# Processor GFlops Compilation



## newtekie1 (May 19, 2009)

I think it would be interesting to get together a nice big compilation of different processors and what type of GFlops they are capable of.

To get on the list you need the following:

IntelBurnTest v2.5: Download Here
CPU-z: Download Here

You might also need the following if you are having problems getting IntelBurnTest to run:

Microsoft(R) Visual C++ 2008 Runtime: Download Here
Microsoft(R) .NET Framework v2.0 (minimum): Download Here

Run the IntelBurnTest(yes, it works on AMDs), *set it to run at least 4 times and run the standard stress level.*


Rules:
Put Add Me as the title of your post.
Include a screenshot of CPU-z and the IntelBurnTest window with your results.
Both must be in the same screenshot!
Please zero fill your results.  So scores below 100 should be 0XX.XXXX and scores below 10 should be 00X.XXXX and scores below 1 should be 000.XXXX.
You have at least 4 runs.
You must use the "Standard" Stess Level settings.(Any runs not using the Standard Stress Level will not be added to the table.  Exceptions will be made ONLY for machines that do not physically have enough RAM.)


Post your results in the following format:
*name | Processor Maker | CPU Model and Clock | Average GFlops | GFlops Per GHz | 64-bit or 32-bit | Notes*

It has become too hard to figure out if the runs are using AVX or not.  So, from now on any test using a newer processor that supports AVX I will just assume AVX is enabled and working and the results will go in the AVX section.

Results: Click the column headers to sort the table.


name | Processor Maker | CPU Model and Clock | Average GFlops | GFlops Per GHz | 64-bit or 32-bit | Notes
newtekie1 | Intel |Xeon X3370 @ 3.6GHz | 032.8579 | 09.127194 | 64-bit
FordGT90Concept | Intel | Core i7 920 @ stock w/ HT and Turbo on | 026.55765 | 09.51887096 | 64-bit
FordGT90Concept | Intel | 2 x Xeon 5310 @ stock | 037.074675 | 23.17167 | 64-bit
newtekie1 | Intel | Pentium Dual-Core E2180 @ 3.0GHz | 006.15605 | 02.0520 | 64-bit
sneekypeet | Intel | E8600 @ 4.25GHz | 029.682625 | 06.984147 | 64-bit
Sir real | Intel | E8200 @ 3.2GHz | 021.4850 | 06.71406 | 32-bit
lemonadesoda | Intel | 2x Xeon E5420 @ 2.50 GHz | 058.67 | 23.47 | 32-bit | CPU at stock, FB-DIMMs at 667
Easo | AMD | Phenom II x4 @ 2.8GHz | 033.9906 | 12.1395 | 64-bit
3xploit | Intel | Core i7 920 @ 3.9GHz | 053.7755 | 13.7885897 | 64-bit
infrared | Intel | E8400 @ 4.6GHz | 031.67638 | 06.88616 | 64-bit
ShadowFold | AMD | Phenom II 720BE @ 3.6ghz | 028.55 | 07.93055 | 64-bit
infrared | Intel | E8400 @ Stock 3GHz | 020.74668 | 06.91556 | 64-bit
Darknova | AMD | Phenom II X3 720BE @ 3.28Ghz | 025.609225 | 07.8076 | 64-bit
Flyordie | AMD | Phenom II X4 920 @ 3,360Mhz +2% | 039.6515 | 11.8010 | 64-bit
newtekie1 | Intel | Atom N270 @ 1.6GHz | 000.3075 | 00.1921875 | 32-bit
DarkEgo | Intel | Q9550@3.995GHz | 051.15155 | 12.80389 | 64-bit
rflair | Intel | q6600 @ 3.6GHz | 044.95 | 12.48611 | 64-bit
erocker | Intel | E8600 @ 4ghz | 026.28145 | 06.5703625 | 64-bit
chuck216 | AMD | Phenom II X4 940 BE @ 3.5 Ghz | 041.92552 | 11.97872 | 64-bit | Fresh reboot
Melvis | AMD | FX-57 @ 2.8GHz | 001.6395 | 00.5855357 | 32-bit | Old School
rflair | AMD | Opteron 146 @ 2.6GHz | 004.305 | 01.65576 | 64-bit | 512MB Memory due to only 1GB total in the computer
newtekie1 | Intel | Celeron 325 @ 2.53GHz | 002.6307 | 01.03980 | 32-bit
Naekuh | Intel | i7 975 D0 @ 4.3ghz | 060.06714 | 13.969102 | 64-bit
CH@NO | Intel | e8200 @ 3.8GHz | 023.1021 | 06.0795 | 32-bit
DanishDevil | Intel | Intel Xeon X3210 @ 2.13GHz (Stock) | 026.95774 | 12.65621 | 64-bit
BoT | Intel | Intel Q9450 @ 2.66MHz (Stock) | 035.8590 | 13.480827 | 64-bit
techjunkie | Intel | Core2Quad Q6600 @ 3GHz | 038.6182 | 12.872733 | 64-bit
catulitechup | AMD | Phenom X3 8450 Clock 2.1GHz Stock | 015.9165 | 07.5792857 | 32-bit
A Cheese Danish | Intel | Core 2 Duo T9300 @ 2.5GHz | 007.3217 | 02.92868 | 64-bit
Necrofire | AMD | Athlon X2 7750BE @ 3.1GHz | 017.1382 | 05.528451 | 64-bit
Necrofire | Intel | Atom N270 @ 1.933GHz | 000.3985 | 00.2061562 | 32-bit | Highest stable with 2GB corsair
BoT | Intel | Intel E4300 @ 2.4GHz (1.8GHz stock) | 011.5914 | 04.82975 | 32-bit
BoT | Intel | Intel Q9450 @ 3.2GHz (2.66GHz stock) | 044.1055 | 13.78296875 | 64-bit
A Cheese Danish | AMD | AMD Opteron 170 @ 2.95GHz (2.0GHz stock) | 009.176 | 03.1105 | 64-bit
hoss331 | Intel | Q9650 @ 4.2ghz | 058.845075 | 14.01071 | 64-bit | max memory 3250mb
Alexrose1uk | Intel | Q6600 @ 3.4ghz | 041.26856| 12.137812 | 64-bit | standard run
Fatal | AMD | Phenom II X4 940 @3.6 | 043.82497 |12.736027 | 64-bit |
DanTheBanjoman | Intel | Xeon DP LV 2GHz | 002.7991 | 01.39955 | 32-bit | Server
DOM | Intel | Xeon X3350 @3.6 | 045.002825 | 12.50078472 | 64-bit |
yogurt_21 | Intel | Q6700 @ 3.2GHz | 033.57168 | 10.49115 | 32-bit | 24/7 settings
Polaris573 | Intel | Core 2 Duo E6550 @ 3.0 GHz | 020.0061 | 06.6687 | 64-bit |
_33 | Intel | Core i7 920 @ 3.6GHz | 039.8057 | 11.057138 | 32-bit |
Mussels | Intel | Intel Xeon E3120 @ 3.8GHz | 023.6876 | 06.2335 | 64 bit |
stanhemi | Intel | E1200@1.6GHz | 005.4412 | 03.4007 | 32-bit |
Bundy | Intel | Q6700 @ 3.4 Ghz | 042.22616 | 12.419 | 64-bit |
DOM | Intel | Xeon X3350 @3.6 | 046.736875 |12.98246527 | 64-bit |
stanhemi | Intel | E7200 @ 3400mhz | 021.7727 | 06.4037 | 32-bit
stanhemi | Intel | Q9550 @ 3800mhz | 051.3565 | 13.5148 | 64-bit
trickson | Intel | Q9650 @ 4.0GHz | 046.3957 | 11.5989 | 32-bit
neatfeatguy | AMD | Phenom II 940 @ 3.4GHz | 040.2891 | 11.8497 | 64-bit
Kumitsu | Intel | Core 2 Duo E6850 @ 3.0GHz | 017.0182 | 05.67273 | 32-bit
DOM | Intel | Core 2 Duo E8500 @ 5.1GHz | 034.7517 | 06.8141 | 64-bit |
dcf-joe | Intel | Core i7 920 @ 3.8 GHz | 048.04096 | 12.64235789 | 64-Bit | Program set to run on 8 threads
entropy13 | Intel | Core i7 920 @ stock w/ HT and Turbo on | 028.0738 | 10.5541 | 64-bit
BoT | Intel | Q9450 @ 3.6 | 047.2457 | 13.1238 | 64-bit
onepost | AMD | PII 720 @ 3.6 | 034.3358 | 09.5377 | 64-bit |
newmodder | AMD | Phenom X4 9950 @ 2.6GHz | 027.31107 | 10.5042 | 64-bit
shhhpark | Intel | Core i7 975 @ 3.6GHz | 049.56714 | 13.76865 | 64-bit
Fitseries3 | Intel | Xeon x5677 @ 4.51ghz | 058.198675 | 12.9043 | 64-bit | loose timings @ 8thread
Fitseries3 | Intel | Xeon x5677 @ 4.51ghz | 060.6167 | 13.4405 | 64-bit | loose timings @ 4thread
Fitseries3 | Intel | Xeon x5677 @ 4.51ghz | 060.7515 | 13.4704 | 64-bit | loose timings @ 6thread
Athlonite | AMD | Athlon x2 7750BE @ 2.7GHz | 017.146575 | 06.3505 | 64-bit
Hockster | Intel | Core i7 860 @ 3.684GHz | 043.5343 | 11.8171 | 64 bit | 8 threads
[-erick-] | Intel | i7 920 @ 4.2ghz | 054.03576 | 12.865 | 32-bit | 4cores
Fitseries3 | Intel | 2x Xeon x5677 @ 4.24ghz | 103.5649 | 24.4257 | 64-bit | 16thread SR2 FTW
JrRacinFan | AMD | Phenom II 720 BE @ 3.6 | 034.9885| 09.719 | 64-bit | 3 Threads
gja822 | AMD | Athlon 64 x2 Dual Core 5200+ @ 2.8GHz | 003.30962 | 01.18120 | 32-bit |
AthlonX2 | Intel | Xeon W3520 4ghz | 056.7980 | 15.738 | 64-bit |
Pembo210 | Intel | Core i5-750 @ 3.3GHz | 045.21908 | 13.70275 | 64-bit
Bjorn_Of_Iceland | Intel | Q9550 @ 3.91GHz | 050.11068| 12.816 | 64-bit |
AhokZYashA | Intel | Core 2 Duo E7400 @ 3.6GHz | 022.345 | 06.20694 | 32-bit | highest overclock my board allows
AhokZYashA | Intel | Core 2 Duo T5450 @ 1.66GHz | 007.510125 | 04.52417 | 32-bit | shutting down all processes
NdMk2o1o | AMD | PII 550 Unlocked to X4 3.6ghz | 045.955625 | 12.7654 | 64-bit|
Cuzza | Intel | Core 2 Duo T5450 @ 1.66GHz | 007.9981 | 04.8181 | 32-bit
(FIH) The Don | AMD | Phenom II X4 965 @ 4011mhz | 049.76346 | 12.441 | 64-bit
Athlonite | AMD | Athlon x2 7750BE | 018.2156 | 00.0121437 | 64-bit
LAN_deRf_HA | Intel | i7 920 @ 4.2ghz | 060.3551 | 14.3702 | 64-bit | Only about 10 services running
mm67 | Intel | Core 2 Duo E7400 @ 3906MHz | 024.8172 | 06.3536 | 64-bit
Mussels | AMD | Phenom II 1090T @ 3.6Ghz | 064.67 | 17.96 | 64-bit | ram @ 1600MHz CL7 - NB at 2.8, HT @ 2.4
mm67 | Intel | Core 2 Quad Q9550 @ 4250 MHz | 057.6028 | 13.5536 | 64-bit
twilyth | AMD | Phenom X4 9750@2.4GHz | 027.7620 | 11.5675 | 64-Bit
Hardi | AMD | Athlon II X3 435 @ 2.9GHz | 025.1375 | 08.668 | 64-bit |
Exodusprime1337 | AMD | Phenom II 1090t @ 4.265Ghz | 080.1186 | 18.785 | 64-bit | 6 threads on water 1.50v.
AphexDreamer | AMD | Amd Phenom II 965 @ 4047Mhz | 052.444 | 12.9587 | 64-bit | 4 threads Air 1.496 Volts.
newtekie1 | Intel | Core i7 875K@3.6GHz | 043.9826 | 12.2174 | 64-bit | Hyperthreading ON and 8 Threads
newtekie1 | Intel | Core i7 875K@3.6GHz | 048.9807 | 13.6057 | 64-bit | Hyperthreading ON and 4 Threads
newtekie1 | Intel | Core i7 875K@3.6GHz | 049.3956 | 13.7210 | 64-bit | Hyperthreading OFF and 8 Threads
newtekie1 | Intel | Core i7 875K@3.6GHz | 050.6025 | 14.0562 | 64-bit | Hyperthreading OFF and 4 Threads
trickson | Intel | Q9650 @ 4.0GHz | 053.3787 | 13.34 | 64-bit |
DuDu | Intel | Q9450 3.70ghz | 046.9273 | 12.683 | 64-bit | Ram 1734mhz
Pembo210 | Intel | Core i5-750 @ 3.6GHz | 050.44122 | 14.01145 | 64-bit
gja822 | Intel | Celeron 723 (Penryn) @ 1.20GHz | 003.28018 | 02.7401 | 32-bit
Frick | AMD | AMD Sempron 140 @ 3.5GHz | 010.09238 | 02.8835 | 32-bit | Single core
MoonPig | Intel | Core2 Quad Q9550 @ 3.399 | 046.13596 | 13.5705 | 64-bit
MoonPig | Intel | Core2 Quad Q9550 @ 4.037 | 052.16536 | 12.9218 | 64-bit
Jstn7477 | AMD | Phenom II X4 955BE @ 3.210 | 038.4461 | 12.0144 | 64-bit
Gabkicks | Intel | Core i7 920 @ 3.8GHz | 054.8354 | 14.4303 | 64-Bit
Jstn7477 | AMD | Phenom II X4 955BE @ 3.210 | 038.4461 | 12.0144 | 64-bit
mithrandir | Intel | Q6600 @ 3.303.6ghz | 042.7398 | 12.937 | 64-bit
AlienIsGOD | Intel | Q9450 @ 2.667 | 031.2085 | 11.7017 | 64 bit
newtekie1 | Intel | Celeron E3200@3.6GHz | 005.8904 | 01.6362 | 64-bit |
newtekie1 | Intel | Celeron E3200@4.1GHz | 006.0283 | 01.4703 | 64-bit | Go little Celeron Go!
xBruce88x | AMD | Athlon II X4 630 @ 3.25GHz | 037.8891 | 011.6582 Per Ghz | 64-bit
guitarfreaknation | Intel | Q9550 @ 3.61 GHz | 047.2631 | 13.1286 | 64-Bit
Fatal | AMD | Sempron @ 1.9 | 001.4528 | 00.7264 | 32-bit |
Overclocking101 | Intel | Core i3 550 @ 3.2GHz | 020.0221 | 06.2569 | 64-bit
guitarfreaknation | Intel | Q9550 @ 3.7GHz | 047.9965 | 12.9720 | 64-bit
MoonPig | AMD | Phenom II 1055T @ 3.2589 | 059.3934 | 18.2261 | 64-bit
Mussels | AMD | Phenom II 1090T @ 3.8Ghz | 069.4685 | 18.28 | 64-bit | ram @ 1600MHz CL7 - NB at 2.6, HT @ 2.4
twilyth | AMD | Phenom II 1090T @ 4.0GHz | 069.42 | 17.3 | 64-bit |
Hugis | Intel | E7200 @ 3.8GHz | 023.3101 | 06.1342 | 64-bit |
newtekie1 | Intel | i3 530 @ 2.9GHz | 018.9844 | 06.5463 | 64-bit | HT On
newtekie1 | Intel | i3 530 @ 2.9GHz | 020.8543 | 07.1911 | 64-bit | HT Off
JrRacinFan | Intel | i3 530 @ 4.4Ghz | 028.2245 | 06.4147 | 64-bit | HT On - 4 Threads/5 Iterations
Hugis | Intel | Q9550 @ 3.4GHz | 045.6190 | 13.4173 | 64-bit
Raovac | AMD | Phenom II 1090T @ 4.030Ghz | 076.4836 | 18.9785 | 64-bit |
Frick | AMD | Athlon II x3 445 @ 3.1 Ghz| 013.634 | 04.38 | 32 bit
mm67 | Intel | Pentium Dual Core E6500 @ 4.0GHz | 025.33815 | 06.33454 | 64-bit
MoonPig | AMD | Phenom II 1055T @ 2.8GHz | 054.34155 | 19.34344 | 64-bit
Athlonite | AMD | Phenom II x4 940 @ 3 GHz | 039.0858 | 13.0286 | 64-bit
crunchie | AMD | Phenom II 1090T @ 4.144Ghz | 078.3538 | 18.907 | 64-bit |
DOM | Intel | i7 980X@4.4GHz | 087.1836 | 19.8145 | 64-bit | testing new ram
2DividedbyZero | Intel | i7 980X@4.41GHz | 091.65516 | 20.7834 | 64-bit |
DOM | Intel | i7 980X@4.8GHz | 095.1979 | 19.8329 | 64-bit |
Dalamar | Intel | i7 2600k @ 3.4ghz | 049.4551 | 14.5456 | 64 bit
Fatal | Intel | I7 950 @4.0 | 057.022325 | 14.2555 | 64-bit |
jmcslob | AMD | AMD AthlonII x4 635 @ 3.335ghz | 041.0235 | 12.3008 | 64-bit
Arrakis+9 | AMD | Athlon II X3 440 @3.0Ghz | 025.0815 | 08.3605 | 64-bit | Customer New Build Computer
Arrakis+9 | AMD | Athlon 64 X2 4200+ @ 2.20Ghz | 006.8183 | 03.0992 | 64-bit | Work Comp 2
Arrakis+9 | Intel | C2D E6700 @ 2.66Ghz | 013.0403 | 04.9023 | 64-bit | Work Comp 1
Arrakis+9 | Intel | i7 970 @ 3.33Ghz | 066.13084 | 19.8590 | 64-bit | 6 theads @ stock settings
Arrakis+9 | Intel | i5 M430 @ 2.52Ghz | 013.6474 | 05.4156 | 64-bit | 4 theads @ stock settings
xbonez | Intel | Core i7 2600K @ 3.4Ghz | 044.64 | 13.12 | 64-bit | RAM an 9-9-9-24 @ 1600Mhz
xbonez | Intel | Core i7 2600K @ 4.8Ghz | 061.11 | 12.73 | 64-bit | RAM an 9-9-9-24 @ 1600Mhz
_JP_ | Intel | E7400 @ 2.8GHz | 015.6537 | 05.5906 | 32-bit | Testing new cooler, didn't went over 45ºC
_JP_ | Intel | P8400 @ 2.26GHz | 014.9112 | 06.5978 | 32-bit | for the lulz, got to 68ºC
zsolt_93 | Intel | Q9400 @ 3.000GHz | 035.7192 | 11.9064 | 64bit | @ 1.056-1.088 V, EIST On, DDR2 750MHz
15th Warlock | Intel | i7 2600K @5Ghz | 070.51265 | 14.10253 | 64bit | First run at 5Ghz, no AVX acceleration used
Arctucas | Intel | i7 950@4.28GHz | 058.2678 | 14.6139 | 64-bit
mm67 | Intel | i7 950@4.0GHz | 058.1531 | 14.5383 | 64-bit
Arrakis+9 | Intel | i7 970 @ 4.25Ghz | 084.5531 | 19.8948 | 64-bit | 6 threads All settings on auto
jmcslob |AMD | AthlonII x4 635 @ 3.5ghz | 042.334575 | 12.09559 | 64-bit
Fatal | Intel | I7 950 @4.2 | 060.5158 | 15.1289| 64-bit |
St.Alia-Of-The-Knife | AMD | Phenom II 955 @ 3791Mhz | 049.24664 | 12.99 | 64-bit | M4A79XTD EVO, Cool & Quiet disabled
Ra97oR | Intel | Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 @ 3.26Ghz | 020.62478 | 06.32274 | 64-bit
Pembo210 | Intel | i7 990x @ 4.03GHz | 079.1693 | 19.64499 | 64-bit | 1st day 990x, stock air cooler
St.Alia-Of-The-Knife | AMD | Phenom II 955 @ 3893Mhz | 050.2364 | 12.9043 | 64-bit | M4A79XTD EVO, Cool & Quiet disabled
nabuyama | Intel | Core 2 Duo E6550 @ 2333Mhz | 006.842 | 02.932 | 32-bit | everything is stock
JrRacinFan | AMD | Phenom II 555 @ X4 3906Mhz | 046.45884 | 11.9125 | 64-bit | GA-MA790X-UD4P
nabuyama | Intel | Core i7 2600 @ 3400Mhz | 050.36 | 14.8 | 64-bit | everything is stock
TissueBox | Intel | Q8200 @ 3.15GHz | 039.32534 | 12.48423 | 64-bit
Athlonite | AMD | PII X4 940BE @ 3570 | 046.47 | 11.61 | 64-bit
Packerfans1 | Intel | i7 920@3.2Ghz HT | 038.59 | 12.05 | 64-bit
AthlonX2 | AMD | Phenom II 1090T 3.6Ghz | 066.2657 | 18.39 | 64-bit|
rickss69 | Intel | i7 2600K @ 5200MHz | 068.4347 | 13.1605 | 32-bit | Asus WR Revolution mb/water cooled cpu
Sotex-STI | Intel | I-7 960@3.93 Ghz | 057.2131 | 014.5766 | 64bit | HT off air cooled with Cooler Master V10
Arctucas | Intel | i7 950 @ 4273 MHz | 061.89548 | 14.48525 | 64-bit | HT on
Sotex-STI | Intel | I7-960@4.161GHz | 060.5637 | 14.5551 | 64-bit | 4 threads
TheEldest | AMD | Opteron 1220 @ 2.8GHz | 004.4208 | 01.5789 | 64-bit | OMG. Slow as molasses (dual core, AM2(+), non-OCd)
Sotex-STI | Intel | I7-960@4.273Ghz | 061.60 | 14.414 | 64Bit | Antec Kuhler 620 water cooling kit
slipstream | Intel | core i5 M 480@2.9GHz | 015.0756 | 05.1985 | 64-bit
MightyMission | AMD | Phenom II 945@3.6 | 041.4141 | 11.5039 | 64-bit | mild overclock/slack timings
Parelem | Intel | Core i7 Q740 @ 1.73Ghz | 038.4804 | 22.2430 | 32-bit | work laptop
AhokZYashA | Intel | i7 2630QM @ 2GHz | 048.24682 | 24.12341 | 64-bit | all stock settings
Drone | Intel | Pentium 4 @ 2.8GHz | 004.31 | 01.539 | 32-bit | all stock
Kevinheraiz| AMD | Phenom II 925 @ 3.6ghz| 039.9045 | 11.0846 | 64bit
Aleksander Dishnica | AMD | Phenom II X4 B55 3.1GHz | 030.7523 | 07.675 | 32-bit | Unlocked x2 CPU
Derek12 | AMD | Athlon 64 X2 3800 Windsor 2 GHz | 003.2432 | 01.6216 | 64-bit | Stock
v12dock | Intel | i5-750 2.66GHz @ 4.2GHz | 060.4544 | 14.3939 | 64-Bit
Derek12 | Intel | Atom N455 1.66 GHz | 000.4093 | 00.25581 | 32-bit | Netbook at full performance
TRWOV | Intel | Pentium E5800 @ 3.2GHz | 014.530575 | 04.540846875 | 64-bit | 865G board with DDR400 RAM
renq| AMD | FX-4100 4,2GHz | 015.13096 | 03.60 | 64-bit | Win 8 Dev Preview
stefanels | AMD | AMD Phenom II X4 B55 @ 3.2GHz | 038.1743 | 11.9295
AMDGUY | AMD | Phenom II @ 3GHz | 038.6521 | 12.8840 | 64-bit| Cool & Quiet disabled via overdrive
15th Warlock | Intel | I7 3930K@5Ghz | 104.6134 | 20.92268 | 64-bit | No AVX
TRWOV | Intel | Core i5-2320 3.0Ghz | 044.105125 | 014.7017083 | 64-bit | No AVX
TRWOV | Intel | Core 2 Quad Q6700 2.66Ghz | 023.7305 | 008.92124 | 64-bit | Conroe865PE board with DDR1 RAM
Lost Hatter | AMD | Phenom II x4 925 3.24Ghz | 041.3233 | 010.4574 | 64-bit | AMD770/rx780
TRWOV | AMD | Turion 64 X2 Mobile TL-62 2.1Ghz | 006.4612 | 003.07677 | 64-bit | hp pavilion dv2500 SE
Completely Bonkers | Intel | E5420 2.5Ghz | 058.14 | 023.25 | 32-bit | E5420+L5420, stock, W2K3 sandboxed
igorb | AMD | E-350 @1.6GHz | 002.616 | 001.635 | 64-bit
HTC | AMD | A8-3850 @ 2.9 GHz | 031.3755 | 010.8191 | 64-bit
TRWOV | Intel | Pentium 4 3.4E @ 3.4Ghz | 003.1966 | 000.940176 | 32-bit |
TRWOV | AMD | Athlon 64 FX-60 @ 2.6Ghz | 005.2404 | 002.015538 | 32-bit |
Zyky | Intel | Celeron E3400 @ 3.667GHz | 007.46143 | 002.03475 | 64-bit |
Zyky | Intel | Celeron E3400 @ 3.750GHz | 006.08398 | 001.62239 | 64-bit |
Zyky | Intel | Mobile Core 2 Duo T9300 @ 2.5GHz | 017.17917 | 006.87167 | 64-bit | Penryn IDA active
Zyky | Intel | Mobile Core 2 Duo T9500 @ 2.6GHz | 017.12522 | 006.58662 | 64-bit | Penryn IDA active
Zyky | Intel | Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 2.4GHz | 016.25911 | 006.77453 | 64-bit |
Zyky | Intel | Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 3.258GHz | 040.35176 | 012.38544 | 64-bit |
Zyky | Intel | Core I7 920 @ 3.520GHz | 045.95407 | 013.05513 | 64-bit | Turbo & Hyperthreading enabled, 4 thread run
Kiska | Intel | Core 2 Duo P8400 @ 2.26Ghz | 014.4423 | 006.3904 | 32-bit | Running Windows 8 Developer Preview
TRWOV | AMD | Athlon 64 FX-60 @ 2.6Ghz | 007.8418 | 003.016086 | 64-bit |
TRWOV | Intel | Pentium G620 @ 2.6Ghz | 017.7977 | 006.8452 | 64-bit |
agent00skid | AMD | A6-3500 2.1Ghz | 017.55337 | 008.35874 | 64-bit | Turbo disabled
Frick | Intel | Core 2 Duo T5300 @ 1.73Ghz | 006.766 | 003.911 | 64 bit | 95 C under load!
itsakjt | AMD | Phenom II X4 955BE @3.7 GHz | 049.29 | 013.32 | 64 bit | RAM @ 1600 MHz, NB 2800 MHz
IamEzio | Intel | Core 2 Duo E8400 @3.6GHz | 024.33305 | 006.75918 | 64-bit
renq | Intel | Celeron G530 @ 2.4GHz | 016.862 | 007.0260 | 64-bit | Win 8 x64 RTM
Steevo | AMD | AMD A8-3500M 1.5GHz | 016.3412 | 010.8941 | 64-bit | Not dual channel RAM, 1.5Ghz fully loaded, 3.0Ghz single thread
cdawall | AMD | Phenom II B97 
@4ghz
 | 051.7593 | 012.9398 | 64-bit | Loose timings 24/7 clocks
cdawall | AMD | Phenom II B97 @4.16GHz | 053.5078 | 12.8614 | 64-bit | peak clocks on H70
Morgothl | Intel| Intel Xeon E5520 x2 @ 2,395mhz| 049.8213 | 017.942 | 64-bit |
zoomer-fodder | AMD | Phenom II X6 1605T @ 4.03Ghz | 077.9989 | 019.36417 | 64-bit | Full stable 24/7
äxl | Intel | Core 2 Duo P7570 @ 2.26GHz | 014.5303 | 006.4293 | 64-bit | Laptop
äxl | Intel | Core i5-480M @ 2.67GHz | 016.3083 | 006.1079 | 64-bit | Laptop
Aquinus | Intel | i7 3820 @ 4.267Ghz | 090.47594| 021.2 | 64-bit | No AVX
lemonadesoda| Intel | 2x Xeon E5472 @ 3.00 Ghz | 069.5090 | 023.170 | 32-bit |
omegatotal | Intel | Q6600 @ 3.6Ghz | 046.2422 | 012.8450 | 64-bit | 24/7 8x450 1.425 Vcore actual
_JP_ | Intel | Core 2 Duo E7400 @ 2.8GHz | 018.4599 | 006.5928 | 64-bit | x64 run; DDRII 800MHz
_JP_ | Intel | C2D Mobile P8400 @ 2.2GHz | 015.7078 | 007.1399 | 64-bit | x64 run
_JP_ | AMD | Turion 64 X2 TL-58 @ 1.9GHz | 003.0381 | 001.5990 | 64-bit | Vista x64
spamynator_1 | AMD | FX 8320 @ 4.0ghz | 031.1828 | 007.7436 | 64-bit |
_JP_ | AMD | A8 5600K @ 4GHz | 020.1946 | 005.0486 | 64-bit | 4GHz@1.25v; 1600MHz CL9
xvi | Intel | Core 2 Duo T5670 1.8GHz | 010.159875 | 005.644375 | 64-bit | Dell Vostro 1510, Win 7
TRWOV | Intel | Core 2 Extreme QX6800 @ 2.93Ghz | 024.1497 | 008.2422 | 64-bit | AGP rig
Chuck216 | AMD | AMD FX-8320 @3.5Ghz | 031.942925 | 009.12655 | 64 Bit |8 Physical Cores

The following are results achieved using the AVX Instruction set:


name | Processor Maker | CPU Model and Clock | Average GFlops | GFlops Per GHz | 64-bit or 32-bit | Notes
Dalamar | Intel | i7 2600K @ 4Ghz | 099.2521 | 24.988 | 64-bit | AVX Instruction (W7SP1+updated linpack)
hoss331 | Intel | 2600k @ 5.2 | 136.6751 | 26.22 | 64-bit
Iceni | Intel | 2500k @ 4.4GHz | 090.7075 | 20.6153 | 64-bit
chevy350 | Intel | 2600k@4GHz | 086.9523 | 21.7381 | 64-bit | HT on
Kaluba | Intel | i7 2600k @4.77Ghz | 121.98 | 39.12 | 64bit
TRWOV | Intel | Core i3-2100 @ 3.1GHz | 037.72065 | 12.1679516 | 64-bit | HT enabled
TRWOV | Intel | Core i3-2100 @ 3.1GHz | 040.78865 | 13.157629 | 64-bit | HT disabled
LAN_deRf_HA | Intel | i7 2600k @ 4.4ghz | 116.0909 | 26.3843 | 64-bit | AVX. Core parking off.
TheEldest | Intel | i5-2500k @ 4.6GHz | 117.3400 | 25.51 | 64-bit | AVX enabled
tigger | Intel | i5-2400 @ 3.1GHz | 090.8377 | 29.3025 | 64-bit
dark2099 | Intel | i5-2500K @ 3.3Ghz | 089.5634 | 27.1404 | 64-bit
TRWOV | Intel | Core i5-2320 3.0Ghz | 080.498875 | 26.8329583 | 64-bit | AVX
Chicken Patty | Intel | Core i7 2600K 4.5 GHz | 093.7511 | 20.8 | 64-Bit | Hyper Threading Enabled / bunch of crap running in the background
Vnhill1981 | Intel | i5 2500 (Non K) @ 3.95GHz | 101.0784 | 25.5895 | 64-bit | Average over 10 tests, Multiplier set at x41 in BIOS, comes in at x38 during test
arnoo1 | Intel | i5 2300 stock 2.9GHz | 072.789 | 25.099 | 64-bit
tigger | Intel | i5 2400 stock 3.2GHz | 095.3251 | 29.789 | 64-bit
igorb | Intel | i5-2500k @4.3GHz | 108.494 | 025.230 | 64-bit | Notes
Sotex-STI | Intel | I7-3820 @ 4.0Ghz | 105.818 | 026.704 | 64 bit | OC Genie OC from MSI, HT off
AthlonX2 | Intel | Core i5 2500K @ 4.7Ghz | 114.8329 | 24.4234 | 64-bit | AVX
Cool Mike | Intel | 3930K@4.8Ghz | 146.04723 | 030.42650625 | 64-bit |
aquinus | Intel | Intel Core i7 3820 @ 4.536GHz | 100.472 | 022.150 | 64-bit |
IamEzio | Intel | Core i5-3470 @3.2GHz | 084.85266 | 021.213165 | 64-bit | Windows 8 RTM 64 Bit
Seronx | AMD | FX-8320 3.8 GHz/4.3 GHz | 067.071825 | 016.56094 | 64-bit | Modded Libraries(Within Spec)
Moro | Intel | i7 3930K @ 4.4GHz | 173.3296 | 039.3930 | 64-bit | AVX, HT disabled
Mephisto513 | Intel | i7 3930k @ 4.6Ghz | 125.8433 | 027.3572 | 64-bit | HT on
Timmen | Intel | i5 3570k @ 4.6Ghz | 118.0145 | 025.6553 | 64-bit
inthedark1980 | Intel | i7-2600k@4.8ghz | 103.3555 | 021.532 | 64-bit
Qiong | Intel | i7 3770 @ 4.1Ghz | 090.638 | 022.107 | 64-bit | AVX
Nightriderjt | AMD | FX-8350 @ 4.5ghz | 076.803 | 017.0673 | 64-bit
Arjai | Intel | i5 3317u 2.4GHz | 028.1967 | 011.7766 | 64 bit | 4 logical cores
Chuck216 | AMD | AMD FX-8320 @3.5Ghz | 062.715175 | 017.91862 | 64 Bit |Patched IBT
inthedark1980 | INTEL | I7-2600K@3.5ghz | 074.880 | 021.394 | 64-bit | I will run this again at my stable overclock when my replacement sabertooth z77 comes in


----------



## newtekie1 (May 19, 2009)

*Add Me*

newtekie1 | Intel | Intel Xeon X3370 @ 3.6GHz | 32.8579


----------



## yogurt_21 (May 19, 2009)

ooo I'm trying when i get home.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 19, 2009)

How long does it usually take to run?


----------



## JrRacinFan (May 19, 2009)

I'm having a problem getting the Burn Test to run, this is what I get ....


----------



## AwesomeX (May 19, 2009)

JrRacinFan said:


> I'm having a problem getting the Burn Test to run, this is what I get ....
> http://img.techpowerup.org/090519/Capture009.jpg








Same


----------



## JrRacinFan (May 19, 2009)

OOh nevermind .. download and install this:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=9b2da534-3e03-4391-8a4d-074b9f2bc1bf


----------



## newtekie1 (May 19, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> How long does it usually take to run?



About a 2 minutes total for 4 runs, probably longer on weaker processor and shorter on stronger.



JrRacinFan said:


> I'm having a problem getting the Burn Test to run, this is what I get ....
> http://img.techpowerup.org/090519/Capture009.jpg





AwesomeX said:


> http://img.techpowerup.org/090519/Capture003.jpg
> 
> Same



Make sure you have the latest .Net Framework installed.

I've updated the first post with some things to try if you can't get it to work.


----------



## AwesomeX (May 19, 2009)

The error changes to a .NET error when installing:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=9b2da534-3e03-4391-8a4d-074b9f2bc1bf

I'm pretty sure installing .NET now fixes it.


----------



## JrRacinFan (May 19, 2009)

You dont have to add this.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 19, 2009)

Someone isn't stable...


----------



## JrRacinFan (May 19, 2009)

Yeah, I'm messin around with undervolting.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 19, 2009)

*Add Me*

FordGT90Concept | Core i7 920 @ stock w/ HT and Turbo on | 26.55765
http://img.techpowerup.org/090519/by-2005.png

FordGT90Concept | 2 x Xeon 5310 @ stock | 37.074675
http://img.techpowerup.org/090519/server.png


Pretty impressive score for the two-way.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 19, 2009)

Wow, very nice.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 19, 2009)

*Add Me*

newtekie1 | Intel | Pentium Dual-Core E2180 @ 3.0GHz | 6.15605


----------



## sneekypeet (May 19, 2009)

*Add me*

sneekypeet | E8600 @ 4.25GHz | 29.682625 Gflops


----------



## Sir_Real (May 19, 2009)

Sir real | E8200 @ 3.2GHz | 21.4850

Quite happy with my score. Thats just my super stable everyday usage overclock.


----------



## lemonadesoda (May 19, 2009)

*Add me*

lemonadesoda | Intel | 2x Xeon E5420 @ 2.5 GHz | 58.4758


----------



## Easo (May 19, 2009)

Registered to do this post, hello TPU! So here is mine. AMD Phenom II x4 920 @ 2.8 GHz    34.0403GFlops


----------



## lemonadesoda (May 19, 2009)

Welcome!


----------



## Easo (May 19, 2009)

Thank you! Looks like this thread is going to be massive!


----------



## 3xploit (May 19, 2009)

*Add Me*

3xploit | Core i7 920 @ 3.9GHz | 53.7755






24/7 settings


----------



## infrared (May 19, 2009)

*Add Me*

Here we go... my 4.6GHz bench settings. I never intended it to be Linpack stable:

infrared | Intel E8400 @ 4.6GHz | 31.67638






I need a better cooler for this kinda thing! ^^


----------



## ShadowFold (May 19, 2009)

ShadowFold | AMD Phenom II 720BE @ 3.6ghz | 28.55




Good to see I'm pumping out quite a lot of flops compared to a stock i7


----------



## Sasqui (May 19, 2009)

infrared said:


> Here we go... my 4.6GHz bench settings. I never intended it to be Linpack stable:
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/090519/Capture051.png
> 
> I need a better cooler for this kinda thing! ^^



^ Holy smokes!  And it's stable!


----------



## infrared (May 19, 2009)

Thanks sasqui, temps were wayy to high for comfort though!

Gettin a 250W Peltier to play with soon, I'll dig my spare swiftech apogee out and hook it up to the garden hose for some overclocking insanity 

Hoping for 4.8-5ghz linpack stable and at least 5.2ghz benchable.


----------



## ShadowFold (May 19, 2009)

Is this multithreaded? I shouldn't be able to get that close to a 4.5ghz dual core


----------



## infrared (May 19, 2009)

yep, multithreaded. Your run was very good


----------



## newtekie1 (May 19, 2009)

Table Updated

And please remember to format your posts as instructed in the original post, this makes updated the table easier, and remember to give the average of your scores.


----------



## infrared (May 19, 2009)

*Add me*

For comparison, here is my cpu @ stock speeds:

infrared | Intel E8400 @ Stock 3GHz | 20.74668


----------



## Flyordie (May 20, 2009)

Before the BSOD... I was getting 33.2 GFLOPS on my X4 920 @ 3,360Mhz... Will redo and edit in the screens now that I have bumped my HT voltage to 1.3V (was 1.2V).


----------



## Darknova (May 20, 2009)

*Add Me*

Darknova | Phenom II X3 720BE @ 3.28Ghz | 25.609225


----------



## Flyordie (May 20, 2009)

*Add Me*



Flyordie said:


> Before the BSOD... I was getting 33.2 GFLOPS on my X4 920 @ 3,360Mhz... Will redo and edit in the screens now that I have bumped my HT voltage to 1.3V (was 1.2V).



Flyordie | Phenom II X4 920 @ 3,360Mhz +2% | 39.48 <--- Not Stable... fixed the issue by ramping the DRAM voltage to 1.8V. I was running 1.7V through my Reapers... 
I used custom to add some more RAM to the measure... will redo a test using 1024mb... (standard)...  I always fail the 4th test... I think its my HT or DRAM... ;-\  who knos.  Hope to figure it out sometime soon... hopefully with the next BSOD (if I get another one)





ROUND 2!
Flyordie|Phenom II X4 920 @ 3,360Mhz +2%|39.6515  <--- STABLE!


----------



## newtekie1 (May 20, 2009)

I'd like stable test, but for the time being I'm going to accept unstable runs as long as the test finishes.  If you get a stable run, please post it and I will replace the unstable run.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 20, 2009)

*Add Me*

newtekie1 | Intel | Atom N270 @ 1.6GHz | 00.3075


----------



## DarkEgo (May 20, 2009)

*Add this*





DarkEgo | Intel |Q9550 @ 4.0| 51.15155


----------



## Flyordie (May 20, 2009)

I like ur background... must kno who it is...
Is that... Miss Miller?


----------



## DarkEgo (May 20, 2009)

Flyordie said:


> I like ur background... must kno who it is...
> Is that... Miss Miller?



Yep, it is Marissa Miller from the 2007 Sports Illustrated swim suit photo shoot.


----------



## hoss331 (May 20, 2009)

*add me*

hoss331 | Q9650 @ 4.425GHz | 59.4010


----------



## mlee49 (May 20, 2009)

I need to bench this at home, good benchmark IMO.

Anyone got a Q6600(3.6ish) we could run for this?  I'd like to see how close that would come to a PII at stock speeds.


----------



## rflair (May 20, 2009)

*add me*

rflair | Intel | q6600 @ 3.6GHz | 44.95


----------



## mlee49 (May 20, 2009)

rflair said:


> rflair | q6600@3.6GHz | 44.95
> 
> http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/5356/gflops.jpg



Wow, a call for action and immediately met!  Any chance you have cookies? 


Woot, Kentsfield > Deneb  Where's your cores now bitches!


----------



## erocker (May 20, 2009)

*Add please.*

erocker | Intel | E8600 @ 4ghz | 26.28145


----------



## hoss331 (May 20, 2009)

you dont have to add this, yorky at 3.6ghz


----------



## nascasho (May 20, 2009)

Ummm... something wrong here? How you guys getting like a bazillion GFlops?! I'm talking about the guys with the same CPU btw.

EDIT: Nvm, hoss331, you have steedstep on or is CPU-Z glitched?!


----------



## hoss331 (May 20, 2009)

No its not on and cpuz is not glitched. Why?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 20, 2009)

It could be caused by background tasks.  For example, I had to snooze WCG because if I didn't, it was getting 70+ second times vs 25-35 second times.

I'd imagine also the memory speed could make a big difference.  CPU-Z will tell you more about memory timings than Core Temp.


----------



## nascasho (May 20, 2009)

hoss331 said:


> No its not on and cpuz is not glitched. Why?



Bad math on my part, 450 x 9... when the pic says 8.

I need sleep.

And heres my RAM timings:

5-6-6-17 @ 754Mhz w/ 2.0V

Total of 8GB.


----------



## chuck216 (May 20, 2009)

*Add Me*

chuck216 | Phenom II 940 @ 3.5 Ghz | 40.922625


----------



## hoss331 (May 20, 2009)

nascasho said:


> Bad math on my part, 450 x 9... when the pic says 8.
> 
> I need sleep.
> 
> ...



Your ram is definitely not helping, but these chips are hardly working at 3.4. Is that as high as your ram can stably go? This is 3.4 with my ram at 1134.


----------



## nascasho (May 20, 2009)

I hate my life.

And yes, w/o pumping soooo much Vcore, I couldn't get it stable at 3.6Ghz for the life of me (Was at 1.36V non-stable) I would swap boards... but SLI...

Right now I like these clocks because I'm running on stock Volts, 1.25.

The RAM I keep synced with the FSB.  They're both rated for 800Mhz each.


----------



## hoss331 (May 20, 2009)

Yea if you want to keep SLI your kinda limited, but better ram should help though.


----------



## nascasho (May 20, 2009)

How does GFlops work in correlation with like Gaming. Lets say a game shined at 3.4Ghz, I'm seeing normal benches, but you guys must see much more since your CPU can push out more?

GFlops is the amount of info a CPU can pop out?

I'm confused here.

Sry for being a noob.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 20, 2009)

FlOPS weigh in heavily in terms of player positions, collision detection, and physics.

FlOPS = FLoating point Operations Per Second

A floating point basically means the decimal position is important (e.g. 1 is just an integer while 1.1 is a floating point value).  An operation is like multiplying two floating point values together.  A GFLOP (billion floating point operations per second), for instance, means the processor could multiply two floating point values together one billion times in a second.


FLOPS are most important in terms of scientific work.  Usually the graphics card will fall short before the CPU.


----------



## nascasho (May 20, 2009)

So low GFlops would affect performance in gaming?

I'm about to fling this thing out the window because I have no idea why I'm getting such a low score... Hell, I don't even notice any difference.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 20, 2009)

nascasho said:


> So low GFlops would affect performance in gaming?
> 
> I'm about to fling this thing out the window because I have no idea why I'm getting such a low score... Hell, I don't even notice any difference.


Yeah.  I mean, you wouldn't want to play a game on an Atom. XD

My Core i7 920 only got 26.6 average.  A dual-core E8600 beat it, albeit with a clockspeed almost double mine...

The way I see it, Linpack is mostly meant for stability, not benchmarking (unless you are benchmarking stability).


----------



## nascasho (May 20, 2009)

Wow, makes sense...

I guess 3.4Ghz is equiv to your i7 920 stock considering I think they have about 40% diffence at the same clocks...

I get 27.9ish


----------



## lemonadesoda (May 20, 2009)

hoss331 said:


> hoss331 | Q9650 @ 4.25GHz | 59.4010
> 
> http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p293/hoss281/Untitledc.jpg



Great results! But bug in your stats. Check your MHz. No way a Q9650 can pull 59.4010 GFlops @ 4.25GHz.  I think your clock must be higher.


----------



## Melvis (May 20, 2009)

*Add Me*

Melvis | AMD | FX-57 @ 2.8GHz | 01.6395 | 0.5855357 | 32-bit | Old School

Thanks for updating mine


----------



## rflair (May 20, 2009)

Why are some people only doing 4 runs, when the test defaults to 5 and the original Ops message was also defaulting to 5?

I mean the difference is under 1 minute to run 5 (default) instead of 4.

Lets keep consistency.


----------



## Darknova (May 20, 2009)

rflair said:


> Why are some people only doing 4 runs, when the test defaults to 5 and the original Ops message was also defaulting to 5?
> 
> I mean the difference is under 1 minute to run 5 (default) instead of 4.
> 
> Lets keep consistency.





> Run the IntelBurnTest(yes, it works on AMDs), set it to run at least 4 times and run the standard stress level.



and newtekies first run was 4 times.


----------



## rflair (May 20, 2009)

Darknova said:


> and newtekies first run was 4 times.



Opps my mistake. Was just looking at the pretty pictures.


----------



## Darknova (May 20, 2009)

rflair said:


> Opps my mistake. Was just looking at the pretty pictures.



 I know some people have done 5 runs, and newtekie did say "at least 4 runs", more just gives a more accurate reading.


----------



## yogurt_21 (May 20, 2009)

infrared said:


> Here we go... my 4.6GHz bench settings. I never intended it to be Linpack stable:
> 
> infrared | Intel E8400 @ 4.6GHz | 31.67638
> 
> ...



he's Alive! it's a miracle!

seriously where you been?

nice overclock there, but they again you always were able to push a cpu to it's max. (5GHZ p4)


----------



## hoss331 (May 20, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> Great results! But bug in your stats. Check your MHz. No way a Q9650 can pull 59.4010 GFlops @ 4.25GHz.  I think your clock must be higher.



WTH, I missed a number, supposed to be 4.425

Thanks


----------



## newtekie1 (May 20, 2009)

Table Update

I'd like to see some Athlon X2 results, and maybe we can get some people from the low cache overclocking club to post some results here, I'd really like to get an idea how cache affects this test.

I can already tell the memory bandwidth drastically affects performance.  Time to up my RAM speed and see what I can do.



rflair said:


> Why are some people only doing 4 runs, when the test defaults to 5 and the original Ops message was also defaulting to 5?
> 
> I mean the difference is under 1 minute to run 5 (default) instead of 4.
> 
> Lets keep consistency.



I said at least 4 runs, instead of 5, for people running older setups.  It takes longer and longer to run the weaker the processor. Look at my Atom run, it would have taken another 45+ Minutes to do one more run, and it had already taken almost 3 and a half hours just to run the 4.  Doing more runs just adds accuracy to the scores since we are taking the average of all the runs.

4 was the number I decided on that would still ensure pretty good stability, yet not make the test a total drag to run on lower end hardware.


----------



## rflair (May 20, 2009)

rflair | AMD | Opteron 146 @ 2.8GHz | 4.305

This was run with only 512megs in the test, this PC only has 1 gig and is running Win7 x64.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 20, 2009)

*Add Me*

newtekie1 | Intel | Celeron 325 @ 2.53GHz | 02.6307


----------



## lemonadesoda (May 20, 2009)

^^ You need a "zero" in front of that score!


----------



## Naekuh (May 20, 2009)

Naekuh | i7 975 D0 @ 4.3ghz HT OFF | 59 ish im too lazy to bust out calculator. 






Does HT on even matter? 

The old LinX didnt even use HT threads, but i could run it with HT on.

Erk.. old cpu-z tho, looks like it cant read my D0 properly.


----------



## CH@NO (May 20, 2009)

*add me*

CH@NO | e8200 @ 3.8GHz | 23.1021


----------



## lemonadesoda (May 21, 2009)

*Correct Me*

Please edit/correct my old entry #7 with the following data:

lemonadesoda | 2x Xeon E5420 @ 2.50 GHz | 58.67 | CPU at stock, FB-DIMMs at 667


----------



## newtekie1 (May 21, 2009)

Table Updated


----------



## Naekuh (May 21, 2009)

actually i need another update.

Guys with i7.. DISABLE HT ON. 

HT ON makes your results worse.


----------



## DanishDevil (May 21, 2009)

*Add Me*






DanishDevil | Intel | Intel Xeon X3210 @ 2.13GHz (Stock) | 26.95774


----------



## sneekypeet (May 21, 2009)

Danish it isnt the highest flops, its the average of all 5 runs.


----------



## DanishDevil (May 21, 2009)

Fixed


----------



## Bot (May 21, 2009)

BoT | Intel | Intel Q9450 @ 2.66MHz (Stock) | 35.8590


----------



## techjunkie (May 21, 2009)

*Add Me *

techjunkie, Intel, IntelCore2Quad Q6600 @ 3GHz, 38.6182






I seem to get higher results with an FSB of 375 than with 333, with the proc in both cases at 3Ghz. Is GFlops dependant on FSB given the same clocks ?


----------



## catulitechup (May 21, 2009)

*Add Me*

catulitechup | AMD | AMD Phenom X3 8450 Clock 2.1GHz Stock | 15.9165


----------



## A Cheese Danish (May 21, 2009)

*Add me*

A Cheese Danish | Intel | Intel Core 2 Duo T9300 @ 2.5GHz | 07.3217





*Will have my AMD rig up tomorrow.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 21, 2009)

Table Updated

Please Note that there is a new version of IntelBurnTest, 2.1, this allows you to select the number of threads to use.  People with HT on might need to set the number of threads manually to get it to use the HT features.


----------



## Necrofire (May 21, 2009)

Necrofire | AMD | Athlon X2 7750BE @ 3.1GHz | 17.1382






techpowerup.org is down for me 

Will post atom @ 1933MHz when it finishes in a few hours


----------



## newtekie1 (May 22, 2009)

Table Updated


----------



## Necrofire (May 22, 2009)

Necrofire | Intel | Atom N270 @ 1.933GHz | 00.3985 | Highest stable with 2GB corsair :/


----------



## infrared (May 22, 2009)

techjunkie said:


> techjunkie, Intel, IntelCore2Quad Q6600 @ 3GHz, 38.6182
> 
> http://forums.techpowerup.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=25934&stc=1&d=1242880769
> 
> I seem to get higher results with an FSB of 375 than with 333, with the proc in both cases at 3Ghz. Is GFlops dependant on FSB given the same clocks ?



The cores on a Q6600 communicate with each other through the FSB, so higher fsb is good. 
Also you're probably getting more bandwidth from the memory, improving the score further.


----------



## Bot (May 22, 2009)

BoT | Intel | Intel E4300 @ 2.4GHz (1.8GHz stock) | 11.5914


----------



## newtekie1 (May 22, 2009)

Table updated


----------



## Bot (May 22, 2009)

BoT | Intel | Intel Q9450 @ 3.2GHz (2.66GHz stock) | 44.1055



wow, what a difference 500MHz can make.


----------



## lemonadesoda (May 22, 2009)

newtekie1,

Suggestion:

Record 32-bit or 64-bit
Record score per Ghz

Then we can see what cpus are more efficient per clock, and also if the 64bit code path is faster than 32bit


----------



## techjunkie (May 22, 2009)

infrared said:


> The cores on a Q6600 communicate with each other through the FSB, so higher fsb is good.
> Also you're probably getting more bandwidth from the memory, improving the score further.



I'll see what i can score with an even higher fsb


----------



## newtekie1 (May 22, 2009)

Table Updated



lemonadesoda said:


> newtekie1,
> 
> Suggestion:
> 
> ...



Sounds good, I've updated the first post to reflect the new format to make entries with.  I'll try to go through the original entries this weekend and manually update them with the missing information.


----------



## A Cheese Danish (May 22, 2009)

*Add Me*

A Cheese Danish | AMD | AMD Opteron 170 @ 2.95GHz (2.0GHz stock) | 09.176


----------



## lemonadesoda (May 22, 2009)

*Update me*

NEW FORMAT

lemonadesoda | 2x Xeon E5420 @ 2.50 GHz | 58.67 | 23.47 per Ghz | 32-bit | CPU at stock, FB-DIMMs at 667




			
				new format said:
			
		

> name | cpu | average score | score per Ghz | 32-bit | comment


----------



## Naekuh (May 22, 2009)

OP you should put the list in order so we can see what cpu's are getting what time more easily.


----------



## infrared (May 22, 2009)

Yeah, if ya did away with the number on the left and just had them sorted by gflops it would be good 

The thread's really taken off though, I didn't expect to see this many people so fast


----------



## newtekie1 (May 22, 2009)

Table Updated with new entries.



Naekuh said:


> OP you should put the list in order so we can see what cpu's are getting what time more easily.



Click on any of the column headers to sort the table however you want, it is too much work to manually sort the table.


----------



## hoss331 (May 23, 2009)

*add*

hoss331 | Q9650 @ 4.2ghz | 58.845075 | 14.01071 | 64-bit | max memory 3250mb


----------



## alexrose1uk (May 24, 2009)

*Add Me*

Here's mine 

Alexrose1uk | Q6600 @ 3.4ghz |41.26856| 12.137812 | 64-bit | standard run


Temps are high as its pretty damn warm here today, and ambient temp is ~10 degrees C up from normal!
<1920x1080 screenshot>


----------



## chuck216 (May 24, 2009)

We need more PII 940/945/955 results I know there are guys running higher clocks than my system can.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 25, 2009)

Table Updated Completely


----------



## Fatal (May 25, 2009)

*Add Me*

Fatal | AMD Phenom II X4 940 @3.6 | 41.362175 |11.4894930 | 64-bit |


----------



## newtekie1 (May 25, 2009)

Table Updated


----------



## Deleted member 3 (May 25, 2009)

*I'll add myself*

DanTheBanjoman|Intel|Xeon DP LV 2GHz|2.7991|1.39955|32-bit|Server






Ran it only once because it takes too long


----------



## Fatal (May 25, 2009)

*Update Add Me please & thank you*

Fatal | AMD Phenom II X4 940 @3.6 | 43.82497 |12.736027 | 64-bit |







Not sure why I did better on the test this time same clock


----------



## newtekie1 (May 25, 2009)

Table Updated


----------



## lemonadesoda (May 25, 2009)

leading zeros needed on some Flops/Ghz


----------



## newtekie1 (May 25, 2009)

Fixed, sorry about that I was just concentrated on pushing through the calculations as quickly as possible to get the table updated.


----------



## lemonadesoda (May 25, 2009)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> DanTheBanjoman|Intel|Xeon DP LV 2GHz|2.7991|1.39955|32-bit|Server
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/090525/Capture006073.jpg
> 
> Ran it only once because it takes too long



dont be shy Dan, put your big-daddy machine results up here, not your antique fileserver over RDP.


----------



## DOM (May 25, 2009)

DOM | Xeon X3350 @3.6 | 45.002825 |12.50078472 | 64-bit |


----------



## yogurt_21 (May 25, 2009)

*Add Me*






*yogurt_21 l Q6700 @ 3.2GHZ l 33.57168 l 10.49115 l 32-bit l 24/7 settings*


----------



## chuck216 (May 25, 2009)

*Update and Add Me Please*

chuck216 | Phenom II X4 940 BE @ 3.5 Ghz | 41.28426 | 11.7955 | 64-bit |

Managed to get it to run a little bit better


----------



## Polaris573 (May 26, 2009)

Polaris573 | Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 @ 3.0 GHz | 20.0061 | 6.6687 | 64-bit |


----------



## _33 (May 26, 2009)




----------



## Mussels (May 26, 2009)

*add me*

Mussels | Intel | Intel Xeon E3120 @ 3.8GHz | 23.6876 | 06.2335 | 64 bit |


----------



## chuck216 (May 26, 2009)

Hmm interesting, from 33's results my P II 940 @ 3.5 is slightly better than the I7 920 @ 3.6. What gives? Shouldn't the i7 walk all over the Phenom II at similar speeds?


----------



## lemonadesoda (May 26, 2009)

1./ The P II seems to be quite a little performer! I'm impressed
2./ But your results arent really valid, since you didnt pass the stability test, who knows what "clocks" "timers" and other calculations are wrong
3./ Try to do a stable run, matching a lower i7 clock, and check how you perform relative


----------



## Deleted member 3 (May 26, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> dont be shy Dan, put your big-daddy machine results up here, not your antique fileserver over RDP.



Can't BIOS is somehow screwed. Whenever I change any voltage the settings reset. It's an issue with the board, can't find a solution to it. Thus I can't run the bench at decent speeds. Interestingly enough I don't have any other problems at all, clocking a bit lower does make me able to run it, getting similar numbers to the other Xeons in the list then. I might look into the issue later.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 26, 2009)

Mussels your running on a OS that is not even on the market yet so that could actually affect overall performance numbers aswell.


----------



## Mussels (May 26, 2009)

eidairaman1 said:


> Mussels your running on a OS that is not even on the market yet so that could actually affect overall performance numbers aswell.



true, which is why i upped teh entire screenshot to make that apparent.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 26, 2009)

ill admit 7 does run great on this machine even (GUI detail maxed), im looking towards an upgrade later this year since this machine i cant push any further without any additional board cooling. Id provide numbers as a baseline for old school but the apps probably dont run on this hardware heh.


----------



## Mussels (May 26, 2009)

eidairaman1 said:


> ill admit 7 does run great on this machine even (GUI detail maxed), im looking towards an upgrade later this year since this machine i cant push any further without any additional board cooling. Id provide numbers as a baseline for old school but the apps probably dont run on this hardware heh.



please try it. i really want to see how a barton performs in Gflopsies.


----------



## mudkip (May 26, 2009)

did a quick overclock run to see if my overclock would be stable @ 3,4Ghz stock voltage (1.1315v) or not


----------



## mudkip (May 26, 2009)

3,6 Ghz @ stock voltage wow!


----------



## yogurt_21 (May 26, 2009)

Mussels said:


> please try it. i really want to see how a barton performs in Gflopsies.



hmm you tempt me to bring out the 2600m again. pity I lack a case and psu for it lol. well that and it gets way too hot for the volcano 10 that's currently on it, I need to put water back on it. in it's hay day it ran at 2.7GHZ which was quite an oc from it's 2GHZ stock. nice little chip. but I think it'll be more in the megaflops area though.

anyway I'm running to an interesting issue, any time I try to run at 3.6 it completes in 2-5 seconds and says successful lol. I wonder if it's not liking a voltage change...that or it's yelling at me to take the stock cooler off and put water or phase back on. 

man I hate it when my pc tells me I'm lazy.


----------



## stanhemi (May 26, 2009)

*Add Me*

stanhemi | intel E1200 | 5.4412 | 3,4007 | 32 bit


----------



## chuck216 (May 27, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> 1./ The P II seems to be quite a little performer! I'm impressed
> 2./ But your results arent really valid, since you didnt pass the stability test, who knows what "clocks" "timers" and other calculations are wrong
> 3./ Try to do a stable run, matching a lower i7 clock, and check how you perform relative



Huh? what do you mean I didn't pass the stability test? My system passed it just fine. all the results from each pass are exactly the same. Unless you want a screen shot of the little popup that comes up after the run completes. I closed that so I could get a screen shot of the results.


----------



## chuck216 (May 27, 2009)

*Update and Add Me Please*

chuck216 | Phenom II X4 940 BE @ 3.5 Ghz | 41.92552 | 11.97872 | 64-bit | Fresh reboot

Here's a run off of a fresh reboot with proof of stability:


----------



## Bundy (May 27, 2009)

*Add Me*

Bundy | Intel | Q6700 @ 3.4 Ghz | 42.22616 | 12.419 | 64 bit


----------



## yogurt_21 (May 27, 2009)

I'm installing win 7 rc1 tonight and I'll re run the test in 64-bit mode, it seems to matter alot.


----------



## lemonadesoda (May 27, 2009)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Can't BIOS is somehow screwed. Whenever I change any voltage the settings reset. It's an issue with the board, can't find a solution to it. Thus I can't run the bench at decent speeds. Interestingly enough I don't have any other problems at all, clocking a bit lower does make me able to run it, getting similar numbers to the other Xeons in the list then. I might look into the issue later.



Sorry to hear that YET ANOTHER Asus Z7S is troublesome.

Can you warranty it out for the DSEB/DG? That is what I have got, and it is rock solid. However, you will need to BSEL mod to OC the FSB since there is no BIOS options.  Repeat DSEB is rock solid.


----------



## lemonadesoda (May 27, 2009)

chuck216 said:


> Huh? what do you mean I didn't pass the stability test? My system passed it just fine. all the results from each pass are exactly the same. Unless you want a screen shot of the little popup that comes up after the run completes. I closed that so I could get a screen shot of the results.



Chuck, I have NO IDEA why I commented that to you. I remember quite clearly seeing a table of inconsistent results. It must have been a different poster. Apologies for the confusion.


----------



## chuck216 (May 27, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> Chuck, I have NO IDEA why I commented that to you. I remember quite clearly seeing a table of inconsistent results. It must have been a different poster. Apologies for the confusion.



No problem, It made me think maybe I did have an unstable run and try another after a reboot that got me my best results so far.


----------



## DOM (May 27, 2009)

*Add Me*

DOM | Xeon X3350 @3.6 | 46.736875 |12.98246527 | 64-bit |


----------



## stanhemi (May 27, 2009)

*Add Me*

stanhemi | E7200 @ 3400mhz | 21.7727 | 6.4037 | 32 bit


----------



## stanhemi (May 27, 2009)

*Add Me*

stanhemi | Q9550 @ 3800mhz | 51.3565 | 13.5148 
| 64 bit


----------



## trickson (May 27, 2009)

*Add Me .*

trickson | Q9650 @ 4.0GHz |46.3957 |






I am not sure I did this right Please let me know if it not thank you .


----------



## neatfeatguy (May 28, 2009)

I'm slowly messing around with overclocking. I'm hoping at some point to get this baby going at 3.6-3.7 on just air....but that'll be a future project.

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/2126/gfloptest.jpg


----------



## Kumitsu (May 28, 2009)

Kumitsu | Intel | Core 2 Duo E6850 @ 3.0GHz | 17.0182


----------



## newtekie1 (May 28, 2009)

Table Updated


----------



## Naekuh (May 28, 2009)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> DanTheBanjoman|Intel|Xeon DP LV 2GHz|2.7991|1.39955|32-bit|Server
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/090525/Capture006073.jpg
> 
> Ran it only once because it takes too long



that doesnt happen to be a sammy is it?

 Sammy owner here

However i think something is wrong with your sammy for it to be at 1.4vcore.  :X 






Sorry OP, sammy owners are rare.


----------



## trickson (May 28, 2009)

Can I ask just how does one interpret the table ? I mean what does all the #s mean ?


----------



## Naekuh (May 28, 2009)

trickson said:


> Can I ask just how does one interpret the table ? I mean what does all the #s mean ?



basically the first is the time required to complete calculation.

The second Gflops is @ what speed the calculation is done at. 

The last is the value the calculation came up with.

Its important that you do more then one, so you can verify if your cpu did the calculation correct.

So the one with the shortest time, and highest GFlop number basically takes Pie.


----------



## DanishDevil (May 28, 2009)

One suggestion, for those with Dual CPU scores, could we cut their Score/GHz in two because they have two physical processors?  It makes it a bit skewed if we're comparing GFlops/GHz in different processors.


----------



## trickson (May 28, 2009)

Naekuh said:


> basically the first is the time required to complete calculation.
> 
> The second Gflops is @ what speed the calculation is done at.
> 
> ...



OK but I still don't get it .


----------



## DanishDevil (May 28, 2009)

These scores are taken from a benchmark, which basically assigns a number relative to your system's performance.  People compare these numbers to see whose system is faster.


----------



## trickson (May 28, 2009)

DanishDevil said:


> These scores are taken from a benchmark, which basically assigns a number relative to your system's performance.  People compare these numbers to see whose system is faster.



OK I get that but how do I know just were my system stands ?


----------



## Naekuh (May 28, 2009)

trickson said:


> OK I get that but how do I know just were my system stands ?



Look for someone who has a score simular to yours. And then check out what processor he's running. 

I think my processor still holds first place at 60 Gflops.


----------



## chuck216 (May 28, 2009)

neatfeatguy said:


> I'm slowly messing around with overclocking. I'm hoping at some point to get this baby going at 3.6-3.7 on just air....but that'll be a future project.
> 
> http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/2126/gfloptest.jpg



The key to overclocking the PII 940 is to concentrate on raising the multiplier first without changing the bus speed, once you get the highest possible multiplier, then try raising the bus speed a little. I can get 3.5 Ghz stable 17.5*200 with the v-core set to auto. so you should be able to get at least that if you ad some volts.


----------



## chuck216 (May 28, 2009)

newteckie1: There are a couple results that are off by one column, results for Dom and stanhemi are shifted 1 column to the left without the manufacturer.


----------



## hoss331 (May 28, 2009)

If you want you can delete my other runs and just use this one.

hoss331 | Q9650 @ 4.32ghz | 60.63655 | 14.03623 | 64-bit | max memory 3250mb


----------



## lemonadesoda (May 28, 2009)

We can all play the increase-memory-for-a-better-score game :shadedshu :shadedshu

lemonadesoda | 2x E5420 @ 2.50 Ghz | 62.21 | 24.88 | 32-bit | max memory 2047 mb






Let's keep the benchmark table simple:  stick with 1024 MB RAM. While most users could do 2048MB runs, and get better scores, it means recreating the table. Mixing and matching memory in the table is clearly not a good idea.

Hoss, try OC your 1024MB run again, fiddling with memory timings... if you want to get to the top of the scoreboard... keep trying.  

Then I'll OC my sytem rather than running it at stock. ROFL


----------



## lemonadesoda (May 28, 2009)

DanishDevil said:


> One suggestion, for those with Dual CPU scores, could we cut their Score/GHz in two because they have two physical processors?  It makes it a bit skewed if we're comparing GFlops/GHz in different processors.



Nope. Because a Quad is TWO Duals on one die. Do you suggesting cutting those scores in two also? 

What you could do however is to have a THIRD calculation that is the Score per Ghz per *virtual core*.  That means divinding by 1 for Pentium 3. By 2 for P4 on HT, by 2 for Core 2, by 4 for Core 2 Quad, by 8 for Nehalem on HTT, by 8 for Dual Core Quad Xeons.

Getting a bit confusing though.  Anyway, that's not the point of benchmarking. You dont want to keep dividing like that. What you want to do is assess the TOTAL CAPABILITY of the rig. The only reason we have the GHz divider is to see who much the results are from OC, and whether we want to OC our existing setups further, or move over to a newer faster architecture.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 28, 2009)

Table "Update", and I put that in quotes for a reason.  I added nothing new, but I did go through and delete any score that was done with the memory setting different than 1024MB.  No score will be accepted unless all the rules in the original thread are followed.  The only exception will be for computer that physically don't have enough RAM to allow 1024MB runs.

Also, I've fixed the column problems with the 2 scores, I was in a hurry last night trying to finish the updating and missed adding in the manufacturer.


----------



## lemonadesoda (May 28, 2009)

newtekie, please update your OP, to make it clear what the rules are.  The OP doesnt state, MUST RUN AT 1024MB... etc. etc.


----------



## Naekuh (May 28, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> If you want to get to the top of the scoreboard... keep trying.
> 
> Then I'll OC my sytem rather than running it at stock. ROFL



u think 4.4 is the best i can do on a 975 + classified?  

Im waiting for someone to beat me, so i can put pressure again.  
That brings fun in competition, not when one person just slaughters the board via landslide.


----------



## lemonadesoda (May 28, 2009)

I just _knew _you were holding something back. What a teaser. 

Just to whet your appetite, at a moments notice I can BSEL mod my Xeons to get another 10%. So start practising at pulling in 70 Gflops... or you will be in trouble.  But the drama is when I pull out from 5th place to regain the crown. LOL


----------



## newtekie1 (May 28, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> newtekie, please update your OP, to make it clear what the rules are.  The OP doesnt state, MUST RUN AT 1024MB... etc. etc.



The original post says to run it at the standard stress level, this is 1024MB.


----------



## Naekuh (May 28, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> I just _knew _you were holding something back. What a teaser.
> 
> Just to whet your appetite, at a moments notice I can BSEL mod my Xeons to get another 10%. So start practising at pulling in 70 Gflops... or you will be in trouble.  But the drama is when I pull out from 5th place to regain the crown. LOL



LOL well.. im only pushing 1.35vcore with a dedicated cpu loop. 

My load temps for that 4.4 didnt push into 70's.   

So i figure i have about another 300-400mhz (linpack stable) as backup incase someone decides to bring a nuke into this thread.


----------



## hoss331 (May 28, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> We can all play the increase-memory-for-a-better-score game :shadedshu :shadedshu



Are we taking this a little to seriously? I didnt recall seeing a limit on how much ram we could use, and its not like I was trying to pass if off as a 1gb run. Yea im a cheater because I used a harder test.  I dont see what the big deal is using max as long as it was notated.


----------



## lemonadesoda (May 28, 2009)

Read the rest of my post and dont be so uptight. Perhaps also read the next post I made to newtekie to point out that perhaps the memory limit wasnt clear to everyone. Then read your post above, sit down, have a drink, and start OC'ing.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 29, 2009)

hoss331 said:


> I didnt recall seeing a limit on how much ram we could use



It has been in the first post since I created the thread:



newtekie1 said:


> ...run the standard stress level.



Standard = 1024MB =/= Custom


----------



## DOM (May 29, 2009)

*Add Me*

DOM | Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 @ 5.1GHz | 34.7517 | 6.8141 | 64-bit |


----------



## Mussels (May 29, 2009)

DOM said:


> DOM | Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 @ 5.1GHz | 34.7517 | 6.8141 | 64-bit |
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/090529/Untitled.jpg



i am thoroughly impressed.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 29, 2009)

Table Updated


----------



## mudkip (May 29, 2009)

maby it would be nice if you'd order the table on Gflops.. now they're all just random


----------



## newtekie1 (May 29, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Results: Click the column headers to sort the table.



Its too much work to sort the table manually.


----------



## dcf-joe (Jun 2, 2009)

*Add Me*

dcf-joe | Intel | Core i7 920 @ 3.8 GHz | 48.04096 | 12.64235789 | 64-Bit | Program set to run on 8 threads


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Jun 2, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Its too much work to sort the table manually.



That's why you don't do it manually:

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=997066&postcount=23


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Jun 2, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> Sorry to hear that YET ANOTHER Asus Z7S is troublesome.
> 
> Can you warranty it out for the DSEB/DG? That is what I have got, and it is rock solid. However, you will need to BSEL mod to OC the FSB since there is no BIOS options.  Repeat DSEB is rock solid.



And then? The DSEB/DG doesn't have any options to change vcore in the first place. So there is no gain.

As for Z7S's being troublesome, this is only my second. Some people at XS had more 

Strange though, changing vcore worked fine before with this BIOS version. Not sure what changed, the thread on XS mentions it as a common issue though. Either way, my new board is ordered. The Z7S will be degraded to secondary machine, will sell the S5370 and X7DAL-E.

Also, BSEL mods are needed either way since there is no control over the FSB/memory divider.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 2, 2009)

Table updated



DanTheBanjoman said:


> That's why you don't do it manually:
> 
> http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=997066&postcount=23



That doesn't work properly, I tried it.  For some reason it sorts them, but not in the correct order.  It gets them close to sorted into the right oder, but it puts some of the scores in the 40s higher than the 50s and 60s.  Sorting by clicking the table headers works perfectly though.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Jun 2, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> That doesn't work properly, I tried it.  For some reason it sorts them, but not in the correct order.  It gets them close to sorted into the right oder, but it puts some of the scores in the 40s higher than the 50s and 60s.  Sorting by clicking the table headers works perfectly though.



That some reason was a space missing in those entries, I'm not sure why you have all those spaces in there in the first place anyway. I added the space and it's sorted fine now.


----------



## entropy13 (Jun 2, 2009)

entropy13 | Intel| Core i7 920 @ stock w/ HT and Turbo on | 28.0738 | 10.5541 | 64-bit


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 2, 2009)

Table Updated



DanTheBanjoman said:


> That some reason was a space missing in those entries, I'm not sure why you have all those spaces in there in the first place anyway. I added the space and it's sorted fine now.



Thanks, I figured it was something stupid on my part like that, but when I tried it it didn't work correctly right away and I said screw it and just added the ability to sort by column headers and haven't had the time or patience to mess around with figuring it out(though it was on my list of things to do).

I put the spaces there simply to make things easier to read if I have to edit the table, like when I had to go back and add the Chip Maker manually for most of the entries.


----------



## Bot (Jun 3, 2009)

BoT | Intel | Q9450 @ 3.6 | 47.2457 | 13.1238 | 64 bit



really nice scalling with the cpu and fsb speed combination in this bench


----------



## Naekuh (Jun 3, 2009)

Mussels said:


> i am thoroughly impressed.



he's not linx stable tho... look it errors each time.



DOM said:


> DOM | Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 @ 5.1GHz | 34.7517 | 6.8141 | 64-bit |
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/090529/Untitled.jpg



Dom its a great overclock, but a bad overclock.  Your results are error and that means your cpu has failed stability.


----------



## onepost (Jun 4, 2009)

onepost | AMD | PII 720 @ 3.6 | 34.3358 | 9.5377 | 64-bit | Notes


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 4, 2009)

Table Updated


----------



## shhhpark (Apr 17, 2010)

hey guys joined the forum for this post...couldnt find anything like this anywhere else.
Here's my rig: 
Alienware Aurora (dont know me please i got it as a free upgrade to an older system that i got for dirt cheap)
i7 975 stock speeds
1066mhz ddr3
Alienware X58 board
5870 crossfire

My scores under 8 thread and maximum stress level i get around 45.1 gflops.
Is this normal for stock speeds? turbo mode bumping it up to 3.4
Thanks!!


----------



## Kreij (Apr 17, 2010)

Welcome to TPU, shhhpark. 

If you have a moment, go to the UserCP and put in your system specs. Makes like a lot easier for you and anyone trying to help you.


----------



## TVman (Apr 17, 2010)

so is it true that xbox 360 has a more powerfull cpu than a modern quad core???


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 17, 2010)

No, by a long shot.  It is a tri-core with SMT (6 threads at once).  A Core i7 with hyperthreading enabled (8 threads) would have no trouble shaming it.


----------



## TVman (Apr 17, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> No, by a long shot.  It is a tri-core with SMT (6 threads at once).  A Core i7 with hyperthreading enabled (8 threads) would have no trouble shaming it.



but these numbers seem to be bigger then a 4 ghz nehalem and xenon runs at 3.2ghz 

96.0 GFLOPS theoretical peak performance (single-precision)
57.6 GFLOPS theoretical peak performance (double-precision)


----------



## shhhpark (Apr 17, 2010)

ok specs posted any word on my stock gflop score?


----------



## shhhpark (Apr 17, 2010)

im seeing from reading pasts posts that memory speed is important in this score? Time to upgrade to 1600mhz ram right?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 17, 2010)

TVman said:


> but these numbers seem to be bigger then a 4 ghz nehalem and xenon runs at 3.2ghz
> 
> 96.0 GFLOPS theoretical peak performance (single-precision)
> 57.6 GFLOPS theoretical peak performance (double-precision)


The CPU in Xbox 360 was designed for high FLOP performance.  It gets slaughtered in integer performance.

Intel Core i7 980X = 102 GFLOP (double-precision)


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 17, 2010)

Not to mention Theoretical Peak Performance isn't what is being tested here.  People only use theorectical when they know it isn't true.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 18, 2010)

Heh, true. XD

Just like "dynamic power" on speakers or peak throughput on LinPACK.  Only sustained matters.


----------



## newmodder (Apr 18, 2010)

*add me*

add me


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 18, 2010)

Table Updated


----------



## shhhpark (Apr 18, 2010)

*add me*

Here is my submission...so weird last night ran the same test and was getting scores in the 30s-up to 45 is something wrong with my cpu?


----------



## Fitseries3 (Apr 18, 2010)

Fitseries3 | Intel | Xeon x5677 @ 4.51ghz (westmere-EP) | 58.198675 | 12.9043 | 64-bit | loose timings @ 8thread


----------



## Fitseries3 (Apr 18, 2010)

Fitseries3 | Intel | Xeon x5677 @ 4.51ghz (westmere-EP) | 60.6167 | 13.4405 | 64-bit | loose timings @ 4thread   <-- takes #1 spot


----------



## Fitseries3 (Apr 18, 2010)

Fitseries3 | Intel | Xeon x5677 @ 4.51ghz (westmere-EP) | 60.7515 | 13.4704 | 64-bit | loose timings @ 6thread 

odd but faster yet...


----------



## Athlonite (Apr 18, 2010)

well heres mine @ stock cpu tried one at 3333MHz but on the 5th run it shit it's dacks rebooted my pc 

Athlonite | AMD | Athlonx2 7750BE (kuma B3)@ 2700MHz | 52.1325secs  17.146575Gflops | x64 bit


----------



## Hockster (Apr 18, 2010)

*Add me*

Hockster | Intel | i7 860@3684 | 43.5343 | 11.8171 64 bit, 8 threads


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 18, 2010)

Table Updated


----------



## [-erick-] (May 7, 2010)

[-erick-] | Intel | i7 920 4.2ghz | 54.03576 GF | 12.865 | 32bit | 4cores






are my numbers correct?


----------



## Fitseries3 (May 19, 2010)

*Add This Hahah!*

Fitseries3 | Intel | 2x Xeon x5677 @ 4.24ghz (westmere-EP) |103.5649| 8.63125 | 64-bit | 16thread SR2 FTW


----------



## boulard83 (May 19, 2010)

thats some serious Gflops !


----------



## Bot (May 19, 2010)

Fitseries3 said:


> Fitseries3 | Intel | 2x Xeon x5677 @ 4.24ghz (westmere-EP) |*103.5649*| 8.63125 | 64-bit | 16thread *SR2 FTW*


slaughterhouse 
thx for showing this fits


----------



## newtekie1 (May 19, 2010)

Table updated.

And thank you fits for cracking 100 GLOPS and breaking the table...it was fun to go back and 0 fill the rest of the scores on my netbook so the table would sort right...ya lucky bastard!


----------



## Fitseries3 (May 19, 2010)




----------



## JrRacinFan (May 19, 2010)

JrRacinFan | AMD | Phenom II 720 BE @ 3.6 |034.9885| 9.719 | 64-bit | 3 Threads






Just verify I am running @ 3.6Ghz
http://img.techpowerup.org/100519/Capture039.jpg

Nice fits!!!!


----------



## newtekie1 (May 19, 2010)

Table updated.

Hey fits, have you tried running to different processors in that board?  I was just wondering if it was true that eVGA made it possible.  And what about UP processors?


----------



## Fitseries3 (May 19, 2010)

it can only run xeons with dual qpi. you can however run 2 different ones though. i only have these atm


----------



## gja822 (May 26, 2010)

*Add me*

gja822 | AMD | Athlon 64 x2 Dual Core 5200+ @ 2.8GHz | 003.30962 | 01.18120 | 32bit | 

I wonder, why it is SO low, the GFlops/GHz I mean.


----------



## Athlon2K15 (May 26, 2010)

*add me please*

AthlonX2 | Intel | Xeon W3520 4ghz | 056.7980 | 15.738 | 64-bit |


----------



## newtekie1 (May 26, 2010)

Table updated.



gja822 said:


> gja822 | AMD | Athlon 64 x2 Dual Core 5200+ @ 2.8GHz | 003.30962 | 01.18120 | 32bit |
> 
> I wonder, why it is SO low, the GFlops/GHz I mean.



It doesn't seem too bad for your processor, maybe a little low, but not majorly low.


----------



## Athlonite (May 27, 2010)

me again with a small OC to 3.0GHz 

Athlonite | AMD | Athlon x2 7750BE 3.0GHz | 48.504 | 016.168| 64-bit |


----------



## AhokZYashA (May 27, 2010)

add me
its my laptop, 
stock and fully stable with undervolting
AhokZYashA | Intel | Core 2 Duo T5450 @ 1.66GHz | 006.68582 | 002.00755 | 32-bit | 2GB of RAM but only ~800MB are available.


----------



## Athlonite (May 27, 2010)

AhokZYashA said:


> add me
> its my laptop,
> stock and fully stable with undervolting
> AhokZYashA | Intel | Core 2 Duo T5450 @ 1.66GHz | 006.68582 | 002.00755 | 32-bit | 2GB of RAM but only ~800MB are available.
> ...



maybe you would like to shut down all the stuff sitting in the systray like uTorrent and the other unnecessary programs that are stealing valuable CPU cycles


----------



## AhokZYashA (May 27, 2010)

ill try that again this night, 
also ill try that with my pc..
because im not at home now.
:grin:


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (May 27, 2010)

gja822 said:


> gja822 | AMD | Athlon 64 x2 Dual Core 5200+ @ 2.8GHz | 003.30962 | 01.18120 | 32bit |
> 
> I wonder, why it is SO low, the GFlops/GHz I mean.


Must be the app leaning more on intel archi.. dunno.


----------



## Benetanegia (May 27, 2010)

Fitseries3 said:


> Fitseries3 | Intel | 2x Xeon x5677 @ 4.24ghz (westmere-EP) |103.5649| 8.63125 | 64-bit | 16thread SR2 FTW



Impressive! Shouldn't it be 24.4257 GFlops per Ghz though??

Or I'm missing something?


----------



## Pembo210 (May 27, 2010)

*Add Me*

Pembo210 | Intel | Core i5-750 @ 3.3GHz | 045.21908 | 13.70275 | 64-bit


----------



## Athlonite (May 27, 2010)

gja822 said:


> gja822 | AMD | Athlon 64 x2 Dual Core 5200+ @ 2.8GHz | 003.30962 | 01.18120 | 32bit |
> 
> I wonder, why it is SO low, the GFlops/GHz I mean.




with 4GB of DDR2-800 one wonders why your not running windows Vista or 7 x64 and making full use of your ram


----------



## Pembo210 (May 27, 2010)

Pembo210 said:


> Pembo210 | Intel | Core i5-750 @ 3.3GHz | 045.21908 | 013.70275 | 64-bit
> http://www.pemboproductions.com/images/stabletest.jpg



I just realized that my results log shows
"Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5 CPU         750  @ 2.67GHz
Clock Speed: 2.54 GHz"

Should I be dividing by 2.54, 2.67, or 3.3 for my gflops/ghz?


----------



## gja822 (May 27, 2010)

Athlonite said:


> with 4GB of DDR2-800 one wonders why your not running windows Vista or 7 x64 and making full use of your ram


Becouse my primary OS is FreeBSD 7.2 (64-bit of course), that can get much more of RAM and CPU (not GPU, but mine is too weak anyway) for applications, than Windows (taking in account the OS self-demand). And at times I have been deciding on what Windows to install, 32-bit have seemed to be more driver supported. By the way, I don't have applications to fill-up all my RAM.   What conserns my question, I knew my processor is not at top of performance scale, but didn't realise how far it is from there...


----------



## newtekie1 (May 27, 2010)

Table Updated.



Pembo210 said:


> I just realized that my results log shows
> "Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5 CPU         750  @ 2.67GHz
> Clock Speed: 2.54 GHz"
> 
> Should I be dividing by 2.54, 2.67, or 3.3 for my gflops/ghz?



Divide by whatever your actual clock speed is, which in your case should be 3.3GHz.


----------



## Pembo210 (May 27, 2010)

Cool. Thats what I did first go round.
Thanks


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (May 27, 2010)

*Add Me Please*

Bjorn_Of_Iceland | Intel | Q9550 @ 3.91GHz |050.11068| 12.816 | 64-bit | 






Thanks!


----------



## Athlonite (May 28, 2010)

gja822 said:


> Becouse my primary OS is FreeBSD 7.2 (64-bit of course), that can get much more of RAM and CPU (not GPU, but mine is too weak anyway) for applications, than Windows (taking in account the OS self-demand). And at times I have been deciding on what Windows to install, 32-bit have seemed to be more driver supported. By the way, I don't have applications to fill-up all my RAM.   What conserns my question, I knew my processor is not at top of performance scale, but didn't realise how far it is from there...



actuall win7 x64 is really well supported for drivers out of the box and if not then 9 ot of 10 times windows update will have it if it wasn't available at the time windows 7 went to press that 1 out of 10 is usually just an out of the way no name piece of hardware thats never had support for an OS newer than XP...

and you'd be quite surprised just how zippy win7 x64 really is even on older hardware..

I sold a friend of mine my old skt 939 athlon64 x2 4800+ with 2GB of ram, he used win 7x32 on it and it was ok a wee bit dog slow at times so he asked if win7x64 would run i said sure would but might be a bit slower for you than 32bit well imagine our surprise when win7 x64 is actually quite a bit quicker than x32 bit so my advice give  some serious thought mate you'll not regret it

and yes not even my Athlon x2 7750BE can hack it with the new boys now and its quite a bit newer than yours so don't feel to bad about it atleast it works right mostly these threads like this are about ePenis envy whos is bigger or in our case faster


----------



## AhokZYashA (May 28, 2010)

add me
AhokZYashA | Intel | Core 2 Duo E7400 @ 3.6GHz | 022.345 | 006.20694 | 32-bit | highest overclock my board allows





AhokZYashA | Intel | Core 2 Duo T5450 @ 1.66GHz | 007.510125 | 004.52417 | 32-bit | shutting down all processes


----------



## Athlonite (May 28, 2010)

see didn't i tell ya that 007.510125 is better than 006.68582 by 0.824305 .... 
better than with all the progies running in the back ground stealing CPU cycles, You gained nearly a GFlop extra... strange that the test took longer though i would have thought it would have taken a little less time to complete hmmm weird


----------



## AhokZYashA (May 28, 2010)

its actually reaches 8GFlops
but shutted down because of the 90C heat.
idk why, 
but im quite happy with this result btw.
faster than a T9300 clock for clock


----------



## Athlonite (May 28, 2010)

90C shouldn't have been a problem for a mobile CPU hmmm a can of air an blow out the HSF also it could set in the bios aswell


----------



## gja822 (May 28, 2010)

Athlonite said:


> ...and you'd be quite surprised just how zippy win7 x64 really is even on older hardware...


Strangely, for me it's quite expected, that 64-bit version should be a bit ‘better’. I was installing Windows, when no 7 was in existence. And as far as I am not Windows fan too much, I am not going to buy a newer version, being satisfied with FreeBSD (you even can't imagine Windows to work on hardware, Free is capable to be useful on, ye?) and having already instaled Vista. And yes, of course (about eP measurement), 99.9...% of time I do not need performance even my rock can give (may be a bit long to transcode video from DVD to HDD though  or some spoiled software-makers (cann't call them programmers), producing even simple text-editors with such inadequate hw requirements ).
And, yes, thanx for advice for future .


----------



## AhokZYashA (May 31, 2010)

ill check for it later, but 8GFlops are quite good for an old mobile CPU..


----------



## NdMk2o1o (May 31, 2010)

*Add Me*

NdMk2o1o | AMD | PII 550 Unlocked to X4 3.6ghz | 045.955625 | 012.7654 | 64 bit|


----------



## Cuzza (May 31, 2010)

*Add me*

Cuzza | Intel | Core 2 Duo T5450 @ 1.66GHz | 007.9981 | 004.8181 | 32-bit

@AhokZYashA, my T5450 has yours beat! Don't know why?

Tomorrow I'll try running this on my Sega, we need to get some VIA scores on this page!! lol


----------



## AhokZYashA (May 31, 2010)

maybe because my background task is too much, 
ill try that later with closing all unneeded tasks.
my RAM is barely enough to do the standard setting because of the programs hogging my RAM.


----------



## Cuzza (May 31, 2010)

Maybe. I actually found my gflops were lower after I shut down the background processes.....??


----------



## NdMk2o1o (May 31, 2010)

woop, top AMD spot (for now anyway )


----------



## martthefart (May 31, 2010)

my little babies results wat u think? good or bad


----------



## Frick (May 31, 2010)

Will add a Sempron 140 soon to add to the lower end of the spectrum. ^^


----------



## NdMk2o1o (May 31, 2010)

martthefart said:


> my little babies results wat u think? good or bad



Nice warez


----------



## newtekie1 (May 31, 2010)

Table Updated.


----------



## (FIH) The Don (May 31, 2010)

1st try , oh yeah, Add me

(FIH) The Don | AMD | Phenom II X4 965 @ 4011mhz | 49,76346 | 12,440865 | 64-bit


----------



## newtekie1 (May 31, 2010)

Table Updated.


----------



## Athlonite (Jun 1, 2010)

well here's another one  at 3.0 GHz >> avg glops divided by CPU GHz 

Athlonite | AMD | Athlon x2 7750BE | 018.2156 | 0.0121437 | x64

or Avg gflops divided by cores 

Athlonite | AMD | Athlon x2 7750BE | 018.2156 | 009.1078 | x64

can't remember which one supposed to use so heres both use the one thats correct


----------



## Cuzza (Jun 2, 2010)

Well I tried running it on my VIA C7 based system and no-go. Says "application settings are incorrect" or some such shiz.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jul 13, 2010)

LAN_deRf_HA | Intel | i7 920 @ 4.2ghz | 060.3551 | 14.3702 | 64-bit |  Only about 10 services running


----------



## mm67 (Jul 19, 2010)

mm67 | Intel | Core 2 Duo E7400 @ 3906MHz | 24.8172 | 6.3536 | 64-bit


----------



## Mussels (Jul 19, 2010)

the link to IntelBurnTest in the first post no longer works


edit: nevermind, its back


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 19, 2010)

Table updated.

The link still worked for me, check if you can reach Guru3d, that is where it was pointing.  I've updated it anyway to point to the latest version.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 19, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Table updated.
> 
> The link still worked for me, check if you can reach Guru3d, that is where it was pointing.  I've updated it anyway ti point to the latest version.



it works again. will post results soon.






Mussels | AMD | Phenom II 1090T @ 3.6Ghz | 64.67 | 17.96 | 64-bit | ram @ 1600MHz CL7 - NB at 2.8, HT @ 2.4


assuming i figured out the numbers right... i'm not good with teh numbars.


----------



## mm67 (Jul 19, 2010)

mm67 | Intel | Core 2 Quad Q9550 @ 4250 MHz | 57.6028 | 13.5536 | 64-bit


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 19, 2010)

Table Updated.

Awesome result Mussels!  Really shows what those AMD Hex-Cores can do and how much pontential they have, now we just need more software that actually taps into that potential!


----------



## twilyth (Jul 20, 2010)

*Add me*

name | twilyth
Processor Maker | AMD
CPU Model and Clock | Phenom X4 9750
Average GFlops | 138.8102
GFlops Per GHz | 000.0575737038573206
64-bit or 32-bit |  64 bit


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 20, 2010)

Table Updated.


----------



## Athlonite (Jul 21, 2010)

average GFlops = all runs added together \ divided by number of runs 

so your twilyth your avg gflops would workout to be 138.8102 \ 5 = 27.76204


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jul 21, 2010)

I'm sad  I can run folding@Home for days and play games and what not with out a single crash but I can't do more than one run of this burn in test. 

1.48 votls @ 4095mhz. Any tips to make it stable? Temps 43C Idle.


----------



## twilyth (Jul 21, 2010)

It's not really stable unless you can run at full load for at the very least, several hours, w/o any problems.  You'll probably need to tweak a few of the parameters that are normally involved in getting a good overclock beyond where they are now - if it's possible to do safely.  If not, you'll have to settle for a slower speed.

I think that question is worthy of it's own thread though and I don't think the OP would want this thread to go off on that kind of tangent.  I'm just guessing but it is pretty narrowly focused, and seriously, I think you would get a good response.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 21, 2010)

AphexDreamer said:


> I'm sad  I can run folding@Home for days and play games and what not with out a single crash but I can't do more than one run of this burn in test.
> 
> 1.48 votls @ 4095mhz. Any tips to make it stable? Temps 43C Idle.



best make your own thread.


----------



## Hardi (Jul 21, 2010)

*Add Me*

just some undervolting stabilty testing, but might as well add this to the list too.

Hardi | AMD | Athlon II X3 435 @ 2.9GHz | 025.1375 | 08.668 | 64bit |


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Jul 21, 2010)

*add me*

Exodusprime1337 | AMD | Amd Phenom II 1090t @ 4.265Ghz | 080.1186 | 64bit | 6 threads on water 1.50v.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jul 21, 2010)

twilyth said:


> It's not really stable unless you can run at full load for at the very least, several hours, w/o any problems.  You'll probably need to tweak a few of the parameters that are normally involved in getting a good overclock beyond where they are now - if it's possible to do safely.  If not, you'll have to settle for a slower speed.
> 
> I think that question is worthy of it's own thread though and I don't think the OP would want this thread to go off on that kind of tangent.  I'm just guessing but it is pretty narrowly focused, and seriously, I think you would get a good response.





Mussels said:


> best make your own thread.



Ok Understood guys, however I think its temp issue for me. No matter what voltage I give it as soon as it hits 63C it BSODs. So bottom line is I need a better cooling solution.


----------



## trickson (Jul 21, 2010)

Did mine on MAX settings .

trickson 	 Intel 	 Q9650 @ 4.0GHz 	 47.3793 	  64-bit

I see mine there but you have the wrong OS listed and I updated some as well .


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 22, 2010)

Table updated.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jul 22, 2010)

*Adde Me*

YAY Finally got it stable! And its faster than before! 

AphexDreamer | AMD | Amd Phenom II 965 @ 4047Mhz | 130.71 | 64bit | 4 threads Air 1.496 Volts. 








I'm so happy 

AVG Came out to be 52.444 GFlops


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 22, 2010)

Table updated.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 22, 2010)

there was a typo in mine (NB clocks) so i went and abused my mod powers and edited it in the first post.

(typo was my fault, btw)


----------



## Hayder_Master (Jul 22, 2010)

nice thread, i will upload my results soon


----------



## Mussels (Jul 22, 2010)

could someone with an i7 run this test, but do it with and without HT enabled? i'm curious about how the Gflops per thread will be affected, and how much performance HT actually adds in this kind of situation.


for example, sorting by average Gflops and dividing by threads:

10.77 on my cores, averaged

fitseries xeon at 4.5Ghz (900Mhz faster!)
 7.59 Gflops per thread

what makes me curious here, is that if the HT cores are doing really badly at this test, then disabling HT would let us know how much of the score is from the real cores, how much from the HT, and let us get a performance per core comparison between i7 and thuban


----------



## joytime360 (Jul 22, 2010)

i will try it


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 22, 2010)

I'll try it.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 22, 2010)

*Add Me*

Wow some interesting results for you Mussels:

newtekie1 | Intel | Core i7 875K@3.6GHz | 043.9826 | 12.2174 | 64-bit| Hyperthreading ON and 8 Threads
newtekie1 | Intel | Core i7 875K@3.6GHz | 048.9807 | 13.6057 | 64-bit| Hyperthreading ON and 4 Threads
newtekie1 | Intel | Core i7 875K@3.6GHz | 049.3956 | 13.7210 | 64-bit| Hyperthreading OFF and 8 Threads
newtekie1 | Intel | Core i7 875K@3.6GHz | 050.6025 | 14.0562 | 64-bit| Hyperthreading OFF and 4 Threads


----------



## Mussels (Jul 22, 2010)

k so the ones i'm interested in:

HT off/4 threads





newtekie1 | Intel | Core i7 875K@3.6GHz | 050.6025 | 14.0562 | Hyperthreading OFF and 4 Threads

60.60 / 8 = 15.15 per thread

thats about what i'd expect - per core, you're faster than my thuban... but you got 2 less cores, so my multithreaded performance leaps ahead.

HT on/8 threads





newtekie1 | Intel | Core i7 875K@3.6GHz | 043.9826 | 12.2174 | Hyperthreading ON and 8 Threads

43.98 / 8 = 5.4975 per thread


so.... not only are the HT threads slower than the real cores, they slow down the whole thing overall?

If i was on i7 right now, i'd be disabling HT for sure


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 22, 2010)

You mean 50.60 / 4 = 12.65

Still faster per core, but your extra 2 physical cores pushes you ahead of me.

And hyperthreading really seems to throw this application for a loop.  Even with HT off and 8 threads, the Windows scheduler seems to do a better job switching between the threads then Hyperthreading does.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 22, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> You mean 50.60 / 4 = 12.65
> 
> Still faster per core, but your extra 2 physical cores pushes you ahead of me.
> 
> And hyperthreading really seems to throw this application for a loop.  Even with HT off and 8 threads, the Windows scheduler seems to do a better job switching between the threads then Hyperthreading does.




i'm dividing by threads, not by cores. if i still screwed something up, lemme know.. its late here


----------



## somebody (Jul 22, 2010)

Mussels said:


> so.... not only are the HT threads slower than the real cores, they slow down the whole thing overall?
> 
> If i was on i7 right now, i'd be disabling HT for sure


AFAIK that's not how it works. One core has 2 threads when HT is on, it's still one core but by having 2 threads while one thread is not working the execution units 100% it leaves some room for the other thread to execute. If you were to run linpack with only one thread on core 1 say, the result would probably be very close if you did the same on just using the second thread on core 1. Problem is with linpack running on one thread it will already saturates the core leaving not much in the way of spare execution cycles so using 2 threads on the same core will likely result in ~half the execution speed for each thread wrt using just one thread on one core. 

Something else you might find surprising is the core temperature differential when running linpack on just one core.


----------



## trickson (Jul 22, 2010)

I redid mine this time normal setting and with windows 7 64 bit .

trickson 	 Intel 	 Q9650 @ 4.0GHz 	 53.3787 	   13.34	 64-bit


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 22, 2010)

Mussels said:


> i'm dividing by threads, not by cores. if i still screwed something up, lemme know.. its late here



The one you are using that scored 50.60 is 4 cores and 4 threads.  With 4 cores and 8 threads I got 49.39.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 22, 2010)

Table Updated.

Very nice score on that Q9650 Trickson!  Amazing what 775 is still capable of


----------



## trickson (Jul 22, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Table Updated.
> 
> Very nice score on that Q9650 Trickson!  Amazing what 775 is still capable of



Thank you . 
I can push a tad more out of it but need get get below ambient temps to do it . 4.5GHz was the best but not stable with current cooling .


----------



## Mussels (Jul 23, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> The one you are using that scored 50.60 is 4 cores and 4 threads.  With 4 cores and 8 threads I got 49.39.



... why would i care about 8 threads on 4 cores? i was only concerned with the overall effect of HT... and i was expecting a boost, just not a large one.

a speed DROP makes me wonder wtf HT is even good for


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 23, 2010)

Mussels said:


> ... why would i care about 8 threads on 4 cores? i was only concerned with the overall effect of HT... and i was expecting a boost, just not a large one.
> 
> a speed DROP makes me wonder wtf HT is even good for



That is my point, you said 60.60 / 8 = 15.15 per thread, it should be 50.60 / 4 = 12.65.  The correct score for the 4 threads w/out HT is 50.60, you used 60.60, and you are dividing by 4 threads but you put 8.

When you said you were dividing by threads, since you put 8 in your equation, I assumed you meant to use the 8 threads w/out HT score.

I think HT is better for applications that handle a lot of different data.  But in an application that purely crunches large numbers, HT hurts more than helps.  I wonder if this would lead to better F@H numbers with HT off...


----------



## Mussels (Jul 23, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> That is my point, you said 60.60 / 8 = 15.15 per thread, it should be 50.60 / 4 = 12.65.  The correct score for the 4 threads w/out HT is 50.60, you used 60.60, and you are dividing by 4 threads but you put 8.
> 
> When you said you were dividing by threads, since you put 8 in your equation, I assumed you meant to use the 8 threads w/out HT score.
> 
> I think HT is better for applications that handle a lot of different data.  But in an application that purely crunches large numbers, HT hurts more than helps.  I wonder if this would lead to better F@H numbers with HT off...



it was 2am dude 

my concern is that stupid games/apps may not know the difference between the cores, and a dual threaded app may run on a regular core and its HT core... and give worse performance than running with HT off, without the user/folder/cruncher knowing.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 23, 2010)

Mussels said:


> it was 2am dude
> 
> my concern is that stupid games/apps may not know the difference between the cores, and a dual threaded app may run on a regular core and its HT core... and give worse performance than running with HT off, without the user/folder/cruncher knowing.



Yeah, I know, I'm not blaming you, just clarifying.

I believe, in theory, no core is more real than the other as it appears to Windows.  It is just that each physical core can handle 2 threads, so each thread isn't more real than the other.  So work sent to each thread is automatically handled by the physical core's scheduler.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 23, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Yeah, I know, I'm not blaming you, just clarifying.
> 
> I believe, in theory, no core is more real than the other as it appears to Windows.  It is just that each physical core can handle 2 threads, so each thread isn't more real than the other.  So work sent to each thread is automatically handled by the physical core's scheduler.



game needs/uses two threads worth - and they end up on the one physical core, giving you less performance than if they had two physical cores each. that is my concern.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 23, 2010)

Mussels said:


> game needs/uses two threads worth - and they end up on the one physical core, giving you less performance than if they had two physical cores each. that is my concern.



Yeah, I can see that as a concern for sure.

Though I think the scheduler on the CPU is smart enough to assign threads to unused cores first, which is why when I run it with only 4 threads w/ HT enabled I get pretty close to the same score as I get with HT disabled.


----------



## Athlonite (Jul 23, 2010)

from what i understood about HT is that each single thread called by software gets divided by the thread dispatcher on core into two if HT is enabled so if software calls for 2 treads it gets divided by four


----------



## somebody (Jul 24, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Though I think the scheduler on the CPU is smart enough to assign threads to unused cores first, which is why when I run it with only 4 threads w/ HT enabled I get pretty close to the same score as I get with HT disabled.



Just FYI I ran my 860 at the same clock as your 875k to make a comparison.







The first run was with HT and 8 hardware threads with 4 software threads selected in iBurn / OS. It seems clear that 2 software threads are running on one core at times judging by the results.

The second run was with HT and 8 hardware threads with 4 software threads selected by me so as to only have one software thread per core. Results speak for themselves.

Mussels makes a very valid point about HT, that is poor or random hardware thread selection can possibly result in a performance degrade with HT. 




Athlonite said:


> from what i understood about HT is that each single thread called by software gets divided by the thread dispatcher on core into two if HT is enabled so if software calls for 2 treads it gets divided by four


A single software thread may run on 1 hardware thread and then after a context switch run on another hardware thread but not both hardware threads at the same time.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 24, 2010)

thanks somebody, you made me feel better about going AMD over i7... i wanted more real cores, and now it seems i'm justified.


----------



## DuDu (Jul 24, 2010)

*Add me*

Hello guys.This is my first post on TPU 

DuDu | Intel | Q9450 3,70ghz | 46.92734 | 12.68306486 | 64-bit | Ram 1734mhz


----------



## Athlonite (Jul 24, 2010)

Mussels said:


> thanks somebody, you made me feel better about going AMD over i7... i wanted more real cores, and now it seems i'm justified.




it would seem you have an justified complaint about HT then mussels maybe the results suggest then to just turn HT off and do without it as it looks like it's faster without than with


----------



## Athlonite (Jul 24, 2010)

well i just did a little test to see what would happen if i forced 4 threads on my Athlon x2 7750BE vs forcing only 2 threads 

4 threads


2 threads


and yes I know AMD's don't have HT but look at the 4 thread results it starts out with an hiss and a roar then slows down considerably vs the 2 thread result which stay relatively static


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 24, 2010)

Table Updated.



Athlonite said:


> it would seem you have an justified complaint about HT then mussels maybe the results suggest then to just turn HT off and do without it as it looks like it's faster without than with



Yes, in this single benchmark only, but in many other real world uses HT does help significantly.


----------



## Athlonite (Jul 24, 2010)

I'd test it in other places if I could but not being an Intel quad or better with HT owner/user I can't


----------



## Pembo210 (Jul 28, 2010)

*Add Me*

Pembo210 | Intel | Core i5-750 @ 3.6GHz | 050.44122 | 14.01145 | 64-bit






These are my new results. I recently upgraded to a Corsair H50 cooler and moved my i5 from 3.3GHz to 3.6GHz. My old numbers were  045.21908 gflops and 13.70275 gflop/GHz


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 28, 2010)

Table updated.


----------



## gja822 (Jul 31, 2010)

*Add Me*

gja822 | Intel | Celeron 723 (Penryn) @ 1.20GHz | 003.28018 | 02.7401 | 32-bit

Some mobile Intel processor to "slow-end" of table. And yes, IntelBurn is for Intel optimized (at least compared to my AMD  ).


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 31, 2010)

Table Updated


----------



## Frick (Jul 31, 2010)

*Add me*

Frick | AMD | AMD Sempron 140 @ 3.5GHz | 10,09238 | 2,883537142857143 | 32-bit | Single core

The CPU is not unlocked.


----------



## MoonPig (Jul 31, 2010)

MoonPig | Intel | Core2 Quad Q9550 @ 3.399 | 046.13596 | 13.5705 | 64bit

http://img.techpowerup.org/100731/3400.png

MoonPig | Intel | Core2 Quad Q9550 @ 4.037 | 052.16536 | 12.9218 | 64bit

http://img.techpowerup.org/100731/4037.png


----------



## Jstn7477 (Jul 31, 2010)

*Add me*

Jstn7477 | AMD | Phenom II X4 955BE @ 3.210 | 038.4461 | 12.0144 | 64-bit


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 31, 2010)

Table Updated


----------



## Gabkicks (Jul 31, 2010)

*Add Me*

here is what I am running @ now  Hyperthreading is off!!


----------



## Frick (Jul 31, 2010)

I think ya need to add some tables there mon. Like this:

Jstn7477 | AMD | Phenom II X4 955BE @ 3.210 | 038.4461 | 12.0144 | 64-bit


----------



## mithrandir (Jul 31, 2010)

mithrandir | Intel | Q6600 @ 3.303.6ghz | 042.73985 | 12.937 GFlops Per GHz | 64-bit


----------



## AlienIsGOD (Jul 31, 2010)

AlienIsGOD | Intel | Q9450 @ 2.667 | 031.2085 | 64 bit



Just a stock run from me for now....


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 1, 2010)

Table Updated


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 2, 2010)

*Add Me*

newtekie1 | Intel | Celeron E3200@3.6GHz | 005.8904 | 01.6362 | 64-bit | 
newtekie1 | Intel | Celeron E3200@4.1GHz | 006.0283 | 01.4703 | 64-bit | Go little Celeron Go!


----------



## xBruce88x (Aug 3, 2010)

*Add Me*

xBruce88x | AMD | Athlon II X4 630 @ 3.25GHz | 037.8891 | 011.6582 Per Ghz | 64-Bit


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 3, 2010)

Table Updated


----------



## xBruce88x (Aug 3, 2010)

wow that was fast lol, just barely 5 min after i posted and i'm on the chart! Thnx! Nice to see my cheaper Athlon has about the same power as the more expensive Phenom.


----------



## Fatal (Aug 3, 2010)

xBruce88x said:


> wow that was fast lol, just barely 5 min after i posted and i'm on the chart! Thnx! Nice to see my cheaper Athlon has about the same power as the more expensive Phenom.



There are a lot of TPU Ninjas newtekie1 is one of many  Great run xBruce88x, I should try Intelburn on my wifes computer so I can have a laugh!


----------



## guitarfreaknation (Aug 3, 2010)

*Add Me*

guitarfreaknation | Intel | Q9550 @ 3.61 GHz | 047.26312 | 64-Bit

Did a test with vcore 1.26 with 48+ GFlops but after second test got BSOD.


----------



## Fatal (Aug 3, 2010)

Fatal | AMD Sempron @1.9 | 1.4528 |7.2647264 | 32-bit |
FTW!!! I really need to upgrade her computer she thinks its fine though go figure..


----------



## overclocking101 (Aug 3, 2010)

heres mine


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 3, 2010)

Table Updated


----------



## xBruce88x (Aug 4, 2010)

after this heat wave is over i'll try my laptop's little Celeron M520 haha, (also looking at my K-6 and wondering...)


----------



## gja822 (Aug 5, 2010)

First page]gja822 	 AMD 	 Athlon 64 x2 Dual Core 5200+ @ 2.8GHz 	 003.30962 	 01.18120 	 32-bit 	 
gja822 	Intel 	Celeron 723 (Penryn) @ 1.20GHz 	003.28018 	02.7401 	32-bit[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=gja822 said:


> Some mobile Intel processor to "slow-end" of table. And yes, IntelBurn is Intel optimized (at least compared to my AMD  ).


To justiy the latter words of mine I've just taken one more test - "x264 encoding test", getting 37.5/7.1 fps for 1st/2nd pass on my Athlonie and 12.5/2.1 on Celeronie, which corresponds at least to some common sense. )


----------



## guitarfreaknation (Aug 5, 2010)

Pretty lame temps. Cant OC good on this board for some reason.. Better go back to 3.6 lol...


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 5, 2010)

Table updated.


----------



## MoonPig (Aug 19, 2010)

MoonPig | AMD Phenom II 1055T @ 3.2589 | 59.3934 | 18.22610243 | 64-bit

http://img.techpowerup.org/100819/Gflops.jpg


----------



## Mussels (Aug 19, 2010)

Mussels | AMD Phenom II 1090T @ 3.8Ghz | 069.4685 | 18.28 | 64-bit | ram @ 1600MHz CL7 - NB at 2.6, HT @ 2.4

i got a new one


----------



## mudkip (Aug 19, 2010)

i would like to see some core i3 results


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 19, 2010)

Table Updated.


----------



## twilyth (Aug 20, 2010)

*Add me*






17.3 average = 69.42 avg gflops / 4.013ghz 

AMD Phenom II X6 1090T (Thuban) at 4.013ghz
Windows 7 x64
8G of DDR3-1600 CAS 9


----------



## Hugis (Aug 20, 2010)

*Add Me*

Heres mine..


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 2, 2010)

*Add Me*

newtekie1 | Intel | i3 530 @ 2.9GHz | 018.9844 | 06.5463 | 64-bit | HT On
newtekie1 | Intel | i3 530 @ 2.9GHz | 020.8543 | 07.1911 | 64-bit | HT Off


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 2, 2010)

Table Updated.

Got some i3 results in there.


----------



## Hugis (Sep 3, 2010)

*Add Me*

edit : Q9550(thanks Moonpig) @ 3.4Ghz


----------



## JrRacinFan (Sep 8, 2010)

JrRacinFan | Intel | i3 530 @ 4.4Ghz | 028.2245 | 06.4147 | 64-bit | HT On - 4 Threads/5 Iterations


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 28, 2010)

Table Updated.

Crap, I really slacked off letting those last two slip by my thread update radar!


----------



## Raovac (Sep 29, 2010)

*Add me*

Here's mine 

Raovac | AMD Phenom II 1090T @ 4.030Ghz | 076.4836 | 18.9785 | 64-bit |


----------



## Frick (Sep 29, 2010)

*add me*

Frick | AMD | AMD Athlon II x3 445 @ 3.1 Ghz| 013,634 | 04,38 | 32 bit


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 29, 2010)

Table Updated.


----------



## mm67 (Sep 29, 2010)

mm67 | Intel | Pentium Dual Core E6500 @ 4000MHz | 25.33815 | 6.33454 | 64-bit


----------



## MoonPig (Oct 1, 2010)

MoonPig | AMD | Phenom II 1055T @ 2.8GHz | 54.34155 | 19.34344 | 64-bit

http://img.techpowerup.org/101001/Untitled412.jpg

Real cores beat pretend cores


----------



## Athlonite (Oct 2, 2010)

*Add Me*

Athlonite | AMD | Phenom II x4 940 @ 3 GHz | 039.0858 | 013.0286 | 64-bit





now that i have an Quad core cpu 

I'm still a little confuzzled when it come to working out the Gflops per GHz 
as the above works out to be 3000 / 39.0858 = 76.754 which to me doesn't sound right even if i divide that by 4 for an per core score 76.754 / 4 = 19.1885 still sounds high when looking at the table for others with x4 940 CPU's


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 2, 2010)

Table updated.

Gflops per GHz is simply figured by GFLOPs/GHz.

So it would be 39.0858 / 3 = 13.0286


----------



## crunchie (Oct 2, 2010)

*crunchie | AMD | 1090T @ 4144Mhz | 078.3538 | 18.907 | 64-bit |*


----------



## Athlonite (Oct 2, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Table updated.
> 
> Gflops per GHz is simply figured by GFLOPs/GHz.
> 
> So it would be 39.0858 / 3 = 13.0286




Cheers I get it now what i was doin would have been fine for flops per MHz


----------



## DOM (Oct 2, 2010)

DOM|Intel|i7 980X@4.4GHz|87.1836|19.8145|64-bit| testing new ram


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 2, 2010)

Table Updated.


----------



## Athlonite (Oct 3, 2010)

Thats an good OC there DOM


----------



## DOM (Oct 3, 2010)

Athlonite said:


> Thats an good OC there DOM


thanks
i could oc it more


----------



## 2DividedbyZero (Oct 3, 2010)

2DividedbyZero|Intel|i7 980X@4.4GHz|91.3266|20.7560|64-bit|

I have more oc room but 24/7 clocks =


----------



## DOM (Oct 3, 2010)

2DividedbyZero said:


> 2DividedbyZero|Intel|i7 980X@4.4GHz|91.3266|20.7560|64-bit|
> 
> I have more oc room but 24/7 clocks =
> 
> [url]http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/5331/capture4cx.jpg[/URL]


your missing cpu-z


----------



## 2DividedbyZero (Oct 3, 2010)

*add me*

f**k forgot to add CPU-Z, another run = 


2DividedbyZero|Intel|i7 980X@4.41GHz|91.65516|20.7834|64-bit|





damn that first result to hell 89...pssssshh


----------



## Athlonite (Oct 3, 2010)

there's a wee bit of difference between you and Dom 2devidedbyzero maybe the bus speed difference could be it Dom's 133MHz and yours is 200MHz but with an lower multi of 22 vs doms 33


----------



## 2DividedbyZero (Oct 3, 2010)

Athlonite said:


> there's a wee bit of difference between you and Dom 2devidedbyzero maybe the bus speed difference could be it Dom's 133MHz and yours is 200MHz but with an lower multi of 22 vs doms 33



yeah thats probably the difference but also i did notice with DOMs settings...





that ratio is incorrect is it not? maybe this is cutting some bandwidth from him.

after my own testing i found 1600MHz with tighter settings and higher uncore better than 2000MHz mem look here  OK, need some tried and tested memory o/c figures


----------



## DOM (Oct 17, 2010)

DOM|Intel|i7 980X@4.8GHz|95.1979|19.8329|64-bit|


----------



## Athlonite (Oct 17, 2010)

that's a fair improvement from your last OC DOM I see you went with higher FSB and lower multi


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 25, 2010)

Once again I've been caught slacking.

Table Updated.


----------



## Dalamar (Jan 13, 2011)

*Add Me*

Dalamar | Intel | i7 2600k @ 3.4ghz | 049.4551 | 14.9861 | 64 bit


----------



## Fatal (Jan 13, 2011)

Fatal | Intel | I7 950 @4.0 | 57.022325 | 15.67625 | 64-bit |


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jan 13, 2011)

ADD ME
jmcslob |AMD |AMD AthlonII x4 635 @ 3.335ghz  | 41.0235
http://img.techpowerup.org/110113/Capture030.jpg


----------



## Dalamar (Jan 13, 2011)

57.022325 divided by 4 ghz = 14.2555 gflops per ghz. 
was wondering how you had so many gflops per ghz lol


Fatal said:


> Fatal | Intel | I7 950 @4.0 | 57.022325 | 15.67625 | 64-bit |


----------



## Red_Machine (Jan 13, 2011)

I may do this with my old 1GHz Pentium III, for the lols.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 13, 2011)

Table Updated


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jan 17, 2011)

I'm not sure how I did my math when I submitted but I think per Ghz mine is supposed to be 15.0887.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 17, 2011)

You did it right the first time.  60.3551/4.2=14.3702


----------



## Arrakis9 (Jan 17, 2011)

*Add me*

I'll add my gaming system and laptop when i get home but for now heres 3 to add to your collection 

Arrakis+9 | AMD | Athlon II X3 440 @3.0Ghz | 025.0815 | 8.3605 | 64-bit | Customer New Build Computer

Arrakis+9 | AMD | Athlon 64 X2 4200+ @ 2.20Ghz | 006.8183 | 3.0992 | 64-bit | Work Comp 2

Arrakis+9 | Intel | C2D E6700 @ 2.66Ghz | 013.0403 | 4.9023 | 64-bit | Work Comp 1


----------



## Arrakis9 (Jan 18, 2011)

*add me*

Here is my gamer pc and my laptop

Arrakis+9 | Intel | i7 970 @ 3.33Ghz | 066.13084 | 19.8590 | 64-bit | 6 theads @ stock settings

Arrakis+9 | Intel | i5 M430 @ 2.52Ghz | 013.6474 | 5.4156 | 64-bit | 4 theads @ stock settings


----------



## Dalamar (Jan 19, 2011)

*Add Me*

***
Using latest linpack (from MS site) and Windows 7 SP1 RTM leak. Both are required for AVX instruction in IBT.
***

Dalamar | Intel | i7 2600K @ 4Ghz | 099.2521 | 24.988 | 64-bit | AVX Instruction (W7SP1+updated linpack)

See this thread if you don't believe it.


----------



## Arrakis9 (Jan 19, 2011)

Dalamar said:


> ***
> Using latest linpack (from MS site) and Windows 7 SP1 RTM leak. Both are required for AVX instruction in IBT.
> ***
> 
> ...



not doubting the power of intels latest and greatest midrange but did using a newer linpack set increase your score ? either way the results would be skewed if your not using what came with the intel burn test package


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 19, 2011)

Table Updated.

I don't know if AVX accelerated scores will be included yet though.  I'm thinking no, but I'd like a little input.

On one hand it _is_ showing the GFLOPs the processor is capable of.  However, I don't feel it adheres to the spirit of the compilation in showing the raw horsepower of a processor without special instruction sets being used to artificially enhance it.


----------



## Athlonite (Jan 19, 2011)

I say boo to artificial tomfoolery until a new thread for SB and BD is done that way it's even Stevens


----------



## xbonez (Jan 19, 2011)

Sandy bridge 2600K

name | Processor Maker | CPU Model and Clock | Average GFlops | GFlops Per GHz | 64-bit or 32-bit | Notes

xbonez | Intel | Core i7 2600K @ 3.4Ghz | 044.64 | 13.12 | 64-bit | RAM an 9-9-9-24 @ 1600Mhz

xbonez | Intel | Core i7 2600K @ 4.8Ghz | 061.11 | 12.73 | 64-bit | RAM an 9-9-9-24 @ 1600Mhz


----------



## Arrakis9 (Jan 19, 2011)

One thought is you could put the SB procs using AVX in bold red and note it at the top of the chart, that way you can have your pie and eat it too


----------



## Athlonite (Jan 19, 2011)

mmmmmmmm PIE


----------



## GSquadron (Jan 19, 2011)

@arrakis+9
Where did you get your background pictures?
Also i got a result, but anyway i am showing it:


----------



## Arrakis9 (Jan 19, 2011)

A bit off topic, but here for anyone wondering were to find the wallpapers im using 

http://konachan.com/post?tags=snyp


----------



## Dalamar (Jan 19, 2011)

Arrakis+9 said:


> not doubting the power of intels latest and greatest midrange but did using a newer linpack set increase your score ? either way the results would be skewed if your not using what came with the intel burn test package



I tried using the latest linpack before installing SP1 and the gflops were the same. IBT will eventually update as AVX BSOD'd my previously stable (20 ibt, 2 hours memtest) OC right quick. Clearly it is more stressful.


My opinion: Mark AVX-supporting+enabled processors separately. You have data showing both the "real" gflops per ghz and data showing AVX boost per ghz.


----------



## _JP_ (Jan 19, 2011)

*Add me*

_JP_ | Intel | Core 2 Duo E7400 @ 2.8GHz | 015.6537 | 05.5906 | 32-bit | Testing new cooler, didn't went over 45ºC






_JP_ | Intel | Mobile Core 2 Duo P8400 @ 2.26GHz | 014.9112 | 06.5978 | 32-bit | for the lulz, got to 68ºC


----------



## zsolt_93 (Jan 19, 2011)

zsolt_93 | Intel | Core 2 Quad Q9400 @ 3.000GHz | 035.7192 | 011.9064 | 64bit | @ 1.056-1.088 V, EIST On, DDR2 750MHz


----------



## 15th Warlock (Jan 20, 2011)

*Please add me!*

15th Warlock | Intel | Core i7 2600K @5Ghz | 070.51265 | 14.10253 | 64bit | First run at 5Ghz, no AVX acceleration used. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this might be the first entry at 5Ghz, I'm sure that now that SB is out this will become a lot more common occurrence, and perhaps we'll see entries at 6Ghz soon


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 20, 2011)

Tables updated.

I've decided to seperate out the results using AVX into a new table so they can be compared directly and aren't confusing in the main table.


----------



## Arctucas (Jan 20, 2011)

*Add me*

Arctucas|Intel|i7 950@4.28GHz|058.2678|014.6139|64-bit


----------



## mm67 (Jan 23, 2011)

mm67 | Intel | i7 950@4.0GHz | 058.1531 | 014.5383 | 64-bit


----------



## Arrakis9 (Feb 8, 2011)

*add me*

Decided to go big and beat out the 1090t's in the list  

what im more impressed is that i only had to change the bclk to 170 and left everything else on auto 

Arrakis+9 | Intel | i7 970 @ 4.25Ghz | 84.5531 | 19.8948 | 64-bit | 6 threads All settings on auto


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Feb 8, 2011)

update me 
jmcslob |AMD |AMD AthlonII x4 635 @ 3.5ghz | 42.00108


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 8, 2011)

Table Updated


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Feb 8, 2011)

I'm sorry...I really am..




update me
jmcslob |AMD |AMD AthlonII x4 635 @ 3.5ghz | 42.334575


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 8, 2011)

Table Updated


----------



## hoss331 (Feb 8, 2011)

hoss331 | Intel | 2600k @ 5.2 | 136.6751 | 26.22 | 64-bit


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Feb 8, 2011)

Wow!
That seems way to high..but that is awesome timing on the memory running at 2138mhz


----------



## hoss331 (Feb 8, 2011)

Thats using AVX and HT off so thats right there where it should be, and with more memory it will go over 140.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 9, 2011)

Table Updated.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Feb 18, 2011)

Need some help/info. Does IBT perform better with higher memory clocks/QPI or is all CPU reliant. 

The reason I ask is that having a look on the table I see some i7 920/30's beating my 4ghz i7 860 by a big margin even clocked lower than mine. I am getting 49gflops average at 4ghz where as i7 9** seem to be getting 60ish at 4ghz, so is there something amiss here or are my scores unusually low?


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Feb 18, 2011)

Ok, sorry for double post, seems setting threads manually to 8 lowered my score a fair bit, when set to auto it was scoring 57 average


----------



## Mussels (Feb 19, 2011)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Ok, sorry for double post, seems setting threads manually to 8 lowered my score a fair bit, when set to auto it was scoring 57 average



yeah, hyperthreading hurts its score in this.


----------



## Fatal (Feb 19, 2011)

*update please and thank you*

Fatal | Intel | I7 950 @4.2 | 60.5158 | 15.1289| 64-bit |


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 19, 2011)

Table Updated.


----------



## St.Alia-Of-The-Knife (Mar 9, 2011)

*Add Me*

St.Alia-Of-The-Knife | AMD | Phenom II 955 @ 3791Mhz | 049.24664 | 12.99 | 64-bit | M4A79XTD EVO, Cool & Quiet disabled


----------



## Ra97oR (Mar 9, 2011)

*Add me*

Ra97oR | Intel | Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 @ 3.26Ghz | 015.92985 | 004.884 | 64-bit


----------



## Ra97oR (Mar 9, 2011)

*Update me*

Ok... serious WTF moment. After a "restart" (BSOD after setting more memory than available) I tested it again. And this happened.

Ra97oR | Intel | Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 @ 3.26Ghz | 020.62478 | 006.32274 | 64-bit


----------



## Arrakis9 (Mar 10, 2011)

Ra97oR said:


> Ok... serious WTF moment. After a "restart" (BSOD after setting more memory than available) I tested it again. And this happened.
> 
> Ra97oR | Intel | Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 @ 3.26Ghz | 020.62478 | 006.32274 | 64-bit
> 
> http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/8224/gflopse6300.png



really like that background.. were did you get it from ?


----------



## Pembo210 (Mar 10, 2011)

*Add Me!*

Pembo210 | Intel | i7 990x @ 4.03GHz | 079.1693 | 19.64499 | 64-bit | 1st day 990x, stock air cooler


----------



## St.Alia-Of-The-Knife (Mar 13, 2011)

*Add Me*

ok i overclocked some more and here are my new results

St.Alia-Of-The-Knife | AMD | Phenom II 955 @ 3893Mhz | 050.2364 | 12.9043 | 64-bit | M4A79XTD EVO, Cool & Quiet disabled


----------



## Pembo210 (Mar 15, 2011)

*Is this thread still alive?*

I like it...


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 16, 2011)

Table updated.



Pembo210 said:


> I like it...



Yeah, just been busy.


----------



## nabuyama (Mar 20, 2011)

*Add Me*

nabuyama | Intel | Core 2 Duo E6550 @ 2333Mhz | 006.842 | 2.932 | 32-bit | everything is stock


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 20, 2011)

Table Updated


----------



## Mussels (Mar 20, 2011)

Pembo210 said:


> Is this thread alive, I like it...



yup. its just that once we get our good scores and make our systems stable, we dont really have anything new to add unless we buy new hardware.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Mar 20, 2011)

JrRacinFan | AMD | Phenom II 555 @ X4 3906Mhz | 046.45884 | 11.9125 | 64-bit | GA-MA790X-UD4P


----------



## nabuyama (Mar 21, 2011)

*Add Me*

nabuyama | Intel | Core i7 2600 @ 3400Mhz | 050.36 | 014.8 | 64-bit | everything is stock


----------



## TissueBox (Mar 26, 2011)

*Add Me*

TissueBox | Intel | Q8200 @ 3.15GHz | 039.32534 | 12.48423 | 64-bit


----------



## Athlonite (Mar 26, 2011)

update me please 
Athlonite | AMD | PII X4 940BE @ 3570 | 046.47 | 011.61 | 64-bit


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 26, 2011)

Table updated.


----------



## packerfans1 (Mar 28, 2011)

*Intel i7 920*

Deleted. Posted down a few.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 28, 2011)

that image is too small to see anything.


----------



## packerfans1 (Mar 28, 2011)

Hmm yea... let me try to fix it >.<


----------



## crunchie (Mar 28, 2011)

You need to format the result correctly like everyone else


----------



## packerfans1 (Mar 28, 2011)

It resizes it... obviously you can see I'm new to this forum... I've never had this problem before any suggestions?  Thanks!!!


----------



## packerfans1 (Mar 28, 2011)

I know first i need to get the picture to post right 
It's really nothing to special but i figured why not...


----------



## packerfans1 (Mar 28, 2011)

Alright can you please post it now?  Hopefully i did everything correctly... please click on image to make it larger, it wouldn't let me post a better resolution for whatever reason... Thanks!


----------



## crunchie (Mar 28, 2011)

Still pretty crap picture


----------



## packerfans1 (Mar 28, 2011)

crunchie said:


> Still pretty crap picture



Did you click on it? It should be in 1920x1080(native resolution)


----------



## erocker (Mar 28, 2011)

Use www.techpowerup.org


----------



## packerfans1 (Mar 28, 2011)

*Please post!*

Here I'll do a complete repost with everything done right this time.
Bloomfield | Intel | i7 920@3.2Ghz HT | 38.59 | 12.05 | 64-bit|


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Mar 28, 2011)

*update me please!*

AthlonX2|AMD|Phenom II 1090T 3.6Ghz| 66.2657| 18.39| 64-bit|


----------



## Deleted member 74752 (Apr 15, 2011)

No idea if I ran this correctly or how to score it...

rickss69 | Intel | i7 2600K @ 5200MHz | Average GFlops | GFlops Per GHz | 32-bit | Asus WR Revolution mb/water cooled cpu


----------



## crunchie (Apr 15, 2011)

Supposed to fill in this bit too *| Average GFlops | GFlops Per GHz |*


----------



## Sotex-STI (Jul 24, 2011)

*Add me*

Sotex-STI | Intel | I-7 960@3.93 Ghz | AVG Gflops 057.2131 | Gflops per Ghz 014.5766 | 64bit | HT off air cooled with Cooler Master V10


----------



## Iceni (Jul 24, 2011)

*add me*

not sure if i did this correctly, 

Overclock is set to 44, so 4.4Ghz.






and here's one with the math, I did average Gflops/Actual reading on CPUz rather than theoretical OC.






Running Win7 64 ultimate SP1, so i think AVX is on but not optimised.

Cooling is CM hyper 212+ air cooler


----------



## chevy350 (Jul 24, 2011)

I noticed a few that didn't change the number of threads to use, scores may improve if you put in how many cores your cpu has that you want it to run on.  anyways....here's mine

chevy350 | Intel | 2600k@4GHz | 86.9523 | 21.7381 | 64-bit | HT on


----------



## Arctucas (Jul 24, 2011)

I ran IBT again with the May 2011 linpack binaries, also turned off some background processes:

Arctucas | Intel | i7 950 @4273 MHz | 61.89548 | 14.48525 | 64-bit | HT on


----------



## Sotex-STI (Jul 25, 2011)

*Add me*

Sotex-STI | Intel | I7-960@4.161GHz | 060.56378 Gfps | 014.5551 Gflops per GHz | 64-bit | 4 threads


----------



## theeldest (Jul 25, 2011)

*Add Me*

TheEldest | AMD | Opteron 1220 @ 2.8GHz | 004.42084 Gflops | 01.5789 Gflops / GHz | 64-bit | OMG. Slow as molasses (dual core, AM2(+), non-OCd)


----------



## Sotex-STI (Jul 28, 2011)

*Ad me please!*

Sotex-STI | Intel | I7-960@4.273Ghz | 061.60 GFlops | 014.414Gflops/Ghz | 64Bit | Antec Kuhler 620 water cooling kit


----------



## slipstream (Jul 29, 2011)

*Add ME*

slipstream | core i5 480m@2.9GHz | 15.366








http://www.techpowerup.org/uploaded.php?file=110729/results.png


----------



## nv40pimp (Jul 29, 2011)

*Uhh... wait what?*







so whats up with my 112? is it cause i didnt run 'standard' settings?
Or is it just cause when I do stuff, i do it like a BOSS?


----------



## MightyMission (Jul 29, 2011)

Add me please
I'm not sure if i done everything right,but here it is:


----------



## parelem (Aug 5, 2011)

*add me*

Parelem | Intel | Core i7 Q740 @ 1.73Ghz | 038.4804 | 022.2430 | 32-bit | work laptop


----------



## 2DividedbyZero (Aug 5, 2011)

nv40pimp said:


> http://www.techpowerup.com/gallery/3037/__2.jpg
> 
> 
> so whats up with my 112? is it cause i didnt run 'standard' settings?
> Or is it just cause when I do stuff, i do it like a BOSS?



what exactly is "boss" about that result


----------



## AhokZYashA (Aug 5, 2011)

*Add Me*

AhokZYashA | Intel | i7 2630QM @ 2GHz | 48.24682 | 24.12341 | 64-bit | all stock settings,


----------



## jrnker (Sep 23, 2011)

*Add me*

Kaluba | Intel | i7 2600k @4.77Ghz | 121.98 | 39.12 | 64bit


----------



## Drone (Sep 23, 2011)

*Add me*

Drone | Intel | Pentium 4 @ 2.8GHz | 004.31 | 001.539  | 32-bit | all stock 






if calculations were incorrect then correct them.


----------



## Sir B. Fannybottom (Sep 23, 2011)

Kevinheraiz| AMD Phenom II 925 @ 3.6ghz| 22.402 |39.9| 64bit





Sloppy ocing, I know but I just wanted to go to 3.6 really quick for this test :3


----------



## erocker (Sep 23, 2011)

F.Y.I. Thread hasn't been updated since March.


----------



## Sir B. Fannybottom (Sep 23, 2011)

erocker said:


> F.Y.I. Thread hasn't been updated since March.



... I didn't even think to look at the dates... I thought it was recent  /ashamed.


----------



## TRWOV (Oct 16, 2011)

*Add me*

TRWOV | Intel | Core i3-2100 @ 3.1GHz | 037.72065 | 012.1679516 | 64-bit | HT enabled


----------



## TRWOV (Oct 16, 2011)

*Add me*

TRWOV | Intel | Core i3-2100 @ 3.1GHz | 040.78865 | 013.157629 | 64-bit | HT disabled


----------



## GSquadron (Oct 16, 2011)

*Add me*

Aleksander Dishnica | AMD | Phenom II X4 B50 3.1GHz | 030.7523 | 9.998 | 32-bit | Unlocked x2 CPU


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 16, 2011)

Table Updated!



erocker said:


> F.Y.I. Thread hasn't been updated since March.



Yeah, for some reason I got unsubscribed from this thread, so I wasn't showing up that there were new posts. It isn't dead.


----------



## Derek12 (Oct 16, 2011)

*Add Me*

Derek12 | AMD | Athlon 64 X2 3800 Windsor 2 GHz | 003.2432 | 1.6216 | 64-bit | Stock






I am doing my netbook right now when it finishes I will publish


----------



## v12dock (Oct 16, 2011)

*Add Me*

v12dock | Intel | i5-750 2.66GHz @ 4.2GHz | 060.4544 | 014.3939 | 64-Bit


----------



## Derek12 (Oct 16, 2011)

*Add Me*

Derek12 | Intel | Atom N455 1.66 GHz | 000.4093 | 00.25581 | 32-bit | Netbook at full performance






Sorry I was in a hurry and noticed now the success window obscured some data does matter that?  I am a bit hesitant to run again cause the netbook becomes quite hot, but if you need it I will do again 






One question, what does the numbers in column Results mean???
Thanks!


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Oct 17, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA | Intel | i7 2600k @ 4.4ghz | 116.0909 | 26.3843 | 64-bit | AVX. Core parking off.






Anyone know why core parking exists? After turning it off I got a performance boost with no change in power draw. 

Looks like there's an error on "Kaluba" under AVX, perf. per ghz.


----------



## theeldest (Oct 17, 2011)

*Add Me*

TheEldest | Intel | i5-2500k @ 4.6GHz | 117.3400 | 25.51 | 64-bit | AVX enabled


----------



## TRWOV (Oct 18, 2011)

*Add me*

TRWOV | Intel | Pentium E5800 @ 3.2GHz | 014.530575 | 004.540846875 | 64-bit | 865G board with DDR400 RAM


----------



## GSquadron (Oct 22, 2011)

I would suggest adding numbers in the chart table in order to know what number we are on


----------



## goldfingerfif (Nov 2, 2011)

I want to see some AMD Bulldozer numbers.  I will have mine tomorrow and built by friday...the FX-4100 that is.  Just to hold me over until Ivy Bridge


----------



## renq (Nov 2, 2011)

renq| AMD | FX-4100 4,2GHz | 015,13096  | 3,60 | 64-bit | Win 8 Dev Preview


CnQ was on, that's why the screen shows so low multi. Dunno if it is supposed to do that, but during the bench, the multi jumped between 12,5; 16,5 and 21


----------



## goldfingerfif (Nov 2, 2011)

renq said:


> renq| AMD | FX-4100 4,2GHz | 015,13096  | 3,60 | 64-bit | Win 8 Dev Preview
> 
> 
> CnQ was on, that's why the screen shows so low multi. Dunno if it is supposed to do that, but during the bench, the multi jumped between 12,5; 16,5 and 21



Something is seriously wrong, maybe the CnQ?  I get 30.8390 GFlops on my Phenom 2 965 BE @ 3.4GHz, which is stock and over clocked to 4.2GHz I can get 40.3GFlops.  This is all on 32-Bit Windows 7 Ultimate. Try running it in safe mode with CnQ turned off


----------



## LifeOnMars (Nov 2, 2011)

goldfingerfif said:


> Something is seriously wrong, maybe the CnQ?  I get 30.8390 GFlops on my Phenom 2 965 BE @ 3.4GHz, which is stock and over clocked to 4.2GHz I can get 40.3GFlops.  This is all on 32-Bit Windows 7 Ultimate. Try running it in safe mode with CnQ turned off



I'd say something is possibly wrong with yours mate. I get 52 Gflops on my x4 B55 @4.0Ghz??


----------



## Jstn7477 (Nov 2, 2011)

LifeOnMars said:


> I'd say something is possibly wrong with yours mate. I get 52 Gflops on my x4 B55 @4.0Ghz??



He's using DDR2 RAM which is bottlenecking the processor. My old Crosshair III/955BE C3 @ 4GHz/8GB DDR3 @ 1600 CL8 gets ~53 GFLOPS. 

My i7-2600K @ 4.4GHz/1866 CL10 in IntelBurnTest 2.52 gets ~115 GFLOPS, stock gets 85.


----------



## stefanels (Nov 2, 2011)

*Add Me*

stefanels | AMD | AMD Phenom II X4 B55 @ 3.2GHz | 38.3707


----------



## goldfingerfif (Nov 2, 2011)

Jstn7477 said:


> He's using DDR2 RAM which is bottlenecking the processor. My old Crosshair III/955BE C3 @ 4GHz/8GB DDR3 @ 1600 CL8 gets ~53 GFLOPS.
> 
> My i7-2600K @ 4.4GHz/1866 CL10 in IntelBurnTest 2.52 gets ~115 GFLOPS, stock gets 85.



Makes sense, with the 955BE since I am on 32 Bit W7 an using DDR2 800.  The 2600k also is good since my friends 2600k @ 4.0GHz gets 92GF


----------



## goldfingerfif (Nov 2, 2011)

LifeOnMars said:


> I'd say something is possibly wrong with yours mate. I get 52 Gflops on my x4 B55 @4.0Ghz??



Yes a few things wrong, 1 is 32bit windows 7.  Using a 64bit version seems to net a 30-50% gain depending on the processor.  Other problem is 3+1 power phasing.  Finally DDR2 800MHz is my last problem


----------



## Amdguy (Nov 3, 2011)

*Add Me*

AMDGUY | AMD | Phenom II @ 3GHz | 38.6521 | 12.8840 | 64-bit| Cool & Quiet disabled via overdrive


----------



## renq (Nov 3, 2011)

I'll try again, but a 4-core Dozer IS slower than a 4-core Phenom II- did some tests before making the change with Sandra 11 and the results were 39,78 Whetstone GFLOPS for the Phenom II 3,3GHz and 33,08GFLOPS for Dozer FX-4100 @ 3,6, so don't expect much.


----------



## Inceptor (Nov 3, 2011)

Do or do not, there is no try.
All you have to do is go into the Vision engine control center, go to 'cpu power' and pull the minimum frequency slider up to max.  That sets you at max ghz, and overrides CnQ, then run IBT...


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Nov 8, 2011)

Where art thou update?


----------



## jagjitnatt (Nov 8, 2011)

goldfingerfif said:


> Makes sense, with the 955BE since I am on 32 Bit W7 an using DDR2 800.  The 2600k also is good since my friends 2600k @ 4.0GHz gets 92GF



My 2600K at 3.4 Ghz stock gets 95 GFlops with 8GB DDR3-1600Mhz 9-9-9-24 RAM


----------



## jagjitnatt (Nov 8, 2011)

Better on the second run


----------



## TRWOV (Nov 20, 2011)

*Add me*

*INFO DELETED UNTIL FURTHER TESTING*






CPU-Z and HWinfo64 lock up with W8 DP and I didn't feel like re-installing W7 just to run a benchmark so I had to rely on the "System" information panel. I hope this doesn't invalidate the results.

Running at stock although Windows detects frequency as 3.2Ghz (Turbo maybe?) I'm using an H61 board so no OCing is possible anyways.

[off topic]
If you're wondering about the 5.9 WEI, that's my HDD 
[/off topic]


----------



## jagjitnatt (Nov 21, 2011)

TRWOV said:


> If you're wondering about the 5.9 WPI, that's my HDD



Lol. Me too.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Nov 21, 2011)

Add me

I5-2400 stock


----------



## TRWOV (Nov 23, 2011)

WTF? 91Gflops? I only got 61 with a 2320 (3Ghz). Your's is running at 3.1 and got 91? Ok, something is wrong. I might have to reinstall W7 after all.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Nov 23, 2011)

You need SP1 and an updated IBT to get AVX.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Nov 23, 2011)

TRWOV said:


> WTF? 91Gflops? I only got 61 with a 2320 (3Ghz). Your's is running at 3.1 and got 91? Ok, something is wrong. I might have to reinstall W7 after all.



Nothing wrong there. Yours is a dual, his is a quad.

Nvmd, thought I saw i3 .... 

Hmmmm....


----------



## TRWOV (Nov 23, 2011)

Now that I'm thinking about it, with an i3 2100 I got 40Gflops, with this i5 2320 I'm getting 60Gflops, as if it was a tri-core SB. Might it be that one of the cores is damaged? Shouldn't IBT fail if that's the case?

I'm re-installing W7 tomorrow to re-test


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Nov 23, 2011)

Dunno, i run the test, i get a result. Your chip should be closer to mine though.


----------



## TRWOV (Nov 23, 2011)

tigger said:


> Dunno, i run the test, i get a result. Your chip should be closer to mine though.



Yeah, that's what I think too. I mean, maybe your board and memory have something to do with it but I should be getting at least 80 since I got 40 on the same system with an i3-2100 (HT off).  I'll also update the bios and try to tighten the RAM timings.

I see that you also have an HD6850. Sorry about bothering you but, if you have the info, could you tell me your 3dmark CPU and aggregated scores?


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Nov 23, 2011)

Just put 3DMARK 11 in, so i will run it and post my score for you.

Just got some weird error on 3DMARK so


----------



## dark2099 (Nov 23, 2011)

at the request of sneeky, posting this up, all CPU settings on auto, RAM is on XMP (8GB 1866 9-10-9-28 1T)


----------



## sneekypeet (Nov 23, 2011)

Yeah I cant seem to figure it out, all my testing gives me 59-61 Gflops at 4.5ghz

Anyone have any ideas why the huge discrepancy here on these chips?


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Nov 23, 2011)

We need someone else with a 2400 to post a result. I don't know if mine is scoring higher than a 2400 normally would. Even getting the same score as a 2500k seems odd to me (nice odd mind)


----------



## TRWOV (Nov 24, 2011)

Maybe there's some kind of throttling going on? I mean, RAM, bios settings and the motherboard should play a factor but such a big one? 

Can't wait to get home and re-install W7.



EDIT:
.... and turns out that today CPU-Z has been updated with W8 support, of course. 



EDIT 2: 
better results with W7. Tighter timings don't seem to do much.










At least results are more inline with what I expected.


EDIT 3:

bios updated. Results improved a little bit


----------



## 15th Warlock (Nov 24, 2011)

*Update me*

15th Warlock | Intel | I7 3930K@5Ghz | 104.6134 | 20.92268 | 64-bit |


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Nov 24, 2011)

Like I just said, AVX. Your scores are exactly what you'd get without AVX.


----------



## TRWOV (Nov 24, 2011)

I'm running W7 SP1 and the latest IBT (2.52). Is there anything else I should configure to enable AVX?


----------



## 15th Warlock (Nov 24, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Like I just said, AVX. Your scores are exactly what you'd get without AVX.



How can I configure the test for AVX?


----------



## Jack Doph (Nov 24, 2011)

15th Warlock said:


> How can I configure the test for AVX?



Just download the latest IBT - it supports AVX (properly this time; older versions either didn't support it, or did so in a flakey way)
^^

EDIT: current version of IBT is 2.52


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Nov 24, 2011)

If you have SP1 and the latest IBT AVX should work by default. If it's still not working I can only think to blame either windows or IBT. I know in the 4.5 GHz range I get 60s without, in the 100s with, which matches up with these numbers being posted. How long ago did everyone getting these low scores grab their copy of IBT? Maybe someone messed up and uploaded it with outdated libraries.


----------



## Jack Doph (Nov 24, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> If you have SP1 and the latest IBT AVX should work by default. If it's still not working I can only think to blame either windows or IBT. I know in the 4.5 GHz range I get 60s without, in the 100s with, which matches up with these numbers being posted. How long ago did everyone getting these low scores grab their copy of IBT? Maybe someone messed up and uploaded it with outdated libraries.



Not sure why. All I do know is that even Asus stated to not rely on IBT for OC stability testing, due to nil or flakey support for AVX.

Without a system change, going from IBT 2.50 to 2.52, has seen my results change from 48GFlops, to 91+
I'm guessing it was just flakey on my system


----------



## TRWOV (Nov 25, 2011)

2.51 and 2.52 are AVX aware


----------



## sneekypeet (Nov 25, 2011)

As far as the downloading, I got all mine fresh within the last 3-4 weeks along with a fresh W7 install.

I also thought the CPU could be throttling, but my stock runs are lower than my OC'd runs, so I have to assume I dont throttle stock as well.


----------



## jagjitnatt (Nov 25, 2011)

15th Warlock said:


> 15th Warlock | Intel | I7 3930K@5Ghz | 104.6134 | 17.43557 | 64-bit |
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/111124/IBT.jpg



That is low, seriously.

I get 98 Gflops on a stock 2600k. You should be close to 160-170 with such high OC and 2 extra cores


----------



## 15th Warlock (Nov 25, 2011)

jagjitnatt said:


> That is low, seriously.
> 
> I get 98 Gflops on a stock 2600k. You should be close to 160-170 with such high OC and 2 extra cores



Yes, but that's using AVX instructions, I made this run without AVX, and right now it's higher than a dual Xeon system without AVX  try your 2600K without AVX and you'll see what I'm talking about (I also have a 2600K)

I will run the test later after dinner


----------



## TRWOV (Nov 25, 2011)

*Add me*

TRWOV | Intel | Core i5-2320 3.0Ghz | 080.498875 | 026.8329583 | 64-bit | AVX


----------



## TRWOV (Nov 25, 2011)

*Add me*

TRWOV | Intel | Core i5-2320 3.0Ghz | 044.105125 | 014.7017083 | 64-bit | No AVX


----------



## TRWOV (Jan 4, 2012)

*Add me*

TRWOV | Intel | Core 2 Quad Q6700 2.66Ghz | 023.7305 | 008.92124 | 64-bit | Conroe865PE board with DDR1 RAM


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jan 9, 2012)

*Add Me*

Chicken Patty | Intel | Core i7 2600K 4.5 GHz  | 093.7511 | 20.8 | 64-Bit | Hyper Threading Enabled / bunch of crap running in the background


----------



## Lost Hatter (Jan 9, 2012)

*Add me*

Lost Hatter | AMD | Phenom II x4 925 3.24Ghz | 041.3233 | 010.4574 | 64-bit | AMD770/rx780


----------



## vnhill1981 (Jan 10, 2012)

*Add me*

Vnhill1981 / Intel / i5 2500 (Non K) @ 3.95GHz / 101.0784 / 025.5895 / 64-bit / Average over 10 tests, Multiplier set at x41 in BIOS, comes in at x38 during test


----------



## Lost Hatter (Jan 10, 2012)

i had a few friends run it and both their computers broke. LOL


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 11, 2012)

Table updated!

I'll try to update this more regularly, at least once a month...


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 11, 2012)

Here's another run of my I5-2400, my 2400 scores pretty well  Who needs a 2500k


----------



## mudkip (Jan 17, 2012)

i5 750 | 3420Mhz | 19 x 180 | 4C | 1,11875v | Asus P7H55-M/USB3 | Air | Scythe Rasetsu | 65c


----------



## TRWOV (Jan 17, 2012)

*Add me*

TRWOV | AMD | Turion 64 X2 Mobile TL-62 2.1Ghz | 006.4612 | 003.07677 | 64-bit | hp pavilion dv2500 SE


----------



## mudkip (Jan 19, 2012)

i5 750 | 3600Mhz | 18 x 200 | 4C | Vcore 1,16875v | VTT 1.3V | CPU PLL 1.85v | Asus P7H55-M/USB3 | Air | Scythe Rasetsu | 68c


----------



## SonDa5 (Jan 25, 2012)

IBT has become my favorite stability testing tool.

Working on over clocking my i5-2500k.  I'm IBT stable at 4.8ghz right now.

Here are my results.

Got 1.432v on my 2500k for 4.8ghz.

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2215267


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Jan 25, 2012)

*Add me*

Completely Bonkers|Intel|E5420@2.5Mhz|058.14| 023.25 | 32-bit | E5420+L5420, stock, W2K3 sandboxed


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Jan 26, 2012)

The most interesting part of these results (over the last 2 years) is that performance has doubled on the typical enthusiasts machine... and that not matter how hard you overclock, with the space of 9 months, the next processor generation beats any overclock.  OC'ing gives you about 3-6 months of effective performance gain.  The cost of OC'ing in both terms of time (=money) and cost (best processor, better PSU, cooling equipment) is an investment that really only gives you a 3 month payback... Money and time possibly better spent on a new, more up to date, faster CPU in the first place. 

I have to say I am rather disappointed in my results from my workstation.  Easily beaten by a modern s1155 mITX!!!  To upgrade my CPUs to gain an extra 20% performance is going to cost a fortune. s771 is expensive. And to gain 20% is hardly worth it. I'll look for cheapies on ebay I think... but perhaps I should just retire the whole system and get a single processor s1155.


----------



## ST.Viper (Jan 26, 2012)

/*Off Topic*/

Hi guys. I would like to ask you a few questions...My uncle has old HP Compaq dc7600: P4 3GHz HT LGA 775, acording to Compaq chipset is Intel 945G, Integrated VGA.........as i have zero experience with Intel CPUs will Intel E2160 1,8GHz LGA 775 CPU fit in his motherboard or no....If yes will he see any improvements in web flash games?....maybe I will oc CPU to 2,6-3GHz???.....


----------



## phanbuey (Jan 26, 2012)

ST.Viper said:


> /*Off Topic*/
> 
> Hi guys. I would like to ask you a few questions...My uncle has old HP Compaq dc7600: P4 3GHz HT LGA 775, acording to Compaq chipset is Intel 945G, Integrated VGA.........as i have zero experience with Intel CPUs will Intel E2160 1,8GHz LGA 775 CPU fit in his motherboard or no....If yes will he see any improvements in web flash games?....maybe I will oc CPU to 2,6-3GHz???.....



It will fit, but whether or not the Board's BIOS will recognize the chip is another story.  Most likely not without an update - and because it is a compaq board, the chances of it having an update are slim to none.

You may want to try to stay away from upgrading the platform like that since it may cause you more headaches than the money you will save.

He needs a new system.  All of those parts are EOL as of several generations already.


----------



## ST.Viper (Jan 26, 2012)

Thanks for fast reply.....I know that pc is useless nowadays, but for some reason he does not want to spent any money on a new system....he just want to play flash games smooth ( it is silly i know ) but anyway thanks for advice


----------



## phanbuey (Jan 26, 2012)

ST.Viper said:


> Thanks for fast reply.....I know that pc is useless nowadays, but for some reason he does not want to spent any money on a new system....he just want to play flash games smooth ( it is silly i know ) but anyway thanks for advice



Yeah... might have to bring his expectations down a bit.  Might have to say something like "Those compaq PSU's blow up after 5 years and you will lose all your porn"

See if you can build a cheap high-clock system, he will like that for flash games - they will run nice n smooth.


----------



## ST.Viper (Jan 26, 2012)

I already told him that his pc sucks and that he need to buy whole new machine but he does not listen to me....


----------



## ST.Viper (Jan 26, 2012)

i found latest bios for his "rig" on hp web from july 2009....do you think it will support E2160???


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Feb 3, 2012)

Am I missing something or are Kaluba's AVX results (GFlops Per GHz) miscalculated?


----------



## SonDa5 (Feb 4, 2012)

My fastest standard run.


----------



## arnoo1 (Feb 13, 2012)

*Ad me!*

arnoo1 | intel | i5 2300 stock | 073.0132 |




stock clocks, stock cooling, 4gb kinston value Ram 1333mhz cl9


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Feb 13, 2012)

tigger | intel | i5 2400 stock | 95.3251 |

New run.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Feb 13, 2012)

How do you get higher Gflops?


----------



## TRWOV (Feb 13, 2012)

brandonwh64 said:


> How do you get higher Gflops?



Updated IBT? Don't know really


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Feb 13, 2012)

Magic, I have no idea, i run the test and get a score. I am a bit stumped too tbh, but i like the score.


----------



## igorb (Feb 20, 2012)

Freshly OC-ed 2500k 

igorb | Intel | i5-2500k @4.3GHz | 108.494 GFlops | 025.230 | 64-bit | Notes


----------



## igorb (Feb 20, 2012)

igorb | AMD | E-350 @1.6GHz | 002.616 GFlops | 001.635 GFlops per GHz | 64-bit

Netbook Thinkpad E125 results.


----------



## HTC (Feb 21, 2012)

Here's my APU results:

HTC | AMD | A8-3850 @ 2.9 GHz | 31.3755 GFlops | 10.8191 GFlops per GHz | 64-bit


----------



## igorb (Feb 21, 2012)

I just noticed that on i5 Sandy Bridges (maybe on i7 also) first core always shows lower max. temp than the rest of them.


----------



## Lost Hatter (Feb 21, 2012)

Id like to revise my Gflop per Ghz  its 12.7541 not 10.45

Thank you


----------



## Sotex-STI (Feb 26, 2012)

*Add me*

Sotex-STI | Intel | I7-3820 @ 4000Ghz |avg GFlops 105.818 | Gflops/Ghz 026.704 | 64 bit | OC Genie OC from MSI, HT off


----------



## Albuquerque (Mar 15, 2012)

*Add me*

Albuquerque | Intel | I7-3930k C2 @ 4.5GHz | 171.0594 GFlops | 038.0132 GFlops per GHz | 64-bit






Looks like I get to take home the top honors on Gflops / Ghz and total Gflops attained.  Damned n00bs!   It's on an Intel motherboard too, go figure.  It (might?) help that I'm using the 1.25x strap along with all eight sticks of ram.  Combined with six 240GB SSD's on the HighPoint RAID card, this thing hauls backside.

It needs a new graphics card or two; I'm using my trusty 5850 until NV shows me what they have with Kepler.  Should be an interesting decision to make in a month!


----------



## theeldest (Mar 21, 2012)

*Add Me*

A couple systems from work:

*TheEldest | Intel | 2x Xeon E5645 @ 2.4 Ghz | 76.2129 | 31.7554 | 64-bit | Only ran 12 threads even though hyperthreading is enabled. With 24 threads was around 38 Gflops.*





*TheEldest | AMd | 2x Opteron 6168 @ 1.9 Ghz | 116.6449 | 61.3921 | 64-bit | Good Gflops / Ghz, not so hot per core.*


----------



## SonDa5 (Mar 22, 2012)

Albuquerque said:


> Albuquerque | Intel | I7-3930k C2 @ 4.5GHz | 171.0594 GFlops | 038.0132 GFlops per GHz | 64-bit
> 
> http://www.schulzjewelry.com/computer/3930k/Capture.PNG
> 
> ...




That is the fastest I have ever seen.  Wow!  

What speed and timings on the RAM?


----------



## Athlonite (Mar 22, 2012)

HTC said:


> Here's my APU results:
> 
> HTC | AMD | A8-3850 @ 2.9 GHz | 31.3755 GFlops | 10.8191 GFlops per GHz | 64-bit



Hey HTC why's you bus clock only at 100MHz I thought AMD's did 200MHz


----------



## Albuquerque (Mar 22, 2012)

SonDa5 said:


> What speed and timings on the RAM?



1666Mhz @ 8-9-8-24 1T.  After that screenshot, I've been able to noodle the memory voltage down to 1.55v and retain stability, but any tighter timings (regardless of voltage) simply do even post.  I've also tried loosening the timings and bumping the ram speed "just to see", but that has been fruitless as well.

I'm currently working on 4.63Ghz stability, but I'm not happy with the VRM temperatures after extended testing (reaching ~85*c after an hour or so.)  Most of this temp issue is related to a lack of fans.  I have only _two case fans_ in this entire rig; a 250mm intake on the case side panel and a 120mm exhaust for the CPU.  Neither are what you'd call "high flow" fans by any stretch of the imagination.

CPU-Z on this board does not read the CPU voltage correctly, nor does it read any of the memory settings correctly.  Also, this board lets me keep all the S1 / low-idle power states intact with my overclock, so CPU-Z screenshots all show the CPU at 1.5Ghz unless I snap a pic while the bench is still running...


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Mar 24, 2012)

*update me newtekie *

AthlonX2 | Intel | Core i5 2500K @ 4.7Ghz | 114.8329 | 24.4234 | 64-bit | AVX


----------



## TRWOV (Apr 1, 2012)

*Add me*

TRWOV | Intel | Pentium 4 3.4E @ 3.4Ghz | 003.1966 | 000.940176 | 32-bit |


----------



## TRWOV (Apr 3, 2012)

*Add me*

TRWOV | AMD | Athlon 64 FX-60 @ 2.6Ghz  | 005.2404 | 002.015538 | 32-bit |


----------



## zyky (Apr 3, 2012)

*Add me*

Wow, amount of CPU cache really seems to effect results, that E3400 did terrible.

Zyky | Intel | Celeron E3400 @ 3.667GHz | 007.46143 | 002.03475 | 64-bit |




Zyky | Intel | Celeron E3400 @ 3.750GHz | 006.08398 | 001.62239 | 64-bit |




Zyky | Intel | Mobile Core 2 Duo T9300 @ 2.5GHz | 017.17917 | 006.87167 | 64-bit | Penryn IDA active




Performance steadily decreased (temperature issues likely)
Zyky | Intel | Mobile Core 2 Duo T9500 @ 2.6GHz | 017.12522 | 006.58662 | 64-bit | Penryn IDA active




Zyky | Intel | Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 2.4GHz | 016.25911 | 006.77453 | 64-bit |




Zyky | Intel | Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 3.258GHz | 040.35176 | 012.38544 | 64-bit |




Zyky | Intel | Core I7 920 @ 3.520GHz | 045.95407 | 013.05513 | 64-bit | Turbo & Hyperthreading enabled, 4 thread run


----------



## TRWOV (Apr 3, 2012)

zyky said:


> Wow, amount of CPU cache really seems to effect results, that E3400 did terrible.
> 
> Zyky | Intel | Celeron E3400 | 007.46143 | 002.03475 | 64-bit | 3.667GHz
> http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=46459&stc=1&d=1333436493
> ...




The formatting is wrong, you have to put the clock speed with the CPU model: "Core I7 920 3.52Ghz"


----------



## zyky (Apr 3, 2012)

TRWOV said:


> The formatting is wrong, you have to put the clock speed with the CPU model: "Core I7 920 3.52Ghz"



Oops, sorry about that missed the "and clock" in the formatting requirement, fixed.


----------



## Kiska (Apr 19, 2012)

I will reinstall Win8 and see if it works then I will post results


----------



## Kiska (Apr 19, 2012)

*Add me*

Kiska  | Intel  | Core 2 Duo P8400 @ 2.26Ghz  | 014.4423  | 6.3904  | 32-bit  | Running Windows 8 Developer Preview




Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## TRWOV (Apr 27, 2012)

*Add me*

TRWOV | AMD | Athlon 64 FX-60 @ 2.6Ghz | 007.8418 | 003.016086 | 64-bit | 





wow  Working in a 64bit environment the FX60 really spreads its wings, isn't it? In XP I got 5.24Gflops :shadedshu


----------



## TRWOV (Jun 24, 2012)

*Add me*

TRWOV | Intel | Pentium G620 @ 2.6Ghz | 017.7977 | 006.8452 | 64-bit |


----------



## Kiska (Jun 24, 2012)

Yes in 64-bit there is room for more bandwidth to go though the cpu and memory whereas 32-bit it can only support 2.9 GB of RAM at any time in the test or not.


----------



## Athlonite (Jun 24, 2012)

Has anyone done an before and after of the BD FX patches, not looking at anyone in particular ???? Renq ????

I found the second one helped me a little (thread ordering) but the core parking one didn't install not surprising as I don't have an AMD FX 4100 or better CPU


----------



## agent00skid (Jun 25, 2012)

*Add me*

agent00skid | AMD | A6-3500 2,1 Ghz | 017,55337 | 008,35874 | 64-bit | Turbo disabled


----------



## Cool Mike (Jul 25, 2012)

*Add me*

Cool Mike | Intel | 3930K@4.8Ghz | 146.04723 | 030.42650625 | 64-bit |


----------



## Aquinus (Jul 25, 2012)

aquinus | Intel | Intel Core i7 3820 @ 4.536GHz | 100.472


----------



## Frick (Aug 8, 2012)

*Add me*

Frick | Intel | Core 2 Duo T5300 @ 1.73Ghz | 6,766125 | 3,911054913294798 | 64 bit | 95 C under load!


----------



## TRWOV (Aug 11, 2012)

tigger said:


> Magic, I have no idea, i run the test and get a score. I am a bit stumped too tbh, but i like the score.



I think I've come across the answer to this riddle, at least in my case: if I leave the Turbo Boost at AUTO it doesn't go beyond 3.1Ghz (2,3,4 cores) and 3.3Ghz for 1 core but if set it manually it can go up to 3.5Ghz for 4 cores and 3.7Ghz for 1 core. 

My GFLOPS went from 80 to 90 @ 3.5Ghz so I think tigger's is actually running at 3.7Ghz or something.


----------



## itsakjt (Aug 19, 2012)

*Add Me*

Phenom | AMD | Phenom II X4 955BE @3.7 GHz | 049.29 | 013.32 | 64 bit | RAM @ 1600 MHz, NB 2800 MHz




By itsakjt at 2012-08-19


----------



## IamEzio (Aug 19, 2012)

IamEzio | Intel | Core 2 Duo E8400 @3.6GHz | 024.33305 | 006.759180555555556 | 64-bit


----------



## Athlonite (Aug 20, 2012)

Hey Itsakjt your HT link is abit slow do you have it set on auto or did you manually set it to 1600MHz .... It should be set at 2000MHz on an AM3 mobo and CPU


----------



## itsakjt (Aug 20, 2012)

Athlonite said:


> Hey Itsakjt your HT link is abit slow do you have it set on auto or did you manually set it to 1600MHz .... It should be set at 2000MHz on an AM3 mobo and CPU



Yes Athlonite I know. It was 2000 MHz when all was stock. But as soon as I set the DRAM frequency manually from 1333 MHz to 1600 MHz via the DRAM multiplier, HT was automatically set to 1600 MHz. I don't know why but I think the HT operates at the same speed as the RAM does. I tried increasing it to 2000 MHz again manually but I didn't find any difference in memory bandwidth and gigaflops. Also my CPU/NB(IMC) is running at 2800 MHz. Should I increase my HT to 2000 MHz? What do you say? And how will I spot the difference?


----------



## Athlonite (Aug 21, 2012)

If you've already tried it and not noticed any difference then just leave it as it is I just thought it was weird not being as fast as it should be for the CPU/Socket type 

my dram frequency isn't tied to my HT/NB bus speed only the FSB


----------



## Aquinus (Aug 21, 2012)

Athlonite said:


> my dram frequency isn't tied to my HT/NB bus speed only the FSB



All modern AMD processors DRAM speed is based off of the NB frequency. I know this because I used to have the same exact processor as you. Also HT isn't locked to the NB speed, they can (obviously) run independently. 

I'm calling shenanigans.


----------



## renq (Oct 28, 2012)

*Add me!*

renq | Intel | Celeron G530 @ 2,4GHz | 016.862375 | 007.02598958(3) | Win 8 x64 RTM

Better than a FX-4100@ 4,2G :shadedshu

EDIT:


Athlonite said:


> Has anyone done an before and after of the BD FX patches, not looking at anyone in particular ???? Renq ????
> 
> I found the second one helped me a little (thread ordering) but the core parking one didn't install not surprising as I don't have an AMD FX 4100 or better CPU


Sorry, haven't been here for a while, so that request slipped, however, as my FX-4100 result was done in Win 8 Developer Preview, which supposedly "Bulldozed" correctly, the result should stand.
Have sold my 4100 ages ago, but bow considering going AMD once again just for fun- 5600K prolly.

EDIT2:


Aquinus said:


> All modern AMD processors DRAM speed is based off of the NB frequency. I know this because I used to have the same exact processor as you. Also HT isn't locked to the NB speed, they can (obviously) run independently.
> 
> I'm calling shenanigans.


IIRC,
RAM speed (in MHz)=  FSB*multiplier
Increasing NB and HT-link speeds improves the memory throughput (MB/s), but the speed (MHz) stays the same.
Correct me if my memory is letting me down (again )

EDIT41:


TRWOV said:


> TRWOV | Intel | Pentium G620 @ 2.6Ghz | 017.7977 | 006.8452 | 64-bit |
> 
> http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/7397/g620.png


Care to have a(nother) go @ 2,4GHz?

My G530 does a bit better in terms of gflops/MHz regardless of the additional 1MB of L3 cache on the Pentium G620.


----------



## IamEzio (Oct 28, 2012)

IamEzio | intel | Core i5-3470 @3.2GHz | 084.85266 | 021.213165 | Windows 8 RTM 64 Bit


----------



## Derek12 (Oct 28, 2012)

renq said:


> renq | *AMD *| Celeron G530 @ 2,4GHz | 016.862375 | 007.02598958(3) | Win 8 x64 RTM



Intel. I haven't saw an "AMD Celeron" yet 

Besides, same CPU as mine 

BTW the table was last updated on January lol I think it won't be updated anymore.


----------



## Athlonite (Oct 28, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> All modern AMD processors DRAM speed is based off of the NB frequency. I know this because I used to have the same exact processor as you. Also HT isn't locked to the NB speed, they can (obviously) run independently.
> 
> I'm calling shenanigans.



It is on my Asus M3A32MVP-Deluxe  to a point

FSB = 200MHz
NB = 12x200MHz (2400Mhz) 4x min to 22x max (800MHz to 4400MHz)
HT = maximum is equal to NB multiplier so 2400MHz
Dram Speed = 1066MHz / 5.33 = 200Mhz (DDR2-1066MHz) neither the NB or HT effect this setting playing with the FSB however does any increase in FSB consequently effects the Dram speed if I change FSB to say 215MHz the Dram speed now becomes 1145.54MHz however if I change the NB or HT speeds the Dram speed will remain the same only the throughput will be effected ie: NB>Dram write-Dram>NB read

the HT multiplier can not go higher than the NB it can go lower however (down to 800MHz) but it will not exceed the 12x multi on the NB unless I set the NB multiplier higher (Which I have done (upto 2600MHz) but it becomes unstable)


----------



## Steevo (Nov 12, 2012)

Add Me


Steevo | AMD | AMD A8-3500M | 016.3412 | 010.8941 | 64-bit Win 7 | Not dual channel RAM, 1.5Ghz fully loaded, 3.0Ghz single thread


----------



## cdawall (Nov 12, 2012)

*add-me*

cdawall | AMD | Phenom II B97 @4ghz | 051.7593 | 12.9398 | 64-bit | Loose timings 24/7 clocks






cdawall | AMD | Phenom II B97 @4160mhz | 053.5078 | 12.8614 | 64-bit | peak clocks on H70


----------



## Morgoth (Nov 13, 2012)

Morgothl | Intel| Intel Xeon E5520 x2 @ 2,395mhz| 049.8213 | 17.942 | 64-bit |


----------



## zoomer-fodder (Dec 7, 2012)

*Add Me*

zoomer-fodder | AMD | Phenom II X6 1605T @ 4.03Ghz | 077.9989 | 19.36417 | 64-bit | Full stable 24/7




http://pix.academ.org/img/2012/12/06/4fe8dcda06da585b88b2635f78dfc81d.png


----------



## seronx (Dec 7, 2012)

*FX-8320, Seronx*

Seronx | AMD | FX-8320 3.8 GHz/4.3 GHz | 67.071825 | 16.56094 | 64-bit | Modded Libraries(Within Spec)


----------



## agent00skid (Dec 7, 2012)

@seronx

Is CPU-Z misreading the memory frequency, or are you running it that slowly?


----------



## seronx (Dec 7, 2012)

agent00skid said:


> @seronx
> 
> Is CPU-Z misreading the memory frequency, or are you running it that slowly?


XMP-1866, it is bugging out.





X-boost doesn't overclock that much does it...

X-Boost = Glitched out CPU-Z.


----------



## Cortex (Dec 7, 2012)

3930K@5GHz should score about 200GFLOPS with AVX support. This is just rubbish.


----------



## äxl (Dec 21, 2012)

*Add Me*

Here are two laptops from work (Win7). First one is from mid 2011. Second is from mid 2012! Its i5-480M is already in the list but slightly weaker.

*äxl | Intel | Core 2 Duo P7570 @ 2.26GHz | 014.5303 | 06.4293 | 64-bit | Laptop*

http://s12.postimage.org/5jh2982fx/HP630.jpg

*äxl | Intel | Core i5-480M @ 2.67GHz | 016.3083 | 06.1079 | 64-bit | Laptop*

http://s1.postimage.org/u72i7h8rj/Durabook_S15_C.jpg


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 21, 2012)

Aquinus | Intel  | i7 3820 @ 4.267Ghz | 90.47594| 21.2 | 64-bit | No AVX


----------



## lemonadesoda (Jan 9, 2013)

*Add me*










lemonadesoda| Intel| 2x Xeon E5472 @ 3.00 Ghz | 069.5090 | 23.170 | 32-bit |


----------



## Moro (Jan 26, 2013)

*Add Me*

Moro | Intel | i7 3930K @ 4.4GHz | 173.3296 | 039.3930 | 64-bit | AVX, HT disabled


----------



## omegatotal (Feb 17, 2013)

*Add me*

omegatotal | Intel | Q6600 Gzero @ 3.6Ghz | 046.2422 | 012.8450 | 64-bit | 24/7 8x450  1.425 Vcore actual







non-lapped CPU and H100, 2x Delta AFC1212DE-PWM on custom wire harness controlled by H100 pushing


IBT Gflops with normal work load active in background.

Still working out the voltages when I have hours to burn, but it is stable and does my streaming/transcoding from raw HBR 1080p/3d movies that I own.


----------



## [XC] Oj101 (Feb 17, 2013)

Something isn't right with mine, at 3.24 GHz on 24 threads (Xeon E5645s) I only get about 100 GFLOPS, or not much more than half of what a Core i7-3960X does at 4.4 GHz?


----------



## TRWOV (Feb 17, 2013)

omegatotal said:


> omegatotal || Intel || Q6600 Gzero @ 3.6Ghz 8x450  || 046.2422 GFlops || 012.8450 GFlops Per GHz || 64-bit || 24/7 1.425 Vcore actual, non-lapped CPU and H100, 2x Delta AFC1212DE-PWM on custom wire harness controlled by H100 pushing
> 
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/OoWOLp7h.jpg
> ...



Formating is wrong. Fix it or newtekie won't add your result. It should be:

omegatotal | Intel | Q6600 @ 3.6Ghz | 046.2422 | 012.8450 | 64-bit | 8x450 24/7 1.425 Vcore

The extra |s and the large comment will break the table formatting. If you want to add details of your rig do so in the post.


----------



## Melvis (Feb 23, 2013)

Does anyone else think that's a realy bad score for a i7?

I just compared it to a customers computer i just built using a i5 3470 and the i5 blows this i7 out of the water


----------



## TRWOV (Feb 23, 2013)

Melvis said:


> Does anyone else think that's a realy bad score for a i7?
> 
> I just compared it to a customers computer i just built using a i5 3470 and the i5 blows this i7 out of the water



The i5 3470 has AVX. Look at the benchmarks without AVX. In my case:

AVX: Core i5-2320 3.1Ghz	 080.498875Gflops	 
No AVX: Core i5-2320 3.1Ghz	 044.105125Gflops

Test the 3470 with IBT 2.51 or earlier, it should give out different results.	 

Also HT seems to take a 2% hit on the Gflops.


----------



## [XC] Oj101 (Feb 23, 2013)

AVX, I should've known :/


----------



## Melvis (Feb 24, 2013)

TRWOV said:


> The i5 3470 has AVX. Look at the benchmarks without AVX. In my case:
> 
> AVX: Core i5-2320 3.1Ghz	 080.498875Gflops
> No AVX: Core i5-2320 3.1Ghz	 044.105125Gflops
> ...



Ahh ok well that makes sense then, was thinking wow maybe there was a problem with my i7 rig. Such  a big difference 37 for i7 and 88 for the i5.


----------



## omegatotal (Feb 26, 2013)

TRWOV said:


> Formating is wrong. Fix it or newtekie won't add your result. It should be:
> 
> omegatotal | Intel | Q6600 @ 3.6Ghz | 046.2422 | 012.8450 | 64-bit | 8x450 24/7 1.425 Vcore
> 
> The extra |s and the large comment will break the table formatting. If you want to add details of your rig do so in the post.



meh


updated original


----------



## _JP_ (Feb 26, 2013)

*Add me*

_JP_ | Intel | Core 2 Duo E7400 @ 2.8GHz | 018.4599 | 006.5928 | 64-bit | x64 run; DDRII 800MHz


Spoiler: Screenshot











_JP_ | Intel | C2D Mobile P8400 @ 2.2GHz | 015.7078 | 007.1399 | 64-bit | x64 run



Spoiler: Screenshot











_JP_ | AMD | Turion 64 X2 TL-58 @ 1.9GHz | 003.0381 | 001.5990 | 64-bit | Vista x64



Spoiler: Screenshot


----------



## spamynator_1 (Mar 24, 2013)

*Spamynator_1 | AMD FX 8320 @ 4.0ghz | 31.32*


----------



## _JP_ (Mar 24, 2013)

*You guys should really read the rules...*

...no wonder newtekie doesn't update this anymore

spamynator_1 | AMD | FX 8320 @ 4.0ghz | 031.1828 | 007.7436 | 64-bit |

Fix'd.


----------



## Jack1n (Mar 24, 2013)

Its already summer here in israel so ambients are pretty high...


----------



## Mephisto513 (Sep 5, 2013)

*Add Me*

Mephisto513 | Intel | i7 3930k @ 4.6Ghz | 125.8433| 27.3572 | 64-bit | HT on


----------



## Tylermon (Sep 26, 2013)

*Add me*

Average of 150.0000 Gflops

My Rig: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2yxjm
Intel I7 3930k 4.6ghz
Asus P9x79 Pro
32gb ram 1600mhz
gtx 780 overclocked memory and base clock.
1200W psu
win7 pro 64bit
H110 cpu fan


----------



## Timmen (Sep 26, 2013)

Timmen | Intel | i5 3570k @ 4.6Ghz | 118.0145 | 25.6553 | 64-bit


----------



## inthedark1980 (Oct 3, 2013)

*Add me*

inthedark1980 | Intel | i7-2600k@4.8ghz | 103.3555 GFlops | 10x run at 145.64 seconds |


 I think you will be as surprised as I was. I am running a i7-2600k@4.8ghz. Hyperthreading on, c-states on and only topping out around 80c. I am cooling my cpu with a h80 in push/pull and have 16gb Kingston Hyper-x Genesis 1600mhz. I noticed that the top 2600k in the chart was not even similar to my scores so I wanted to share


----------



## _JP_ (Jan 9, 2014)

*Add me*

_JP_ | AMD | A8 5600K @ 4GHz | 020.1946 | 005.0486 | 64-bit | 4GHz@1.25v; 1600MHz CL9






Is it me, or is the average a bit low?
Looking at other scores, I get the feeling I should be getting twice the GFlops. :\
Maybe it's just me. The chip works fine, stable and responsive...

EDIT: Then again, there's a 8350 in the previous page that averaged 30-odd GFlops...heh
That and I'm running 1600MHz RAM when these cores crave for more speed.


----------



## Tylermon (Jan 9, 2014)

_JP_ said:


> *Add me*
> 
> _JP_ | AMD | A8 5600K @ 4GHz | 020.1946 | 005.0486 | 64-bit | 4GHz@1.25v; 1600MHz CL9
> 
> ...




It is hard to say. Builds can be different and create enough difference to make one cpu great on one system and terrible in another. Not only that, but not all cpu's are made equally, some get more gold some dont.
There is a 3930k in the list that got around 100 gflops at 5ghz. Mine got around 150 Gflops at 4.6ghz.

So really it is hard to say if your average is low or not.

Just make sure you keep it cool and system clean and up to date. Then at least you know it is the best it will be for you.

P.S AMD cpu's dont get as high Gflops. They have many small buckets of data they send rapidly while Intel uses a few dump trucks. Dump trucks get more/bigger Gflops


In other news, I would love if that list could be updated 

My Rig: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2yxjm


----------



## Frick (Jan 9, 2014)

Frick | Intel | Xeon E3 1220 @ 3.1 Ghz | 71.9593 | 21.2 | 64-bit |


----------



## zoomer-fodder (Jan 12, 2014)

zoomer-fodder said:


> *Add Me*
> 
> zoomer-fodder | AMD | Phenom II X6 1605T @ 4.03Ghz | 077.9989 | 19.36417 | 64-bit | Full stable 24/7
> 
> ...


UP


----------



## xvi (Jan 13, 2014)

Add Me






xvi | Intel | Core 2 Duo T5670 1.8GHz | 10.159875 | 5.644375 | 64-bit | Dell Vostro 1510, Win 7


----------



## TRWOV (Jan 14, 2014)

*Add Me*

TRWOV | Intel | Core 2 Extreme QX6800 @ 2.93Ghz | 024.1497 | 008.2422 | 64-bit | AGP rig


----------



## TRWOV (Jan 14, 2014)

_JP_ said:


> Is it me, or is the average a bit low?
> Looking at other scores, I get the feeling I should be getting twice the GFlops. :\
> Maybe it's just me. The chip works fine, stable and responsive...
> 
> ...



Download this patch for IBT: http://www.datafilehost.com/d/b6f1cf10

Remember to uncheck the "Use our download manager and get recommended downloads" box.

Copy the contents to the IBT folder. It'll overwrite Linpack with the correct one for Bulldozer CPUs


----------



## nameiP (Jan 26, 2014)

*Add me



 *


----------



## Tylermon (Jan 26, 2014)

nameiP said:


> *Add me
> 
> View attachment 54309 *




Its a personal opinion that you dont need to raise your bus speeds. But I am fairly certain that voltage could be dropped(at least just a little). Have the same cpu and while not all cpu's are equal and I dont know your PSU/MOBO, I can get 4.6ghz at 1.364v  What are your temps at? Must be HOT.

Also, what is your cooler?

P.S 4.5ghz has a significantly less power draw, much lower temps, and about the same performance. I'm currently using my 3930k at 4.5ghz with 1.355v.

My thermal paste is admittedly bad and I am getting much higher temps than I should be getting, but, there is about a 5-10 degree difference between 4.5ghz and 4.6ghz.  with those voltages.

Best cpu I ever had, but the thing makes some heat.


----------



## Steevo (Jan 27, 2014)

Strange, attached about 20 times.

Anyway, 225Mhz bus speed causes hard lock, 220 works perfect I have ran all other stress tests stable up to 226Mhz with no issues.


----------



## nameiP (Jan 29, 2014)

Tylermon said:


> Its a personal opinion that you dont need to raise your bus speeds. But I am fairly certain that voltage could be dropped(at least just a little). Have the same cpu and while not all cpu's are equal and I dont know your PSU/MOBO, I can get 4.6ghz at 1.364v  What are your temps at? Must be HOT.
> 
> Also, what is your cooler?
> 
> ...



My rig:

Intel I7 3930k with Noctua NH-D14
Asus Rampage IV Formula
16Gb GSkill Ripjaws kit @2133Mhz
750w Corsair CMPSU-750HX Pro series
Samsung 830 128Gb SSD + 3Tb Seagate HDD
All stuffed into an Antec three hundred two midi tower.

Idle temps are ~40, under load they hit the 64-69 region. After some further tweaking I've got the core volts down to 1.360 and all appears well...


----------



## qiong (Feb 7, 2014)

*Add me:*
Qiong | Intel | i7 3770 @ 4.1Ghz | 090.638  | 022.107  | 64-bit |  AVX
Windows 8.1 evaluation running intelburn Test:
intel i7-3770 @4.1 Ghz
2x 8GB Corsair XMS @1600Mhz
MSI Z77IA-E51




I have a non-commerical  version intel Composer-XE 2013 which contains linpack benchmark test, and it gives the results( as compared with the standard test in intelburn test which uses 1024Mb of space, a  matrix with size of 11200x11200 should give about 1004Mb of memory usage, the system is ubuntu 12.04):

Input data or print help ? Type [data]/help :

Number of equations to solve (problem size): 11200
Leading dimension of array: 11200
Number of trials to run: 10
Data alignment value (in Kbytes): 4
Current date/time: Fri Feb  7 22:22:27 2014

CPU frequency:    4.314 GHz
Number of CPUs: 1
Number of cores: 4
Number of threads: 8

Parameters are set to:

Number of tests: 1
Number of equations to solve (problem size) : 11200
Leading dimension of array                  : 11200
Number of trials to run                     : 10 
Data alignment value (in Kbytes)            : 4   

Maximum memory requested that can be used=1003748096, at the size=11200

============= Timing linear equation system solver =================

Size   LDA    Align. Time(s)    GFlops   Residual     Residual(norm)
11200  11200  4      8.714      107.5158 1.193862e-10 3.361740e-02
11200  11200  4      8.683      107.8989 1.193862e-10 3.361740e-02
11200  11200  4      8.634      108.5101 1.193862e-10 3.361740e-02
11200  11200  4      8.721      107.4247 1.193862e-10 3.361740e-02
11200  11200  4      8.660      108.1798 1.193862e-10 3.361740e-02
11200  11200  4      8.624      108.6382 1.193862e-10 3.361740e-02
11200  11200  4      8.639      108.4471 1.193862e-10 3.361740e-02
11200  11200  4      8.720      107.4349 1.193862e-10 3.361740e-02
11200  11200  4      8.772      106.8029 1.193862e-10 3.361740e-02
11200  11200  4      8.608      108.8334 1.193862e-10 3.361740e-02

Performance Summary (GFlops)

Size   LDA    Align.  Average  Maximal
11200  11200  4       107.9686 108.8334

End of tests


I don't know why these two versions of linpack benchmark are different


----------



## RadFX (Mar 23, 2014)

Been interested in this thread for a while now. Posting results now.  I don't understand why the test completion time is low.. but I can't complain about the other results I guess. Core Voltage should be 1.428v.==========================================================================================


----------



## nightriderjt (Oct 24, 2014)

*Add me*
Nightriderjt | AMD | AMD FX-8350 @ 4.5ghz | 076.803






For those who get low results in IBT with FX or Ax series. IBT initial release does not work right . There is an IBT patch for AMD cpus.
Also Linpack will report a failure on the program (not stability issue but a crash ) but is false positive on AMD cpus with the IBT patch. That has been reported at other forums as i can remember.

CPU : AMD FX8350 OC 4.5
Mainboard : Asrock 970 extreme 4 (cannot oc higher due to 4+1 vrm)
VGA: Saphire 5870 Vapor OC
RAM : 2x4gb Kingston 1600 Mhz (oc to 1866)
SSD : Samsung 840
HDD: 1x1TB WD, 1x500GB WD
Case : Akasa Freedom
Cooler : Coolermaster Hyper 212 Evo (push pull)
Custom made heatsink on to VRMs (replaced the small original heatsink on the motherboard much bigger in height with attached 80mm fan blowing to the back)
Fans: 1x120 front,1x120 back,1x120 side,1x140 top,1x120 to the rear side of the motherboard)


----------



## Athlonite (Oct 24, 2014)

Your Average score is 76.803 not 79.5129 (add all scores then divide by num runs = Avg score)


----------



## nightriderjt (Oct 24, 2014)

Athlonite said:


> Your Average score is 76.803 not 79.5129 (add all scores then divide by num runs = Avg score)


fixed


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 25, 2014)

nightriderjt said:


> fixed


Can you post full specs?


----------



## nightriderjt (Oct 25, 2014)

eidairaman1 said:


> Can you post full specs?


done


----------



## Arjai (Oct 25, 2014)

*Add Me
name | Processor Maker | CPU Model and Clock | Average GFlops | GFlops Per GHz | 64-bit or 32-bit | Notes
Arjai | Intel | i5 3317u 2394.29 | 28.1967 | 11.7766 | 64 bit | 4 logical cores
*


----------



## chuck216 (Oct 25, 2014)

Add Me

Chuck216 | AMD | AMD FX-8320 @3.5Ghz | 31.942925 | 9.12655 | 64 Bit |8 Physical Cores


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 25, 2014)

This might sound crazy, but table updated!


----------



## nightriderjt (Oct 25, 2014)

chuck216 said:


> Add Me
> 
> Chuck216 | AMD | AMD FX-8320 @3.5Ghz | 31.942925 | 9.12655 | 64 Bit |8 Physical Cores


Do you use the no patched IBT version? Your results are far too low.


----------



## chuck216 (Oct 25, 2014)

nightriderjt said:


> Do you use the no patched IBT version? Your results are far too low.



Honestly I'm not sure, just used the one at the link at the beginning of the thread.

Just found the link to the unpatched IBT version a few posts up, Unfortunately it contains a bunch of spyware in it's installer that you can't prevent. Thanks for suggesting something that has useless junk like weatherbug and hijacks my browser's start page and search engine.


----------



## nightriderjt (Oct 25, 2014)

chuck216 said:


> Honestly I'm not sure, just used the one at the link at the beginning of the thread.
> 
> Just found the link to the unpatched IBT version a few posts up, Unfortunately it contains a bunch of spyware in it's installer that you can't prevent. Thanks for suggesting something that has useless junk like weatherbug and hijacks my browser's start page and search engine.


My purpose was not to give you spyware my friend. The installer has button to decline the installation of the additional crap-ware. Any way here is the clean files. Just put them at your installation folder of IBT.
http://ntclabs.net/downloads/LinData.rar


----------



## chuck216 (Oct 25, 2014)

unchecked the box for the added stuff.. it still installed them, not your fault.


----------



## chuck216 (Oct 25, 2014)

Add Me

Chuck216 | AMD | AMD FX-8320 @3.5Ghz | 62.715175 | 17.91862 | 64 Bit |Patched IBT

Much better with patched version


----------



## nightriderjt (Oct 25, 2014)

chuck216 said:


> Add Me
> 
> Chuck216 | AMD | AMD FX-8320 @3.5Ghz | 62.715175 | 17.91862 | 64 Bit |Patched IBT
> 
> Much better with patched version



Very nice!


----------



## inthedark1980 (Oct 26, 2014)

Here I guess this one is about the same. I left everything open on my web pages and shit so it might not be that good but its ok. I will do it again when I get my Sabertooth back. Core i7-2600K@3.5ghz Stock cooler H67 chipset 8gb ddr3 1333mhz


 View attachment 59981


----------



## chuck216 (Oct 26, 2014)

inthedark1980 said:


> I wonder why this cpu isnt on the list pretty good for stock clocksView attachment 59981



If you post it correctly it probably could be, BTW mine were at stock clocks also


----------



## inthedark1980 (Oct 26, 2014)

chuck216 said:


> If you post it correctly it probably could be, BTW mine were at stock clocks also


Shit my bad how am I supposed to post it


----------



## inthedark1980 (Oct 26, 2014)

I suppose with the success screen would help. LOL


----------



## nightriderjt (Oct 26, 2014)

inthedark1980 said:


> I suppose with the success screen would help. LOL


Post in this format your results
*name | Processor Maker | CPU Model and Clock | Average GFlops | GFlops Per GHz | 64-bit or 32-bit | Notes*


----------



## inthedark1980 (Oct 26, 2014)

inthedark1980* | INTEL | I7-2600K@3.5ghz | 74.88025 | 21.39435714285714 | 64-bit | I will run this again at my stable overclock when my replacement sabertooth z77 comes in*


----------



## chuck216 (Oct 26, 2014)

inthedark1980 said:


> inthedark1980* | INTEL | I7-2600K@3.5ghz | 74.88025 | 21.39435714285714 | 64-bit | I will run this again at my stable overclock when my replacement sabertooth z77 comes in*




close... you need to put "Add Me" before everything and an image of your completed successful run with CPU-Z open along with the info all in the same post.  just look at the other posts in the thread as a guide.


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 26, 2014)

Table Updated.

*It has become too hard to figure out if the runs are using AVX or not. So, from now on any test using a newer processor that supports AVX I will just assume AVX is enabled and working and the results will go in the AVX section.*


----------



## chuck216 (Oct 27, 2014)

newtekie1 said:


> Table Updated.
> 
> *It has become too hard to figure out if the runs are using AVX or not. So, from now on any test using a newer processor that supports AVX I will just assume AVX is enabled and working and the results will go in the AVX section.*



Speaking of the AVX table, the results for nightriderjt is off by one column after his name, which messes up where it is when sorted.


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 27, 2014)

chuck216 said:


> Speaking of the AVX table, the results for nightriderjt is off by one column after his name, which messes up where it is when sorted.


Fixed, Thanks!


----------



## Jackywu91 (Oct 30, 2014)

Add me
Jackywu91 | Intel | Intel i5 4690k @ 3.9ghz | 102.238625 | 26.2150 | 64bit


----------



## TRWOV (Oct 30, 2014)

Add Me

TRWOV | AMD | FX-8350 @ 4.0Ghz | 72.705 | 18.17625 | 64 Bit | Windows 10 Preview


----------



## nightriderjt (Oct 30, 2014)

TRWOV said:


> Add Me
> 
> TRWOV | AMD | AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0Ghz | 72.705 | 18.17625 | 64 Bit | Windows 10 Preview


You have a descent MB. Why not overclocked your fx mate ?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 30, 2014)

Run it at 4.2Ghz across all cores.


----------



## TRWOV (Oct 30, 2014)

nightriderjt said:


> You have a descent MB. Why not overclocked your fx mate ?



My board/CPU combo sucks at OCing. I'll get an 8370 in the future and see if things improve but so far it has been horrid and I don't know if the CPU or the board are to blame.


----------



## chuck216 (Oct 31, 2014)

TRWOV said:


> My board/CPU combo sucks at OCing. I'll get an 8370 in the future and see if things improve but so far it has been horrid and I don't know if the CPU or the board are to blame.




That combo should be great at overclocking. I have a GA-990FXA-UD3 and an FX-8320 and I can hit 4.5 GHz on air using a 7 year old Big Typhoon VX.

Your system with the H80 should be able to match or surpass that easily.


----------



## chuck216 (Oct 31, 2014)

ADD ME

Chuck216 | AMD | FX-8320 @ 4.5 Ghz | 70.87035 | 15.7489 | 64 Bit | Overclocked to 4.5 Ghz

Here's mine after an overclock:


----------



## TRWOV (Oct 31, 2014)

Add me

TRWOV | AMD | FX-8350 @ 4.5Ghz | 79.06705 | 17.57045 | 64 Bit | LLC manually set to Extreme






Never trust an Auto setting 

The performance per Ghz dropped a bit


----------



## TRWOV (Nov 1, 2014)

Add me

TRWOV | AMD | FX-8350 @ 4.4Ghz | 79.943375 | 18.16895 | 64 Bit | Max OC with stock voltage








Final settings:
Core Performance Boost - Disabled
Multiplier - 22
LLC - Extreme
HPC - Enabled
Stock Vcore, 4.5Ghz required +0.05v

Weird thing is that there's no performance loss compared to 4.5Ghz


----------



## nightriderjt (Nov 1, 2014)

Yep it is weird....i gone from 4.5 to 4.4 me too and i got same results like you.


----------



## TRWOV (Nov 1, 2014)

Add me

TRWOV | AMD | Athlon 5350 @ 2.1Ghz | 13.232775 | 6.301321 | 64 Bit |


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Nov 2, 2014)

New results from me 

AthlonX2 | Intel | E5-2687W @ 3.1GHz | 155.09 | 050.030 | 64 Bit | AVX


----------



## Rhyseh (Dec 2, 2014)

Add me

Rhyseh | Intel | Intel Core i7 5820k @ 3.30GHz | 139.6137 | 042.307181 | 64-bit | AVX, Stock Clocks


----------



## Black6spdZ (Dec 25, 2014)

I ran one pass with a bunch of memory, seems to help make execution more efficient.
the old but good 2011 i7-3939k @ 4.3Ghz | 175.428 | 40.797 | 64-bit


----------



## Steevo (Dec 28, 2014)

Steevo | AMD| 1100T @ 4.2Ghz | 80.0131 | 18.991 | 64 Bit | Overclocked


----------



## Awesomeonator (Apr 1, 2015)

Add Me

Formula Red | Intel | i7-4790K 4.8Ghz *| 132.09575 | 27.5199479 | 64 Bit | That test is in windows 7 ultimate with 32GB of ram but it gets similar results in windows 10 pro technical preview.  

 *


----------



## Foreign03 (Apr 8, 2015)




----------



## Locksmith (Apr 8, 2015)

ADD ME

Intel I7 4790K  64bit


----------



## de.das.dude (Apr 25, 2015)

wonder how much power the ibm z10 ec mainframe that has been dedicated to us during training has :3


----------



## DinaAngel (Apr 25, 2015)

add me. Edit: did a better score
DinaAngel | Intel 4930k @ 4.5GHz | 174


----------



## Foreign03 (Apr 25, 2015)

*6 threads only as per above post I thought all threads had to be run so its fair.
*


----------



## Foreign03 (Apr 25, 2015)

3930K at 5.0ghz All threads


----------



## DinaAngel (Apr 27, 2015)

Foreign03 said:


> *6 threads only as per above post I thought all threads had to be run so its fair.
> *
> View attachment 64377


Most people doesn't know that when u set it to all threads. It doesn't use all generally. That's why there's such a big gflops difference. Also that physical cores are faster than virtual cores.

Also says nowhere in op post that u must set to all threads, I'm not only one who didnt set it to it. Why would I want for it to not use all my threads? Even if u set it to all threads it will say 100% usage in windows but that does not mean 100% for the actual cpu


----------



## gja822 (Apr 30, 2015)

gja822 | Intel | Pentium G6950 @ 2.8GHz | 015.17214 | 005.42280 | 32bit | Windows7


----------



## POLJDA (Oct 15, 2015)

AMD | FX-8320 @ 4.7Ghz


----------



## Athlonite (Oct 15, 2015)

POLJDA said:


> AMD | FX-8350 @ 4.7Ghz



CPUz says it's an FX8320


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 16, 2015)

4.7GHz seems to be an Average 8300 series wants to OC on Air, for 4.8GHz to pass OCCT or even Prime95/Wprime, I need Water cooling for 4.8GHz+


----------



## Athlonite (Oct 16, 2015)

eidairaman1 said:


> 4.7GHz seems to be an Average 8300 series wants to OC on Air, for 4.8GHz to pass OCCT or even Prime95/Wprime, I need Water cooling for 4.8GHz+



Yes to get higher you need to start pumping up the volts and thus the heat and the only way to deal with it efficiently is either water cooling or some form of extreme cooling ie: dry ice or LN2 or the like


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 18, 2015)

Athlonite said:


> Yes to get higher you need to start pumping up the volts and thus the heat and the only way to deal with it efficiently is either water cooling or some form of extreme cooling ie: dry ice or LN2 or the like



yuppers, only way ill get to 5GHz


----------



## AlwaysHope (Oct 19, 2015)

OP has IBT download link @ v2.5, but link downloads v2.54.

Haven't read through entire thread, not sure if this has been raised before?



DinaAngel said:


> Most people doesn't know that when u set it to all threads. It doesn't use all generally. That's why there's such a big gflops difference. Also that physical cores are faster than virtual cores.
> 
> Also says nowhere in op post that u must set to all threads, I'm not only one who didnt set it to it. Why would I want for it to not use all my threads? Even if u set it to all threads it will say 100% usage in windows but that does not mean 100% for the actual cpu



Is this indicated in task manager? I'll do a run on my 'old' gaming rig and check this..


----------



## yotano211 (Oct 19, 2015)

add me
yotano211| Intel| i5 4300m @ 3.2Ghz undervolted to 75mv


----------



## AlwaysHope (Oct 20, 2015)

This benchmark needs updating, if I run the test on standard and then on high (more RAM), I get different GFlops results..

The program definitely uses all cpu cores at maximum too.


----------



## neonxrs (Oct 6, 2016)

Asus Maximus Formula with Core 2 Quad Extreme 9650 @ 3.6 GHZ (400 FSB, Multi 9), Vcore 1.625 V, Watercooled with one 140mm radiator -


----------



## savustamo (Nov 4, 2016)

savustamo | Intel | Intel Core i7 6700k @ 4.76GHz |NH-d15 Noctua | 64-bit | Gigabyte Z170X G7 ,stock volt

Is there something setup wrong??


----------



## P4-630 (Nov 4, 2016)

neonxrs said:


> Watercooled with one 140mm radiator



That cooling doesn't seem to be good enough....
Your processor throttled.


----------



## infrared (Nov 4, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> That cooling doesn't seem to be good enough....
> Your processor throttled.


I'm not surprised it throttled at that voltage! Wayyyy more than needed D: My qx9650 wasn't a gem either but even that only needed 1.5v for 3.8-3.9ghz.

edit, maybe neonxrs mistook the voltage, both cpuz and hwinfo say 1.5v, but then I would have thought the 140mm radiator would have been enough. Weird. Maybe if it's an AIO cooler the coolant might be getting low.


----------



## infrared (Nov 4, 2016)

@savustamo It does look like you're not getting quite the score you should, although it could just come down to ram frequency and timings. I did a quick run for comparison:

6700k 4.6ghz core, 4.4ghz cache, 3333mhz ram @ 16-18-18-36

Add me

infrared | Intel | I7-6700K @ 4.6GHz | 131.092 | 28.498 | 64-bit | 3333mhz ddr4, 24/7 settings


----------



## savustamo (Nov 4, 2016)

@infrared    hi i dont know, men timing are 16-18-18-38. now i bushed 1.5vcpu and 4.8ghz


----------



## infrared (Nov 4, 2016)

That's odd, my guess it's either throttling due to watt limits (set in bios) or temperature, or possibly the cache (mem conroller) frequency, have a look under the memory tab of cpuz.

have you got coretemp? That'll log your max temp, and aida64 stability test will show if you're throttling or not, leave it open without pressing start, and then run intelburntest.

Also go easy with your chip, 1.5V is pretty high for skylake, we don't want to see you kill it  should be ok for short benching sessions I guess.


----------



## nomdeplume (Nov 4, 2016)

Add Me

nomdeplume  l Intel  l  i5 2400 3.1 MHz  l  Average 077.8414  l  Per GHz 025.1101  l 64 bit


----------



## savustamo (Nov 4, 2016)

infrared said:


> That's odd, my guess it's either throttling due to watt limits (set in bios) or temperature, or possibly the cache (mem conroller) frequency, have a look under the memory tab of cpuz.
> 
> have you got coretemp? That'll log your max temp, and aida64 stability test will show if you're throttling or not, leave it open without pressing start, and then run intelburntest.
> 
> Also go easy with your chip, 1.5V is pretty high for skylake, we don't want to see you kill it  should be ok for short benching sessions I guess.



My temps are too high.. maybe i get out core and heat plate and chance paste inside it... i get 4.9ghz about 100c temps haha..


----------



## savustamo (Nov 7, 2016)

@infrared  now i chance paste ihs and cpu inside and 4.6ghz 4runs are 47.58 it throttled temps like you say


----------



## infrared (Nov 7, 2016)

savustamo said:


> @infrared  now i chance paste ihs and cpu inside and 4.6ghz 4runs are 47.58 it throttled temps like you say


Great news! glad to hear you got it sorted


----------



## savustamo (Mar 5, 2018)

savustamo | Intel | Intel Core i7 6700k @ 4.8GHz |NH-d15 Noctua | 64-bit | Gigabyte Z170X G7 ,1.448v  47x102.2mhz
same setup still but increased memory speed and lovered clock 48 to 47


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Mar 5, 2018)

Youre missing CPUz sreenshot and this threads last post was back in 2016


----------



## nomdeplume (Jul 31, 2018)

No need to warn me this is probably of limited interest.  

Came across reference to this benchmark and wanted to compare i5-8400 to my i5-2400 result.  Roughly mirrored the double performance I based the purchase off.    
*nomdeplume l Intel l i5 2400 3.1 MHz l Average 077.8414 l Per GHz 025.1101 l 64 bit* 

*nomdeplume | Intel | i5-8400 2.8GHz | Average 153.0167 | Per GHz 54.0869| 64-bit*

*



*

Actually ran this test a few times today; Once with 85F ambient air temps and the second at 70F.  Cooler air temps yielded +5 Gflop increase.


----------

