 17, 2008)




----------



## lemonadesoda (Nov 17, 2008)

Phenomenal


----------



## Mussels (Nov 18, 2008)

i think we need a seperate core i7 section in the scoreboard, they're making me feel bad.


----------



## btarunr (Nov 18, 2008)

What a massacre!


----------



## Chicken Patty (Nov 18, 2008)

btarunr said:


> What a massacre!



true dat!!!


----------



## JrRacinFan (Nov 18, 2008)

Mussels said:


> i think we need a seperate core i7 section in the scoreboard, they're making me feel bad.



Then we need a seperate Celeron table, a seperate AMD table etc. . . . which I'm against.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 18, 2008)

JrRacinFan said:


> Then we need a seperate Celeron table, a seperate AMD table etc. . . . which I'm against.



Pitting "octa" (quad + HT) against quads is the same as pitting quads against duals, and duals against singles. they've already seperated it that much.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Nov 18, 2008)

Mussels said:


> Pitting "octa" (quad + HT) against quads is the same as pitting quads against duals, and duals against singles. they've already seperated it that much.



**sighs** You know me I am not one to debate. I say it's up to the OP. Just letting you know I'm not totally against it but yes now that you mention it that way, an "8 thread" table would be cool.

@dark2099

Give us a run with one of the cores disabled as well.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Nov 18, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> WTF is everyone damn problem today? has everyone lost their damn brain?
> 
> wth is wrong with you guys cryin about everything?
> 
> ...



Wow! You took my post totally wrong bro. I wasn't hating against you fit. Not at all.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 18, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> WTF is everyone damn problem today? has everyone lost their damn brain?
> 
> wth is wrong with you guys cryin about everything?
> 
> ...



eh? we're giving you guys a shiny core i7 category so you can have a deathmatch with each other, and we can stare at it wishing we owned one.

calm down... and go OC some more 

(i too had no bad intentions... just discussing how the scoreboard should be layed out)


----------



## DOM (Nov 18, 2008)

everyone need a day off or week


----------



## Fitseries3 (Nov 18, 2008)

DOM said:


> everyone need a day off or week



i dont really work so why would i need a day off? i guess your saying i need a day ON


----------



## Mussels (Nov 18, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> i dont really work so why would i need a day off? i guess your saying i need a day ON



i will paypal you one E-cookie, if you OC it past 4.5GHz


----------



## Fitseries3 (Nov 18, 2008)

Mussels said:


> i will paypal you one E-cookie, if you OC it past 4.5GHz



give me a day or so... and i'll do 4.5ghz with 5gpus


----------



## btarunr (Nov 18, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> WTF is everyone damn problem today? has everyone lost their damn brain?
> wth is wrong with you guys cryin about everything?
> you knew this day was comming.
> i7 is here and its just gonna get better.
> ...



Nobody is crying about anything, it's all in your mind. Note I added your score without complaining. That's all that should matter to you.


----------



## btarunr (Nov 18, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> i didnt even ask you to add it. i wanted you to wait till i had something worth posting.
> 
> honestly... im a nice guy and i didnt want to bump anyone off of the list cause they deserved to be there. i'll get the BIG score and then i'll want it on the list. until then, my posts are just as a comparison to others. i do the same thing on all the other bench threads.



When you post a score, it's asking me to add it (by default).  If you didn't tell me not to add it, you simply wasted my time. Nice guys don't do that, and then top it up with not-so-nice situations, saying things such as "WTF is everyone damn problem today? has everyone lost their damn brain?". Be nice to others. Nobody protested adding your score.


----------



## DOM (Nov 18, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> i dont really work so why would i need a day off? i guess your saying i need a day ON



must be nice  but some ppl need to walk away from the comp and go outside


----------



## Fitseries3 (Nov 18, 2008)

if i wasnt risking getting banned i would SOOOO say something to you. this is your thread so all i can do is leave.


----------



## btarunr (Nov 18, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> if i wasnt risking getting banned i would SOOOO say something to you. this is your thread so all i can do is leave.



You risk getting banned even if you say something to someone who's already banned. This is our thread. Everyone's. All the 35000+ TPU members'. If you can't respect others' views, and are not constructive with your approach toward things, you did the right thing leaving.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Nov 18, 2008)

im done talking.


----------



## OzzmanFloyd120 (Nov 18, 2008)

Huh, I thought I was subscribed to this thread. I thought it was strange that my user CP stopped showing me updates.


----------



## wolf2009 (Nov 18, 2008)

wow, never expected this. 




*
this was supposed to be everyone's triumph that our brothers got the latest technology and we should show appreciation and enjoy it on this day, but this didn't turn out very well. 

fit please man, let bygones be bygone's and come back. we don't need that sort of enemity here on TPU , this forum is not like others. Everyone is appreciative of other here, which is why I am most active on this forum. 

Lets start over again and stop this misunderstanding from ruining our relationship with each other. as bta said this is not his thread but everybody's thread.

cmon man !*


----------



## OzzmanFloyd120 (Nov 18, 2008)

What happened? Who left?


----------



## jbunch07 (Nov 18, 2008)

Hey I'm glad for those who have the new i7's its tells me they are enthusiast! just like the rest of us!


----------



## btarunr (Nov 18, 2008)

Back to topic.


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 18, 2008)

dark2099 said:


>



Now thats what I am talkin about!  Thats serious number crunching, one thing I did find interesting in a couple of very recent reviews I read, the people who have said that i7 will bring little benefit to gaming, certainly from what I have read and especially if you overclock, it will bring BIG benefits to gaming, the FPS difference between even the Qx9770 and an i7 at equal speeds show benefits.......nice job Dark.......keep it going!


----------



## Fitseries3 (Nov 19, 2008)

im not talking but here....

4ghz


----------



## Fitseries3 (Nov 19, 2008)

a tad better and more readable....


----------



## Chicken Patty (Nov 19, 2008)

^^ that just got you over darks score 

Congrats, and also congrats on the sick score!!


----------



## Fitseries3 (Nov 19, 2008)




----------



## Fitseries3 (Nov 19, 2008)

im gonna get 90k...


----------



## Fitseries3 (Nov 19, 2008)

i'l get it...


----------



## Fitseries3 (Nov 19, 2008)

you guys who are stressin about the i7s scoring so high...

when i turn HT off and run only 4 threads i get around 55k at 4.3ghz seems to be similar to core2 45nm quads at the same speed. 

HT seems to be the only advantage from where im at now. i havent played much with QPI speeds yet and im still using low memory speeds. idk how much of an impact that will have but we will soon find out.

bta...


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 19, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> you guys who are stressin about the i7s scoring so high...
> 
> when i turn HT off and run only 4 threads i get around 55k at 4.3ghz seems to be similar to core2 45nm quads at the same speed.
> 
> ...



Lol he will just post the last score.....and who's stressing on what?


----------



## btarunr (Nov 19, 2008)

An i7 will always be listed in the table as a quad-core chip, which it is. The number of threads is specified to show if HTT is enabled or not, and to show if Turbo-mode turned off some cores, etc.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Nov 19, 2008)

> you guys who are stressin about the i7s scoring so high



fit, dude.  I still don't know why you took that seriously man.  The chip is awesome and your scores are great bro, its new hardware, why would any of us get mad


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Nov 20, 2008)

2x Core Duo 2.0 (Sossaman)


----------



## revin (Nov 21, 2008)

Here's my ole i865PE/AGP DDR1 Q6700@ 3.0[2.9] score
Faster score in thread 346 below


----------



## lemonadesoda (Nov 21, 2008)

^^ nice, compare that AGP DDR1 system with similarly clocked PCIe ddr2/3 systems. Impressive!


----------



## revin (Nov 22, 2008)

lemonadesoda said:


> ^^ nice, compare that AGP DDR1 system with similarly clocked PCIe ddr2/3 systems. Impressive!


Thanks l/s
I'm still trying to hang in there!!!!!!!!

Here's 1 with some services cleaned out [HP printer bloatware mostly].

 Please add this for my score, it's about as fast as I can get
*9.399
27,891*


----------



## cdawall (Nov 22, 2008)

not bad for a celeron


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 22, 2008)

Damn I have slipped to 5th, best I am gonna get here by the looks of it is 3rd or 4th........wait out!


----------



## dark2099 (Nov 23, 2008)




----------



## cdawall (Nov 25, 2008)

making a punch for the higher end dual cores

***edit***

tighter ram timings


----------



## cdawall (Dec 5, 2008)




----------



## Binge (Dec 5, 2008)




----------



## btarunr (Dec 5, 2008)

Updated.


----------



## 3dsage (Dec 5, 2008)

Crunchieeeeee!!


----------



## Binge (Dec 6, 2008)




----------



## Chicken Patty (Dec 6, 2008)

Binge said:


>



awesome, thats good enough for 1st place as of now.


----------



## OzzmanFloyd120 (Dec 8, 2008)

This one is mine, for some reason my throughput isn't very high though. I expected more.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Dec 8, 2008)

^^^amazing low voltage overclock!! 


Good run!


----------



## OzzmanFloyd120 (Dec 8, 2008)

Chicken Patty said:


> ^^^amazing low voltage overclock!!
> 
> 
> Good run!



Yeah, for some reason all voltage reading programs show my cpu having a sub .8v setting, I think my motherboard is reporting it wrong. The real voltage is 1.325


----------



## Chicken Patty (Dec 8, 2008)

OzzmanFloyd120 said:


> Yeah, for some reason all voltage reading programs show my cpu having a sub .8v setting, I think my motherboard is reporting it wrong. The real voltage is 1.325



it happens randomly to me, but not always, its cool. though, thanks for the input


----------



## AlienIsGOD (Dec 8, 2008)

View attachment 20758 @ stock


----------



## OzzmanFloyd120 (Dec 9, 2008)

AlienIsGOD said:


> View attachment 20758 @ stock



Need a bigger screenie, that's too small to read anything.


----------



## Tatty_One (Dec 9, 2008)

OzzmanFloyd120 said:


> This one is mine, for some reason my throughput isn't very high though. I expected more.



Are you using the "forced" 32bit app?


----------



## OzzmanFloyd120 (Dec 9, 2008)

Nope, should I?

It actually made a huge difference.






Edit: Updated this post with a better screen.


----------



## Tatty_One (Dec 9, 2008)

There ya go.....you answered your own question


----------



## sno.lcn (Dec 9, 2008)

I can't believe I've overlooked this thread for so long...I'll play with it some as soon as I finish finals and get back home


----------



## mlee49 (Dec 10, 2008)

Please add w/Q9450 @ 3.6 GHz:






I had to get some of sno's avvy in that screen shot 


@ 3.76Ghz


----------



## sno.lcn (Dec 11, 2008)




----------



## Chicken Patty (Dec 14, 2008)

not much of an overclock for now, but hey its something, still on factory Heatsink


----------



## Chicken Patty (Dec 14, 2008)

better run


----------



## Chicken Patty (Dec 16, 2008)

my best so far


----------



## mlee49 (Dec 16, 2008)

My best run so far:
Q9450 @ 3.8GHz


----------



## Chicken Patty (Dec 20, 2008)

finally on water and got to clock higher


----------



## OzzmanFloyd120 (Dec 20, 2008)

I think it's time to update, been a while.


----------



## btarunr (Dec 20, 2008)

Updated.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Dec 25, 2008)

here is my best run till date,

Damn Binge, you cheated you got 93k !    hehehehe, thats an awesome run, maybe when I get my new rad I can try for higher


----------



## Chicken Patty (Dec 25, 2008)

better run


----------



## Binge (Dec 25, 2008)

Well you have some clocks to go, but it looks like you're right on track!  Have you seen my latest vantage score?  It looks as if SLI is scaling close to 100% in vantage as well as in many games.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Dec 25, 2008)

Binge said:


> Well you have some clocks to go, but it looks like you're right on track!  Have you seen my latest vantage score?  It looks as if SLI is scaling close to 100% in vantage as well as in many games.



yeah bro, if I can also get my RAM up higher that will help alot.  I cant clock higher than that last run, it'll take more tweaking and right now im too lazy to do it hehe.

Yeah I saw it that was an awesome run bro!!  Nvidia rocks in vantage.


----------



## Binge (Dec 25, 2008)

Rocks in Crysis.  I don't know where some sites get their info.  I avg 120 fps on enthusiast settings but no motion blur and shadows are at Gamer setting because on Enthusiast they give me graphical errors  wtf?? lol.  Your 4.3GHz scores are just about on the head.   My ram is not really clocked fast.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Dec 25, 2008)

Binge said:


> Rocks in Crysis.  I don't know where some sites get their info.  I avg 120 fps on enthusiast settings but no motion blur and shadows are at Gamer setting because on Enthusiast they give me graphical errors  wtf?? lol.  Your 4.3GHz scores are just about on the head.   My ram is not really clocked fast.



the thing now is that i'm on vista with 2 gigs of ram so when I run crysis I use up about 85-90 % of my RAM.  So the game runs a bit sluggish.


----------



## trickson (Dec 25, 2008)

Well not sure what it means but here is my score .






Is it good ?


----------



## Chicken Patty (Dec 25, 2008)

trickson said:


> Well not sure what it means but here is my score .
> 
> 
> 
> ...



it seems about right, I think it could be a bit better though.


----------



## trickson (Dec 25, 2008)

Chicken Patty said:


> it seems about right, I think it could be a bit better though.



Yeah that will be when the liquid cooler gets installed .


----------



## Chicken Patty (Dec 25, 2008)

trickson said:


> Yeah that will be when the liquid cooler gets installed .



woohoo, should be nice!!


----------



## trickson (Dec 25, 2008)

Chicken Patty said:


> woohoo, should be nice!!



I sure hope so I can get 3.8GHz on air but it is way to hot to keep it that fast so the water cooler should keep the temps low and CPU fast !


----------



## Chicken Patty (Dec 25, 2008)

trickson said:


> I sure hope so I can get 3.8GHz on air but it is way to hot to keep it that fast so the water cooler should keep the temps low and CPU fast !



what water setup are you getting?


----------



## trickson (Dec 25, 2008)

Chicken Patty said:


> what water setup are you getting?



This is the stuff I am getting . This is with the D-Tek v2 water block .
http://www.petrastechshop.com/pecod4.html

This for the ChipSet ..
http://www.petrastechshop.com/swmcchco.html

And this for vibration . 
http://www.petrastechshop.com/pegviabbl.html


----------



## Chicken Patty (Dec 25, 2008)

trickson said:


> This is the stuff I am getting . This is with the D-Tek v2 water block .
> http://www.petrastechshop.com/pecod4.html
> 
> This for the ChipSet ..
> ...




THanks bro, thats a really really nice setup .  I'm sure your temps will be fantastic, and you'll love it.  Just be really careful assembling it bro


----------



## trickson (Dec 25, 2008)

Chicken Patty said:


> THanks bro, thats a really really nice setup .  I'm sure your temps will be fantastic, and you'll love it.  Just be really careful assembling it bro



Yes I will


----------



## Chicken Patty (Dec 25, 2008)

trickson said:


> Yes I will



I tell you because I screwed up my AMD mobo putting the waterblocks on it, so i say it from experience lol.


----------



## trickson (Dec 25, 2008)

Chicken Patty said:


> I tell you because I screwed up my AMD mobo putting the waterblocks on it, so i say it from experience lol.



Yeah I plan to install every thing out side of the case away from the parts test it all out then install it , Once I know there are no leaks .


----------



## Chicken Patty (Dec 25, 2008)

trickson said:


> Yeah I plan to install every thing out side of the case away from the parts test it all out then install it , Once I know there are no leaks .



good plan.  My problem was that I scratched the back of the mobo and since then it didnt boot anymore


----------



## trickson (Dec 26, 2008)

Chicken Patty said:


> good plan.  My problem was that I scratched the back of the mobo and since then it didnt boot anymore



Well the good thing is that I have a mounting bracket insalled that will work the bad thing is I still have to take the mobo out to put the chipset water block on I will be careful as can be . 
I know that one scratch and it is all over but I hope things go well I want to see this CPU at 3.8GHz and the CPU ChipSet as cool as can be .  I hope with all this money will come more speed and cooler temps and a faster over all system as well .


----------



## Chicken Patty (Dec 26, 2008)

trickson said:


> Well the good thing is that I have a mounting bracket insalled that will work the bad thing is I still have to take the mobo out to put the chipset water block on I will be careful as can be .
> I know that one scratch and it is all over but I hope things go well I want to see this CPU at 3.8GHz and the CPU ChipSet as cool as can be .  I hope with all this money will come more speed and cooler temps and a faster over all system as well .



yeha bro im sure you can, what are your temps like now on air?


----------



## trickson (Dec 26, 2008)

Chicken Patty said:


> yeha bro im sure you can, what are your temps like now on air?



From 45c Idle to as high as 70c fully loaded ! I have seen 74c loaded .


----------



## Chicken Patty (Dec 26, 2008)

trickson said:


> From 45c Idle to as high as 70c fully loaded ! I have seen 74c loaded .



yikes, that setup you're getting should keep it around 50ºc or so.  Which will allow you some more headroom


----------



## trickson (Dec 26, 2008)

Chicken Patty said:


> yikes, that setup you're getting should keep it around 50ºc or so.  Which will allow you some more headroom



Yeah that is what I am hoping for .


----------



## Chicken Patty (Dec 26, 2008)

trickson said:


> Yeah that is what I am hoping for .



well best of luck for you bro, keep us posted


----------



## trickson (Dec 26, 2008)

Chicken Patty said:


> well best of luck for you bro, keep us posted



I will you know that .


----------



## trickson (Jan 2, 2009)

I wonder is any one going to update this thread ?


----------



## chaotic_uk (Jan 2, 2009)

thought i would give it ago with my poor 7750BE


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Jan 2, 2009)

add me to your list bro's

http://img.techpowerup.org/090101/Generic.jpg


----------



## msgclb (Jan 2, 2009)

I've installed XP Pro SP3 to due some test with my 965. This is at the default speed of 3.2 GHz.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jan 2, 2009)

^^^ wohoo!


----------



## JrRacinFan (Jan 2, 2009)




----------



## trickson (Jan 2, 2009)

How about an update to this thread or a restart to it ?


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jan 2, 2009)

trickson said:


> How about an update to this thread or a restart to it ?



ha, I dont think people would like a restart, but an update would help


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jan 3, 2009)

here is mine...

note: cpu-z reads the clock at 2000 but it is actually 2.66 it just goes to 2000 to save nrg


----------



## JrRacinFan (Jan 4, 2009)




----------



## oli_ramsay (Jan 4, 2009)

Here's my new much faster score on Windows 7:






Compared to what I got in Vista:


----------



## JrRacinFan (Jan 8, 2009)




----------



## trickson (Jan 14, 2009)

New score for me on a new OC as well . 





Sure wish this thread was updated .


----------



## cdawall (Jan 23, 2009)




----------



## JrRacinFan (Jan 25, 2009)




----------



## btarunr (Jan 25, 2009)

Will update today.


----------



## ChiSox (Jan 25, 2009)

*P4*

Here's a P4 630 just so you can see the differnce in the new core technology I'll post an Athlon later


----------



## trickson (Jan 25, 2009)

New run at 3.9GHz !


----------



## cdawall (Jan 25, 2009)




----------



## JrRacinFan (Jan 25, 2009)

Oh hecks yah trickson!! Nice clocks on the quad!! What's ram settings at in that run bro?'

@cdawall

Very very nice! You still gonna run with that 7750BE by any chance?

By looking at both your runs, I can conclude that PhenToo = Q6600 .... "??"


----------



## cdawall (Jan 25, 2009)

JrRacinFan said:


> Oh hecks yah trickson!! Nice clocks on the quad!! What's ram settings at in that run bro?'
> 
> @cdawall
> 
> ...



my settings were way untweaked for that run i dropped 2 sec off my superpi already since those runs

and this 7750?



cdawall said:


>


----------



## JrRacinFan (Jan 25, 2009)

Yeah that 7750. 

Gonna throw us some more new benches with it?


----------



## cdawall (Jan 25, 2009)

JrRacinFan said:


> Yeah that 7750.
> 
> Gonna throw us some more new benches with it?



yep trying to get a 5ghz validation off today and hopefully get inventor dl'd so i can draw up my LN2 pot


luckily autodesk's site is very fast


----------



## trickson (Jan 25, 2009)

JrRacinFan said:


> Oh hecks yah trickson!! Nice clocks on the quad!! What's ram settings at in that run bro?'
> 
> @cdawall
> 
> ...



5-5-5-15 @ 1066MHz


----------



## MetalRacer (Jan 25, 2009)

Here is my best run on air.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Jan 29, 2009)

*Update*

New bench....


----------



## jbunch07 (Jan 29, 2009)

1.6v good god man! looks like that evo is keeping things cool!


----------



## JrRacinFan (Jan 29, 2009)

You would be surprised but during the only few benches I ran it never went above 50C.


----------



## jbunch07 (Jan 29, 2009)

JrRacinFan said:


> You would be surprised but during the only few benches I ran it never went above 50C.



That's pretty nice man!


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jan 29, 2009)

congrats jr.  cooler really helped, nice crunch time


----------



## ChiSox (Jan 31, 2009)

*P4 630 OC - 3.3 - Ram 220 2.5-3-3-5-2t*

Decent Throughput on single core but this chip runs 2 threads!! Nice

16,166ms
8,108 KCU/s


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Feb 1, 2009)

figured i'd throw mine into the mix, p2 940be @ 3.85 226x17, ddr2 at 1200Mhz 5,5,5,15


----------



## vanyots (Feb 5, 2009)

*Vanyots.*



sno.lcn said:


>



BTA, you should put this on top of the DualCores, and as the fastest time.

I'm adding my own HomePCs results.


----------



## jbunch07 (Feb 12, 2009)




----------



## Chicken Patty (Feb 12, 2009)

^^^ nice!


----------



## jbunch07 (Feb 12, 2009)

Chicken Patty said:


> ^^^ nice!



Thanks!


----------



## Chicken Patty (Feb 12, 2009)

jbunch07 said:


> Thanks!



my highest as you see in the score board with my 9950 was 29*** at 3.4 GHz.  so its a nice little improvement, i'm sure you can squeeze more out of it.


----------



## jbunch07 (Feb 12, 2009)

Chicken Patty said:


> my highest as you see in the score board with my 9950 was 29*** at 3.4 GHz.  so its a nice little improvement, i'm sure you can squeeze more out of it.



yeah It was giving me no problems @ that speed. I'm hoping to get 4ghz out of it but we'll see what happens.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Feb 12, 2009)

jbunch07 said:


> yeah It was giving me no problems @ that speed. I'm hoping to get 4ghz out of it but we'll see what happens.



make sure you keep us posted.


time to get my AMD rig running again, got me a new mobo today .  I'll keep you updated on that


----------



## jbunch07 (Feb 12, 2009)

Chicken Patty said:


> make sure you keep us posted.
> 
> 
> time to get my AMD rig running again, got me a new mobo today .  I'll keep you updated on that



Posted you will be!


----------



## Xtant25 (Feb 28, 2009)

*E8600 @ 5280Mhz On Rampage Extreme G.Skill Pi Black DDR3 @ 792Mhz 7-7-7-18 1T*


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Feb 28, 2009)

Here is my first run with this bench. Feedback is welcome.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Feb 28, 2009)

What were ur clocks and ram timings on that? Nice run btw!

@jbunch

Rockin the 940 I see!!


----------



## jbunch07 (Feb 28, 2009)

JrRacinFan said:


> What were ur clocks and ram timings on that? Nice run btw!
> 
> @jbunch
> 
> Rockin the 940 I see!!



I'm lovin it man! Just wish I could spend more time on it...


----------



## JrRacinFan (Jan 27, 2010)

Hate to dig up old threads but ....


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jan 27, 2010)

if I had my i7 I'd be #1 on that list right now.  All those runs are with everybodies old i7's.  Of course they would follow with new runs, but i'll enjoy the glory for a few seconds 

Good run Jr,


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jan 27, 2010)

Well, here's my first run.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Jan 27, 2010)

Thanx Aphex! I think i will try out your vcore used and htt speed. See where that gets me. 

What do you have set for NB voltage?


----------



## SUPERREDDEVIL (Jan 27, 2010)

mine with stock settings (No OC)


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jan 27, 2010)

JrRacinFan said:


> Thanx Aphex! I think i will try out your vcore used and htt speed. See where that gets me.
> 
> What do you have set for NB voltage?



Auto. My V core is actually 1.500 and I use ACC +6% and have unleashed mode on.

My board is an RMAed one. It had problems when I got it back from Asus. Like it would freeze on boot and I Had to wait 5 min before it would start again. I couldn't even OC past 2.7 without a crash I was sad.

But 4 Months of use and all of sudden the board is working fine again. I have just got it back to what I had it before RMA, 3.1Ghz. Thus I decided to get back into benchmarking.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 27, 2010)

FordGT90Concept
Core i7 920 (8 threads) 
2793 MHz (2.66 GHz with turbo mode on)
9360 ms
56014 KCU/s


----------



## JrRacinFan (Jan 27, 2010)

Thanx Aphex for the info. Damn SB600 is the culprit for me. 

Good run ford!


----------



## JrRacinFan (Feb 7, 2010)




----------



## lemonadesoda (Jan 21, 2013)

lemonadesoda|2x Xeon E5472|3000|8150|64330


----------



## Melvis (Jan 21, 2013)

Melvis | 4.0GHz | 15.964 | 32.852 

I dont think this CPU likes the benchmark some how


----------



## itsakjt (Jan 21, 2013)

Here's mine.
64 bit





32 bit


----------



## Cotton_Cup (Jan 21, 2013)

Here is mine. just tried it lol


----------

