# Post your Super Pi Results!!!



## Jimmy 2004 (Jun 19, 2006)

So what does everyone on these forums score with superpi to 1m figures and 19 iterations? I get dead on 40s with my overclocked 3000+ and the new Conroes can get under 13s I think. Post them below, it would be interesting to see because not that many people bother to find out.


----------



## zekrahminator (Jun 19, 2006)

Why Jimmy2004, you're posting alot of new threads recently . Anyways...I got about 35 seconds for a 1m digit run. See specs to the left. I'll have to run it again, though I doubt SATA and NTFS will make any difference lol.


----------



## tofu (Jun 19, 2006)

51.831 seconds for the system in the System Specs drop-down menu. Slow...


----------



## Azn Tr14dZ (Jun 19, 2006)

49.844 seconds on stock Pentium D 820, and 43.5 seconds with Intel Pentium D 820 overclocked to 3.2GHz. I wish my AMD would arrive here now...2-3 days seems so long...


----------



## Lt_JWS (Jun 19, 2006)

Im down to 27.2 seconds with the hardware in my sig... 

http://img75.imageshack.us/my.php?image=capture6182006110822pm4tx.jpg


----------



## magibeg (Jun 20, 2006)

i did 38 seconds with my system under system specs.


----------



## Azn Tr14dZ (Jun 20, 2006)

Wow, my Pentium D 820 is getting owned by (almost) every processor here!


----------



## magibeg (Jun 20, 2006)

Thats strange.... then again i guess superpi is very much a single core program  Also remember to turn off any virus scanners and all that before you run it. Norton actually bumps me up about 1sec on super pi when its running !


----------



## Boneface (Jun 20, 2006)

i got 41sec in the 1m with specs in sig


----------



## Azn Tr14dZ (Jun 20, 2006)

magibeg said:
			
		

> Thats strange.... then again i guess superpi is very much a single core program  Also remember to turn off any virus scanners and all that before you run it. Norton actually bumps me up about 1sec on super pi when its running !



oh, it was on. I'ma run it again. But I guess SuperPI is a better for single cores. So basically, I'm getting the same scores as a 2.8GHz Pentium 4 then.


----------



## zekrahminator (Jun 20, 2006)

Just ran it for fun...I think that SATA is now nothing more then a load of junk. My 3Dmark05 score went down by about 100 points from before format, and superpi takes 2 more seconds to run then usual. Small things, but...in my opinion, SATA is not worth it. My IDE drive worked fine, and I had special sleeved ribbon cables. So guys, the next time you go for a hard drive...go with IDE .


----------



## Steevo (Jun 20, 2006)

29 seconds.


----------



## KennyT772 (Jun 20, 2006)

3.0Ghz northwood 57.016 sec first run, 56.640 with no programs running, 56.562 with only 20 processes and priority at realtime.
34c the whole time.


----------



## Jimmy 2004 (Jun 20, 2006)

I stopped all but five windows services, ran super pi in realtime and even ended the explorer.exe process... and still only managed 40s!


----------



## BigD6997 (Jun 20, 2006)

oced to 2.7 i get 31.895 sec with the specs in sys specs


----------



## wtf8269 (Jun 22, 2006)

From when I built the PC back in December...






.


----------



## FLY3R (Jun 22, 2006)

Ehh, about 32s, not that great, havent put that much time into really getting low times.


----------



## Polaris573 (Jun 22, 2006)

44.454 for my overclocked P4 Northwood.  Around 52 seconds at stock speeds.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 22, 2006)

meh 46 at 2.3


----------



## Alec§taar (Jun 22, 2006)

*You Can Upload Photos Of Your Results Guys!*

First, see subject-line/title (might as well put up the proofs etc., because this forums has that neat upload image feature):






I never ran this before, but those are my results!



* What I gathered upon cursory inspection, is it took my system 36 seconds to pull that test off...

APK

P.S.=> 





			
				Azn Tr14dZ said:
			
		

> Wow, my Pentium D 820 is getting owned by (almost) every processor here!



AMD cpu's show the SAME basic type of results vs. Intel cpu's on SETI@Home's built-in benchmark... 

Maybe not the BEST comparison, but still, you could compare my results on my Intel rig & AMD rig here:

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/hosts_user.php?userid=8294882&show_all=1&sort=rpc_time

*APK AMD 4800+ SETI benchmark results*

Measured floating point speed	4226.67 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed	13743.99 million ops/sec

*APK Intel P4 3.2ghz SETI benchmark results*

Measured floating point speed	2087.77 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed	2315.65 million ops/sec

& see how superior AMD cpu's are in the floating-point operations area - this even helps games & is certainly evidenced by AMD's performance in THAT arena as of late/past few years now.

* IMPORTANT TO NOTE - Oddly though, even though the data is more fpop centric & amd rules there? Intel CPU's do better on SETI imo - the client wares are optimized better for Intel!



			
				Azn Tr14dZ said:
			
		

> oh, it was on. I'ma run it again. But I guess SuperPI is a better for single cores. So basically, I'm getting the same scores as a 2.8GHz Pentium 4 then.



It's a single-threaded app... Systems like yours & mine (assuming yours is dual core (or anyone w/ a dual core/smp cpu)) won't show what they can REALLY do here testing w/ this app, I agree.

Still - imo, it's a good test of the ALU's Floating Point power (@ least on 1 of the dual cores possible on these types of CPU's)!

See, & DO correct me here if I am wrong "hardware-centric" folks (Because, I am not 110% sure of AMD cpu internals architecture here):

I assume there are dual Fpop Units & dual ALU (arithmetic logic unit(s)), & this would only be using 1 of 2 possible in these beasts (assuming that they are indeed FULL cpu's in the dual core architecture of your choice Intel vs AMD, & that there is not a single "shared" unit between cores for this function, which imo, a Hyper-Threaded CPU would use/do for instance)! apk


----------



## gygabite (Jun 22, 2006)

32.250 seconds with overclocking to 2.6GHz, 38.422 seconds with stock


----------



## Jimmy 2004 (Jun 22, 2006)

Alec§taar in his title said:
			
		

> *You Can Upload Photos Of Your Results Guys!*



You can also type them!

...but if you want proof I can post it.


----------



## Alec§taar (Jun 22, 2006)

*It'd be cool to see the actual result*



			
				Jimmy 2004 said:
			
		

> You can also type them!



True, but a picture says 1,000 words!



			
				Jimmy 2004 said:
			
		

> ...but if you want proof I can post it.



Sure, that'd be neat, especially since it is very simple to do (in fact, that's one of the nicest featuresets of this forums imo)!

* I don't put a ton of stock into this analysis tool though, not on SMP/Dual or more core chips, because it's single-threaded code & doesn't exploit the power of more than 1 cpu on those types of rigs (including my own in that number of course).

APK


----------



## Jimmy 2004 (Jun 22, 2006)

I'll post it when I can download the Super Pi Mod 1.5 thing, I'm just using Super Pi at the moment which isn't as accurate, but the download server wasn't working earlier.


----------



## Alec§taar (Jun 22, 2006)

Jimmy 2004 said:
			
		

> I'll post it when I can download the Super Pi Mod 1.5 thing, I'm just using Super Pi at the moment which isn't as accurate, but the download server wasn't working earlier.



http://www.xtremesystems.com/pi/



APK


----------



## KennyT772 (Jun 22, 2006)

hey polaris what speed is ur northwood at? i have the same cpu but the 3.0 ghz.


----------



## FLY3R (Jun 23, 2006)

gygabite said:
			
		

> 32.250 seconds with overclocking to 2.6GHz, 38.422 seconds with stock



Arn't those 3700+ SD CPU Great, they overclock like mad. and there really fast, they crunch Folding like crazy.


----------



## Jimmy 2004 (Jun 23, 2006)

Alec§taar said:
			
		

> http://www.xtremesystems.com/pi/
> 
> 
> 
> APK



That's where I had been trying, but it does seem to be working now so I'll post the result in a minute.


----------



## Jimmy 2004 (Jun 23, 2006)

*Well here's the proof*

It's actually a little under 40s:







CPU-Z speed is actually shown with AMD Cool 'n' Quiet enabled so in reality the multiplier would have been at x 10.0 meaning a core speed of 2340 MHz and a voltage of 1.7v.


----------



## Alec§taar (Jun 23, 2006)

*You actually did BETTER using this mod...*

Good deal - you actually did BETTER using this mod of SuperPi (I just hauled down the latest/greatest to do the test & post results - I have never used this test before as a performance measure here).



* Still, I do take this test w/ a "grain of salt" because it is a single-threaded one... 

(As was mentioned before by others & later myself - imo, it won't extoll the potential virtues of having dual cores, which iirc, have dual FPU's (floating point calculation units) in their ALUs (arithmetic logic units), of which there SHOULD exist 2 on TRUE smp &/or DualCore bearing cpu's (but not on HyperThreaded cpus by Intel)).

APK

P.S.=> And, this IS "fpop" floating-point data, by all means... apk


----------



## magibeg (Jun 23, 2006)

Alec you seem to be a never ending pool of knowledge capable of spitting out endless information :-O! Wish i could do that


----------



## Alec§taar (Jun 23, 2006)

magibeg said:
			
		

> Alec you seem to be a never ending pool of knowledge capable of spitting out endless information :-O! Wish i could do that



LOL, thank you... (I think)



* It's just time in this field is all, nothing you all can't do, or won't be able to do if you stick around it long enough really imo @ least, & dabble in enough areas in & around it... & believe you me - there's guys out there that "dust my doors/blow me away", especially in certain specific areas of concentration in which they may specialize (where I have no "hands-on experiences"), w/in this WIDE & varied field.

APK

P.S.=> In THIS case though? I simply reiterated & reinforced a point brought up by others here regarding this test & SMP/DualCore cpu setup systems, albeit with a BIT more detail, but the point wasn't first made by me on it, but rather Azn Tr14dZ. 

He is the person to be credited with that insight here, regarding this test being "handicapped" for DualCore/SMP folks, imo... credit SHOULD go, where it's due! apk


----------



## Jimmy 2004 (Jun 23, 2006)

And you always put a  somewhere...


----------



## Alec§taar (Jun 23, 2006)

Jimmy 2004 said:
			
		

> And you always put a  somewhere...



Yea: I'm just one of those "incurable cheerful people"...

 

(See?)

APK


----------



## Jimmy 2004 (Jun 23, 2006)

Solaris where did you get that XP theme from? Or are you using Windows Blinds to do it, because it looks really convincingly like Vista other than the start button.


----------



## Steevo (Jun 24, 2006)

Proof in the pudding.


----------



## Polaris573 (Jun 24, 2006)

KennyT772 said:
			
		

> hey polaris what speed is ur northwood at? i have the same cpu but the 3.0 ghz.



I think that run was at either 3.15 or 3.2


----------



## chrismwpcs (Feb 2, 2007)

18.515 seconds. Core Duo 6700 system.


----------



## dk75 (Feb 5, 2007)

Free file hosting from File Den!





Free file hosting from File Den!


----------



## Demos_sav (Feb 5, 2007)

*My best run ever*

I guess this is pretty good with a P4 Prescott processor. *33.75*seconds

http://img477.imageshack.us/img477/8816/untitlednv1.jpg


----------



## Thermopylae_480 (Feb 5, 2007)

An Identical thread to this already exists, and is currently active.  It is located here.  For the sake of organization, please continue this thread in that section, since it is currently older.


----------



## -V1P3R- (Feb 5, 2007)




----------



## Thermopylae_480 (Feb 5, 2007)

Ok, well.  I'll repeat myself and close the thread instead.  If there is a reason why there are two identical threads, that I missed, PM me and tell me why.



Thermopylae_480 said:


> An Identical thread to this already exists, and is currently active.  It is located here.  For the sake of organization, please continue this thread in that section, since it is currently older.


----------

