# Geekbench



## lemonadesoda (Mar 18, 2009)

Geekbench is a nifty benchmarking utility, focusing on math crunch and memory speeds. It is a CPU benchmark, not GPU. OK! Let's see your scores.

*Instructions*

Download Geekbench 2.1.x http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/2188/GeekBench_v2.1.4.html *Note 1
Install and run the 32-bit test
You can either 1) Use the "submit" button in geekbench, and then copy the hyperlink of the results to this thread (preferred), or alternatively post the screenshot of Summary and System information using TPUCapture!

Post the <table> data as shown below, and remember to calculate the value in the last column GeekScore / Ghz, example = 4555 / 2.70 = 1687



> Name | CPU | Speed | MemoryType | GeekbenchScore | Integer | FP  | Memory | StreamScore | GeekScore/Ghz | comments and/or link to geekbench URL result
> lemonadesoda | Q6600 | 2.70 Ghz | DDR 400       | 4550                | 6321 | 5335 | 1680  | 1349  | calculate it! |



*Note 1. Geekbench is updated from time to time. I have found v2.1.x to identify my dual xeon system correctly as 2 processors, 8 cores total. But using the lastest GeekBench 2.4.x gives the WRONG CPU info, it says, 1 processor 8 cores, and also gives quite different results. So please download GeekBench v2.1.x from the link above.



Name | CPU (2x for dual) | Speed | MemoryType | GeekScore | Integer | FP | Memory | StreamScore | 
*GeekScore/Ghz *
| comment

lemonadesoda | Q6600 | 2.7 Ghz | DDR 400 | 4555 | 6348 | 5326 | 1670 | 1352 | 1687 | AGP system, W2K3. ASROCK 775i65 v2.0
lemonadesoda | Atom 280 | 1.66 Ghz | DDR2 | 911 | 932 | 778 | 1023 | 1085 | 549 | Sony VAIO W
lemonadesoda | Atom 330 | 1.60 Ghz | DDR2 667 | 1211 | 1403 | 1225 | 961 | 995 | 757 | Shuttle X27D
lemonadesoda | Atom D525| 1.80 Ghz | DDR2 800 | 1444| 1601 | 1392 | 1283 | 1401 | 802 | Supermicro X7SPA-HF 
result

lemonadesoda | P4EE | 3.2 Ghz | DDR 400 | 1489 | 1595 | 1556 | 1290 | 1285 | 465 | Done over RDP, quite a lot of overhead
lemonadesoda | 2x L5420 | 3.00 Ghz | FB-DIMM 800 | 8511 | 12286 | 10566 | 1775 | 1586 | 2837 | Single channel FB.DIMM
lemonadesoda | 2x E5420 | 2.50 Ghz | FB-DIMM 667 | 7162 | 10313 | 8823 | 1570 | 1512 | 2865 | DUAL Channel FB-DIMM
lemonadesoda | 2x E5420 | 2.50 Ghz | FB-DIMM 667 | 7346 | 10439 | 8843 | 1996 | 1989 | 2938 | QUAD Channel FB-DIMM
lemonadesoda | 2x E5472 | 3.00 GHz | FB-DIMM 800 | 8712| 12426| 10540 | 2097| 2549 | 2904 | 
Workstation

lemonadesoda | i5-3210M | 2.50 GHz | DDR3 800 | 4960 | 4835 | 5612 | 4172 | 4693 | 1984| 
AsRock Vision HT 321B


alexp999 | Q6600 | 3.6 GHz | DDR2 1000 | 6262 | 8271 | 6987 | 2926 | 3369 | 1739  | W7 
PSYCHoHoLiC | i7 920 | 4.0 GHz | DDR3 | 10365 | 11504 | 13079 | 5964 | 5687 | 2591 | Vista
PSYCHoHoLiC | i7 920 | 3.6 Ghz | DDR3 1098 | 7463 |.|.|.|.|2073
Xternal | E7200 | 3.16 Ghz | DDR 800 | 3487 | 4549| 3790 | 1981 | 1730 | 1103 | Meh...Winxp
A Cheese Danish | AMD Opteron 170 | 2.95 GHz | 4GB DDR400 | 3091 | 3251 | 4147 | 1677 | 1665 | 1048 | Windows XP x64 running the x86 version of geekbench
BiNGE Molly i7 | i7 920 | 4.2 GHz | DDR3 1600 | 11113 | 12182 | 13919 | 6305 | 7169 | 2646 | Vista 64
Slyfox2151 | E7300 | 3.33 Ghz | DDR2 800mhz | 3686 | 4772 | 3975 | 2136 | 1978 | 1116 | Vista / anti viri running
DOM | X3350 | 4GHz | DDR2 1066 | 7061 | 9523 | 7869 | 3171 | 3404 | 1765 | Vista Ultimate 64bit SP1
btarunr | X4 9750 | 2.40 GHz | Ganged DDR2-1066 | 4372 | 4795 | 5536 | 2902 | 1765 | 1822 | Linux x64
Pete1burn | 2x FX-70 | 2.6GHz | 4gb DDR2 800 | 4247 | 4648 | 5993| 1733 | 1765 | 1633
HammerON | E8500 | 3.16 GHz | DDR2 1066 | 4607 | 5882 | 4905 | 2916 | 2489 | 1458 | Vista 32bit
DanTheBanjoman | 2x L5310 | 2.4 GHz | FB-DIMM-667 | 7039 | 9902 | 8509 | 1890 | 2173 | 2933 | Should fix my memory
DrPepper | Q6600 | 3.8 Ghz | DDR2-1138 | 6767 | 8985 | 7549 | 3126 | 3557 | 1760 | Cake
DrPepper | Q6600 | 2.4 Ghz | DDR2-800 | 4236 | 5560 | 4666 | 2063 | 2448 | 1765 | Stock FSB 266
DrPepper | Q6600 | 2.7 Ghz | DDR2-800 | 4732 | 6263 | 5247 | 2329 | 2378 | 1752 | FSB 300

A Cheese Danish | T9300 | 2.5 GHz | DDR2 667 | 2767 | 3572 | 2949 | 1644 | 1564 | 1107 | Windows 7 Ultimate
A Cheese Danish | Atom 270 | 1.6GHz | DDR2 533 | 873 | 894 | 736 | 986 | 1063 | 546 | Windows XP x86 SP3
3870x2 | T2600 | 2.16 GHZ | DDR 667 | 2259 | 2700 | 2522 | 1375| 1572 | 1046 | My Work Laptop
mlee49 | Q9450 | 3.21 Ghz | DDR2 1066 | 5762 | 7501 | 6226| 3115 | 3346 | 1795 | Vista x64
angelkiller | E8400 | 4.3GHz | DDR2-956 | 4815 | 6120 | 5102 | 3405 | 2793 | 1119 | no comment
angelkiller | E2180 | 3.0 GHz | DDR2-600 | 3329 | 4240 | 3566 | 1986 | 1999 | 1110 |
angelkiller | T2500 | 2 GHz | DDR2-667 | 2001 | 1380 | 3042 | 1553 | 1428 | 1000 | Lenovo T60. Core Duo, not Core 2, 1GB of RAM.
angelkiller | Pentium D 945 | 3.4GHz | DDR2-800 | 2266 | 2614 | 2179 | 1841 | 2209 | 667 | commie? Windows 7
angelkiller | Athlon 3000 | 2.4GHz | DDR-400 | 1852 |1778 |2242 | 1537 |1379 | 813 | commune?
JrRacinFan | E5200 | 3.33 Ghz | DDR2 800 CL4| 3631 | 4639 | 3873 | 2359 | 1806 | 1090 |24/7 clocks
FordGT90Concept | 2x E5310 | 1.60 Ghz | FBDIMM-667 | 4691 | 6240 | 5655 | 1459 | 1739 | 2932 | TYAN__ D1808___
hoss331 | Q9650 | 4.34 Ghz | DDR2 1157 | 7841 | 10418 | 8596 | 3845 | 4176 | 1807 | Vista 64
FordGT90Concept | Core i7 920 | 2.77 GHz | DDR3-1066 | 7245 | 7791 | 9095 | 4333 | 4686 | 2616 | HT and Turbo on (2.66 GHz stock)
chuck216 | Athlon x2 5600+ | 2.90 Ghz| DDR2 667 | 3042 | 3130 | 3932 | 1962 | 1783 | 1049 | Vista 64 with 32 bit geekbench
wolf2009 | Intel Q9450 | 3.20 GHz | DDR2-800 | 5478 | 7417 | 6144 | 2367 | 2584 |  1712 | 
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/136525

MRCL | Intel E6300 | 1.86 GHz | DDR2-667 | 2175 | 2488 | 2167 | 1722 | 2022 |  1169 | 
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/136528

freakshow | Core i7 920 | 4.1Ghz | Gotta get back to on that one | 10761 | 11833 | 13276 | 6530 | 6669 | | Vista x64 Ultimate
r1rhyder | i7 920 | 4.2 Ghz | DDR3 2000 | 11177 | 12034 | 13565 | 6994 | 8189 | 2661 | Windows 7
chuck216 | Phenom II X4 940 BE | 3.50 Ghz | DDR2 800 | 6368 | 7599 | 8547 | 2520 | 2136 | 1819 | 32 bit version
rickss69 | Core i7 965 | 4189.6MHz | DDR3 | 11533 | 12710 | 14367 | 6595 | 7379 | 2759 |Game rig
jellyrole | i7 920 D0 | 4Ghz | 1600 Trident | 10284 | 11659 | 12447 | 6017 | 6440 | 2571 | 
Fatal | Phenom II X4 940 BE | 3.70 Ghz | DDR2 1066 | 6766 | 8005 | 8823 | 3022 | 2725| 1828 | 32 bit version
BarbaricSoul | 2600k | 4.20 Ghz | DDR3 1600 | 12797 | 13242 |1682 | 7976 | 9384 | 3046 | 2600k system in system specs
MetalRacer|i7 3930k|5.2GHz|DDR3 2133|20767|23498|26279|9649|14153|3993|
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/537533

MetalRacer|i7 3770k|4.8GHz|DDR3 2133|15330|16261|18787|9850|10934|3193|
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1319510

Aquinus | i7 3820 | 4.62 Ghz | DDR3-2400 (10-12-11-33-1T) | 13131 | 13827 | 15091 | 8923 | 12254 | 2842 | 128.6Mhz bclk
chevy350 |2600k | 4.4GHz | DDR3-1866 | 13228 | 13994 | 16661 | 7937 | 9120 | 4017 | 
32bit
64 bit

Melvis | FX-57 | 2.8 GHz | DDR 500 | 2144 | 2103 | 2657 | 1627 | 1529 | 763 | Windows XP 32
Melvis | XP 2100 | 1.85Ghz | DDR 266 | 1138 | 1195 | 1591 | 547 | 544 | 615 | Going for Lowest Score
Melvis | AMD X2 4600+ | 2.4GHz | DDR500 | 2618 | 2667 | 3397 | 1677 | 1605 | 1091 | Windows XP 32
Melvis | Phenom II X4 965 | 3.4 Ghz | DDR3 1333 | 6317 | 7353 | 8291 | 2960 | 2501 | 1858 | Windows 7 64
Melvis | AMD A8-5600k | 3.8 Ghz | DDR3 1333 | 6063 | 6427 | 7646 | 3884 | 3612 | 1596 | Customers Comp
Melvis| A10-5800K | 3.8/4.2 Ghz | DDR3 1333 | 6697 | 7112 | 8712 | 3959 | 3671 | 1762 | 
Customers Comp

Arctucas | i7 950 | 4273 MHz | DDR3 1600 | 11207 | 12518 | 13688 | 6496 | 7366 | 2622 | 
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1373607

Melvis| AMD FX 8350 | 4.0/4.2 Ghz | DDR3 1600 | 9773 | 11312 | 12821 | 4304 | 4657 | 2443 | Main Rig
HammerON | i7 970 | 4.0 GHz | DDR 3 1066 | 13848 | 15684 | 18003 | 5612 | 9360 | 3462 | Win7
Compgeke | Atom Z520 | 1.33 GHz | DDR2 533 | 725 | 625 | 757 | 803 | 704 | 529| Dell mini 10
de.das.dude | AMD X4 945 | 3.0 GHz | DDR2-1066 | 5255 | 6443 | 6958| 2004 | 1642 | 1751.7 | Win7 x64 
result

TRWOV | Core i5-2320 | 3.5Ghz | DDR3-1600 | 8407 | 8807 | 9119 | 7079 | 7176 | 2402 | 
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1610900

AphexDreamer| FX6100 | 4530Mhz| DDR3 1333 | 9916 | 10043 | 14350 | 4237 | 5314 | 2189| Main Rig 
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1610983

rickss69 | 980X | 3.99GHz | DDR3 1600 | 13691 | 15670 | 17432 | 5622 | 9797 | 3431 | 
gamer

phoen | i7-3770K | 4.80GHz | DDR3-2400 | 14932 |15914 | 17017 | 10100 | 13869 | 3110 | 
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1612049

TRWOV | QX6800 | 3.19Ghz | DDR400 | 5407 | 7464 | 6249 | 2155 | 1771 | 1694 | 
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1614648

rickss69 | 980X | 4.3 GHz | DDR3 | 15121 | 17961 | 18910 | 5949 | 10268 | 3484 | 
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1619412

rickss69 | Atom N270 | 1.60 GHz | DDR2 | 800| 856| 682 | 802 | 1021| 500| 
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1620264

Durvelle27| AMD FX 4100 | 4.6GHz | DDR3 1333 | 7612 | 7471 | 10644 | 4231 | 4261 | 1655 | 
Main Rig

Melvis| AMD E2-1800 | 1.7GHz | DDR3 1333 | 1782 | 1731 | 2051 | 1442 | 1700 | 1048 | Lenovo x131e
phoen | i7-3770K | 4.90GHz | DDR3-2400 | 15825 | 16287 | 19009 | 10237 | 14248 | 3229 | 
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1629545

uuuaaaaaa | AMD Phenom II X6 1100T Black Edition | 4013Mhz | DDR3 1333 | 10100 | 12067 | 13646 | 4000 | 3011 | 2516 | 
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1629839

Melvis | Intel Pentium D 945 | 3.4GHz | DDR2 533 | 2271 | 2795 | 2210 | 1735 | 1724 | 668 |
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=52337

TrainingDummy | AMD A8-3870 | 3.1GHz | DDR3 1333 | 5894 | 6831 | 7575 | 3039 | 2444 | Blah |
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/2273447

MightyMission | i5 2500k | 5000mhz | 2 x 4 GB Ripjaws X 2133 | 11788 | 12562 | 12978 | 9409 | 9680 | 2357.6 | 
http://img.techpowerup.org/130826/GB2.jpg

Compgeke | Core i5 520M | 2.4 GHz | PC3-10600 | 3719 | 3995 | 4399 | 2542 | 2728 | 1549.48 | Lenovo Thinkpad T410 
http://goput.it/6c45.png

Compgeke| 2x E5405 | 2 GHz | DDR2-667 FBDIMM | 5943 | 8290 | 7087 | 1833 | 1945 | 2971.5
HammerON | i7 4770K | 4.7 GHz | DDR 3 2666 | 14752 | 15939 | 16718 | 9040 | 15145 | 3139
Compgeke | VIA CoreFusion "Luke" | 1 GHz | DDR-400 | 321 | 282 | 433 | 243 | 224 | 321 | 
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/2348895

Melvis | AMD A10-7700K | 3.4GHz | DDR3 1600 | 6832 | 7452 | 9102 | 3555 | 3279 | 2009 | New Customers Build


==============================================================================


========== *WANTED* =============================================================

Would someone kindly run the following:

Q6600 at 2.4 or 2.7Ghz on a PCI-e/DDR2 system. I would like to compare performance vs. my AGP Q6600. Thanks Dr Pepper!
Nehalem-EP
Xeon E5400 systems Thanks Compgeke!
Xeon E5500 systems
Xeon E7 systems
A ultra cheapo Core2 celeron or mobile Core2.
Atom 270. Thanks A Cheese Danish!
Atom 230/Z5xx esp. a netbook like Samsung NC10 or Asus/Acer
Atom D2600/D2800
Via Nano or C7
AMD C-350 and C-450 APUs

Favourite "multicore" benchmarks, Fritz,  Geekbench, EVEREST PhotoWorxx
(updated to post#177)


----------



## alexp999 (Mar 18, 2009)

alexp999 | Q6600 | 3.6 GHz | DDR2 1000 | 6262 | 8271 | 6987 | 2926 | 3369 | Not optimized


----------



## erocker (Mar 18, 2009)

When I run it, it says it's not a valid Win32 application.


----------



## alexp999 (Mar 18, 2009)

erocker said:


> When I run it, it says it's not a valid Win32 application.



Is that the installer or the program?


----------



## alexp999 (Mar 18, 2009)

I ran it fine on Win 7 x64


----------



## Psychoholic (Mar 18, 2009)

it says 2.79ghz, but its really 3.8 with turbo so 3.99ghz


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 19, 2009)

Atom330:
lemonadesoda | Atom 330 | 1.6 Ghz | DDR2 400 | 1211 | 1403 | 1225 | 961 | 995 | 757 | Shuttle X27D


----------



## Psychoholic (Mar 19, 2009)

did a 3.6ghz run with HT Turned off for a clock vs clock comparison with the q6600 for curiosity.


PSYCHoHoLiC | i7 920 | 3.6 Ghz | DDR3 1098 |


----------



## Xternal (Mar 19, 2009)

Xternal | E7200 | 3.16 Ghz | DDR 800 | 3487 | 4549| 3790 | 1981 | 1730 | 1103 | Meh...Winxp


----------



## A Cheese Danish (Mar 19, 2009)

Could not load screen shot atm...:shadedshu
A Cheese Danish | AMD Opteron 170 | 2.95 GHz | 4GB DDR400 | 3091 | 3251 | 4147 | 1677 | 1665 | 1048 | Windows XP x64 running the x86 version of geekbench


----------



## Binge (Mar 19, 2009)

BiNGE Molly i7 | i7 920 | 4.2GHz | DDR3 1600 | 11113 | 12182 | 13919 | 6305 | 7169 | 2646 | Vista 64


----------



## slyfox2151 (Mar 19, 2009)

Slyfox2151 | E7300 | 3.333mhz | DDR2 800mhz | 3686 | 4772 | 3975 | 2136 | 1978 | 1116 | Vista / anti viri running


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 19, 2009)

On ASUS DSEB:
lemonadesoda | L5420 x2 | 3.0 Ghz | FB-DIMM 800 | 8511 | 12286 | 10566 | 1775 | 1586 | 2837 | Single channel FB.DIMM at the moment


----------



## DOM (Mar 19, 2009)

DOM | X3350 | 4GHz | DDR2 1066 | 7061 | 9523 | 7869 | 3171 | 3404 | 1765.25 | Vista Ultimate 64bit SP1


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Mar 20, 2009)

Why does Solaris get his own version?


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 20, 2009)

I guess someone just hasnt compiled the build yet. Not a lot of call for it, possibly?

****

On another note, this benchmark is bringing my L/E5420 system to BSOD. I think it may be the northbridge/memory system.  I can bench from cold boot up. But a warm machine BSODs.  No problem with other benchmarks.  Something I need to look into...

Dan, kindly do an OC L5310 system.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 20, 2009)

On ASUS P4P800-VM:
lemonadesoda | P4EE | 3.2 Ghz | DDR 400 | 1489 | 1595 | 1556 | 1290 | 1285 | 465 | Done over RDP, quite a lot of overhead

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/119814

I find it amazing that an Atom 330 can keep up with a P4EE 3.2Ghz.  While the P4EE will game better (faster performance for the single core), for productivity software that can multithread, the Atom 330 is a perfect, cheap, silent replacement for such machines.  Quite simply, if you have ANY P4 machines in your office, they should be immediately retired. Their power consumption/performance ratios as well as noise means they should hit the scrap heap.  A $100 Intel Atom 330 board and a $20 stick of DDR2 will outperform it.  The only point against this upgrade is the loss of AGP video cards and using onboard video... which we can do due to double TFT setups. :-(


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Mar 20, 2009)

Evil laptop.


You have L5420's, nice, been wanting those due to the x7 multiplier. Though actually buying them for the slight increase would be a waste.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 20, 2009)

I've mixed a L5420 and E5420. Same 45nm and same stepping.  I would have preferred 2xL5420 for power reasons... but I took what I could get at a great price.  The E5420 has active cooling. The L5420 has passive, but gets "hit" with a little airflow from the E5420 fan. 

BSEL mod. FSB 1600.

I'm having stability troubles at the moment. I think it is the Northbridge/FB-DIMM. I hope this and not a issue with mixing CPUs.  Stable when cold. Unstable when warm... therefore I suspect Northbrdge/FB-DIMM.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Mar 20, 2009)

I have two HR-01 X's on my CPU's, single 120mm fan on them. BSEL to 1600 as well, can overclock further but have been lazy. I sShould raise voltage by a lot and see how far they go. Memory shouldn't be a real issue, two of my modules are 667Mhz forcing my memory to 667. I know they can do 780 at least. (they did on my X7) And my other two modules are 800 stock so should do 780 as well, even with the lower timings.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 20, 2009)

I have those too. But the Thermalright HR-01 X are a complete pain. Had I realised how their fixing mechanism for s771 worked, then I would have bought the Noctuas.  The HR-01 X's are a disaster for mounting/unmounting due to the location of their bolting mechanism on s771.  It takes forever and twisted fingers and a risk of slipped screwdrivers or spanners to install and remove. When you see how easy an Intel stock cooler or the Noctuas are to install... they are worth $20 more just for the time they save.

The Thermalright HR-01 is OK on s775 however. But *absolutely cannot *recommend them for s771 though!


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Mar 20, 2009)

I completely agree, they are a hell to install/remove. I actually made that comment on XS a few days ago. Though in the end it's performance that matters, it's not like I should be removing them every other day. 
Also, they'd fit better on certain boards, being able to rotate them 90 degrees makes them nice. It's a shame few boards will allow that.


----------



## Marineborn (Mar 20, 2009)

that bench told me im pretty much a noob, BAH at it


----------



## btarunr (Mar 20, 2009)

At  2.40 GHz: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/claim/?&id=119922&key=589338 

btarunr | X4 9750 | 2.40 GHz | Ganged DDR2-1066 | 4372 | 4795 | 5536 | 2902 | 1765 | 1821.66 | Linux x64

I disabled Cool'n'Quiet and C1E from the BIOS. When enabled, Linux keeps playing with the CPU speeds on a per-core basis. It is likely that Core 0 clock speed was 1.20 GHz in my previous run, which is why the result looked funny. Count this:


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 20, 2009)

That's more like it! I was thinking the Phenom had passed out.


----------



## Pete1burn (Mar 20, 2009)

Pete1burn | 2xFX-70 | 2.6GHz | 4gb DDR2 800 |        4247          |  4648  | 5993| 1733 | 1765 | 1633


----------



## groothof22 (Mar 20, 2009)

Thats it


----------



## Pete1burn (Mar 20, 2009)

Did you post an image?  There's nothing there for you.


----------



## {JNT}Raptor (Mar 21, 2009)

Pete1burn said:


> Did you post an image?  There's nothing there for you.




No....I think he was actually talking smack to you......go get him. 

On topic....I'll pick this up and give it a few runs.


----------



## HammerON (Mar 21, 2009)

Here is my lame score 
Very upset with such a low score~~~~






HammerON | E8500 | 3.16 GHz | DDR2 1066 | 4607 | 5882 | 4905 | 2916 | 2489 | 1458 | Vista 32bit


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 21, 2009)

Bah! I can't get my Xeon system to do this benchmrk without BSOD. Still hunting down the problem!


*EDIT*

FAULTY L5420 it seems


----------



## sweeper (Mar 22, 2009)

full specs in sig.... <-------


----------



## Hayder_Master (Mar 22, 2009)

im go try it


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Mar 22, 2009)

DanTheBanjoman | 2x L5310 | 2400MHz | FB-DIMM 667 MHz | 7039  | 9902 | 8509 | 1890 | 2173 | Can't find? | Should fix my memory


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Mar 22, 2009)

I took out the 667Mhz memory so it runs at dual channel 800, increases my score to 7081, quite pointless.


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 22, 2009)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> I took out the 667Mhz memory so it runs at dual channel 800, increases my score to 7081, quite pointless.



heh I was obsessing about 66mhz on my ram seems like it wouldn't make a difference anyway.

DrPepper | Q6600 | 3843MHZ | DDR2-1138 | 6767 | 8985 | 7549 | 3126 | 3557 | 1760 | Cake


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Mar 22, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> heh I was obsessing about 66mhz on my ram seems like it wouldn't make a difference anyway.



When your system is severely bottlenecked by memory it does make a difference. Just need two 2GB 800MHz modules to replace the 667's, don't feel like wasting cash on them though


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 22, 2009)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> When your system is severely bottlenecked by memory it does make a difference. Just need two 2GB 800MHz modules to replace the 667's, don't feel like wasting cash on them though



I was referring to myself though  I still can't beat your bloody score  I've managed to get it at 4ghz and still 21 points behind.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 22, 2009)

========== *WANTED* =============================================================

Would someone kindly run the following:

Q6600 at 2.4 or 2.7Ghz on a PCI-e/DDR2 system. I would like to compare performance vs. my AGP Q6600. Thanks Dr Pepper!

Nehalem-EP! (hehe)

A ultra cheapo Core2 celeron or mobile Core2.

Atom 270. Thanks A Cheese Danish!

Atom 230/Z5xx esp. a netbook like Samsung NC10 or Asus/Acer

Via Nano or C7[/COLOR]


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 22, 2009)

I'l give it a go mr soda  I was about to compare 2.4 to 4ghz so I've already got the results for 2.4


----------



## Melvis (Mar 22, 2009)

Melvis | FX-57 | 2.8 GHz | DDR 500 | 2144 | 2103 | 2657 | 1627 | 1529 | 763 | Windows XP 32


----------



## A Cheese Danish (Mar 24, 2009)

My Laptop:





A Cheese Danish | T9300 | 2.5 GHz | DDR2 667 | 2767 | 3572 | 2949 | 1644 | 1564 | 1107 | Windows 7 Ultimate
Atom 270 posted.
And will have Ubuntu and Fedora up for my lappy by tonight as well.


----------



## 3870x2 (Mar 24, 2009)

Heres my work laptop:


3870x2 | T2600 | 2.16GHZ | DDR 667 | 2259 | 2700 | 2522 | 1375| 1572 | 1045.83333333333333333333333 | My Work Laptop






when I get home ill test my home machine.


----------



## 3870x2 (Mar 24, 2009)

A Cheese Danish said:


> My Laptop:
> http://img.techpowerup.org/090324/geekbench.png
> 
> A Cheese Danish | T9300 | 2.5 GHz | DDR2 667 | 2116 | 2545 | 2130 | 1621 | 1559 | 846 | Windows 7 Ultimate
> ...



That is very low for a T9300, my T2600 gets better than that.  Might want to find the cause?

@ Melvis:
That score is pretty good for 0 MHZ ram!


----------



## A Cheese Danish (Mar 24, 2009)

3870x2 said:


> That is very low for a T9300, my T2600 gets better than that.  Might want to find the cause?



Yeah, i just got up to 2164...i may do a clean install of 7 and see whats up. Then I'll probably run XP as well


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 24, 2009)

Problem right there. Check CPU-Z and BIOS.


----------



## A Cheese Danish (Mar 24, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> http://img.techpowerup.org/090324/Capture025534.jpg
> Problem right there. Check CPU-Z and BIOS.



Ima edit it now. The multicore setting was disabled for some reason...


----------



## 3870x2 (Mar 24, 2009)

thats pretty good for 1 core, says alot for the T9300.


----------



## A Cheese Danish (Mar 24, 2009)

Lenovo IdeaPad S10





A Cheese Danish | Atom 270 | 1.6GHz | DDR2 533 | 873 | 894 | 736 | 986 | 1063 | 546 | Windows XP x86 SP3


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 24, 2009)

^^nice. Dual channel DDR running on that Atom 270, right?! (Compare to my Atom 330 in the OP, which is single channel DDR2 667).

Notice that clock-for-clock the Atom 270/330 is pwning a P4 EE edition. That means that if/when they create an "Extreme" Atom 330 with just 10W, it will do very nicely.  Larrabee is going to be ace. Even as a "server" processor:

e.g. Atom 330 "extreme" at 3Ghz and 10W = 2500 geekscore

"8" of these on one chip = 80W = 20000 geekscore

Compared with dual Xeons = 150W = 12500 geekscore

Twice the performance, half the power.


----------



## A Cheese Danish (Mar 25, 2009)

Looks like Intel has a ton in store for everyone eh? Those would be some kickass scores!
I do believe it is dual channel


----------



## Melvis (Mar 25, 2009)

3870x2 said:


> That is very low for a T9300, my T2600 gets better than that.  Might want to find the cause?
> 
> @ Melvis:
> That score is pretty good for 0 MHZ ram!



LMAO o yea so it is, i didn't even realize that  

I wonder why it missed it and didn't read it? odd. Anyway its clocked at something like 445Mhz or something, what ever stock DDR 500 is, im on the old computer next door so i can't say what it is exact, just from memory.

Just shows ya how good my RAM is


----------



## LifeOnMars (Mar 25, 2009)




----------



## A Cheese Danish (Mar 25, 2009)

@lemonadesoda, you need to update the chart with my updated post on my T9300. Thanks


----------



## Melvis (Mar 25, 2009)

Ok here is my old beast, see if i can get the lowest score 

Melvis | XP 2100 | 1.85Ghz | DDR 266 | 1138 | 1195 | 1591 | 547 | 544 | 615 | Going for Lowest Score


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 25, 2009)

lemonadesoda | E5420 x1 | 3.00 Ghz | FB-DIMM 800 | 5118 | 7122 | 5931 | 1845 | 1809 | 1706 | Dual Channel FB-DIMM
lemonadesoda | E5420 x1 | 3.00 Ghz | FB-DIMM 800 | 5282 | 7127 | 5941 | 2349 | 2385 | 1761 | QUAD Channel FB-DIMM
lemonadesoda | L5420 x1 | 2.50 Ghz | FB-DIMM 800 | 4405 | 5934 | 4936 | 1999 | 2010 | 1762 | QUAD Channel FB-DIMM


http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/121261
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/121276
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/121392


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 27, 2009)

lemonadesoda | E5420 x2 | 2.50 Ghz | FB-DIMM 667 | 7162 | 10313 | 8823 | 1570 | 1512 | 2865 | DUAL Channel FB-DIMM
lemonadesoda | E5420 x2 | 2.50 Ghz | FB-DIMM 667 | 7346 | 10439 | 8843 | 1996 | 1989 | 2938 | QUAD Channel FB-DIMM

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/122156
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/121874


PS. For some seriously high scores, see the new Apple Mac Pro, 2x Nehalem EPs here:
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/top


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 27, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> lemonadesoda | E5420 x2 | 2.50 Ghz | FB-DIMM 800 | 7346 | 10439 | 8843 | 1996 | 1989 | 2938 | QUAD Channel FB-DIMM
> 
> http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/121874
> 
> ...



That 6 core xeon rules them all though.


----------



## mlee49 (Mar 27, 2009)

*5762*

Q9450 @ 3.2GHz 

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/121882
mlee49 | Q9450 | 3.21 Ghz | DDR2 1066 | 5762 | 7501 | 6226| 3115 | 3346 | 1795.02 | Vista x64


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 27, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> That 6 core xeon rules them all though.


Oh, but wait. That is 4x CPUs that cost EUR 2500 ($3000+) each!! http://geizhals.at/deutschland/a364208.html

That is more than EUR 10000 on processors alone!


----------



## angelkiller (Mar 28, 2009)

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/122594

angelkiller | E8400 | 4.3GHz | DDR2-956 | 4815 | 6120 | 5102 | 3405 | 2793 | 1119 | no comment

I should be able to get a few other results up today.


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 28, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> Oh, but wait. That is 4x CPUs that cost EUR 2500 ($3000+) each!! http://geizhals.at/deutschland/a364208.html
> 
> That is more than EUR 10000 on processors alone!



Still cheaper than the apples fully spec'd.


----------



## angelkiller (Mar 31, 2009)

angelkiller | E2180 | 3.0 GHz | DDR2-600 | 3329 | 4240 | 3566 | 1986 | 1999 | 1110 | comet?

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/123772

Do you want old CPUs as well? I have Pentium D, a Pentium 4 and a Athlon 3000 I could test.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Apr 1, 2009)

^^ clock for clock, that result is as good as your E8400. Interesting.

Old CPUs? Sure thing. It helps other (new) members understand how much OMGZOOM they can get through an upgrade. It also points out to other (old) members that any old machines they have knocking around should be retired!


----------



## angelkiller (Apr 1, 2009)

I have three results to add. I'll edit this post when I get results.

angelkiller | T2500 | 2 GHz | DDR2-667 | 2001 | 1380 | 3042 | 1553 | 1428 | 1000 | Lenovo T60. Core Duo, not Core 2, 1GB of RAM.
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/123791

angelkiller | Pentium D 945 | 3.4GHz | DDR2-800 | 2266 | 2614 | 2179 | 1841 | 2209 | 667 | commie? Windows 7
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/123824

angelkiller | Athlon 3000 | 2.4GHz | DDR-400 | 1852 |1778 |2242 | 1537 |1379 | 813 | commune?
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/123819


----------



## JrRacinFan (Apr 1, 2009)

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/123994

JrRacinFan | E5200 | 3.33 Ghz | DDR2 800 CL4| 3631 | 4639 | 3873 | 2359 | 1806 | 1090 |24/7 clocks


----------



## hoss331 (Apr 2, 2009)

hoss331 | Q9650 | 4.34 Ghz | DDR2 1157 | 7841 | 10418 | 8596 | 3845 | 4176 | 1807 | Vista 64


----------



## angelkiller (Apr 2, 2009)

That's so sick.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 2, 2009)

FordGT90Concept | Core i7 920 | 2.77 GHz | DDR3-1066 | 7245 | 7791 | 9095 | 4333 | 4686 | 2616 | HT and Turbo on (2.66 GHz stock)

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/124295


----------



## chuck216 (Apr 3, 2009)

Here's mine: 

chuck216 | Athlon x2 5600+ | 2.90 Ghz| DDR2 667 | 3042 | 3130 | 3932 | 1962 | 1783 | 1049 | Vista 64 with 32 bit geekbench

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/124497


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Apr 3, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> That 6 core xeon rules them all though.





lemonadesoda said:


> Oh, but wait. That is 4x CPUs that cost EUR 2500 ($3000+) each!! http://geizhals.at/deutschland/a364208.html
> 
> That is more than EUR 10000 on processors alone!



Very unlikely, both platforms are severely bottlenecked by memory. Just compare our dual quads with the i7's. Nehalem-EP has NUMA > 35GB/s memory bandwidth at stock clocks. I think Nehalem-EP is about as fast as it gets currently. I'm not even sure how Nehalem-EX will do due to the FB-DIMMs.


----------



## DrPepper (Apr 3, 2009)

I just realised how bottlenecked that 32 core xeon is  If it had sufficient memory bandwidth i.e not fbdimms it would get a much higher score although using regular dimms won't be good for a server.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Apr 3, 2009)

TBH, I dont understand why that Dunnington has such poor memory performance. At a minimum it should be operating with FBDIMM and should at least match the dual Xeon setup performance on my or Dans system.

Second, I thought the new IBMs used Registered ECC DIMMs and NOT FBDIMM so performance should be even higher.

See here for more details on how IBM killed off FBDIMM on Xeon servers. http://www.azlan.ch/src/data/pdf/x3850_M2_6-Core_Xeon_MP_Proz_Customer_Pres.pdf
http://www-05.ibm.com/ro/events/moldova/pdf/IBM_Day_-_Chisinau_-_7-oct-2008_-_System_x.pdf


----------



## lemonadesoda (May 22, 2009)

wolf2009 said:


> So I found this benchmark, lets make a database of results.
> 
> Download from http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/
> 
> ...



C&P from elsewhere


----------



## lemonadesoda (May 22, 2009)

wolf2009 | Intel Q9450 | 3.20 GHz | DDR2-800 | 5478 | 7417 | 6144 | 2367 | 2584 |  1712 | http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/136525

MRCL | Intel E6300 | 1.86 GHz | DDR2-667 | 2175 | 2488 | 2167 | 1722 | 2022 |  1169 | http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/136528


----------



## freakshow (May 22, 2009)

*Edit
freakshow | Core i7 920 | 4.1Ghz | Gotta get back to on that one | 10761 | 11833 | 13276 | 6530 | 6669 |       | Vista x64 Ultimate


----------



## lemonadesoda (May 22, 2009)

Polite reminder, this format please

Name | CPU  | Speed | MemoryType | GeekbenchScore | Integer | FP | Memory | StreamScore | GeekScore/Ghz | comment


----------



## r1rhyder (May 22, 2009)

r1rhyder | i7 920 | 4.2 Ghz | DDR3 2000 | 11177 | 12034 | 13565 | 6994 | 8189 | 2661 | Windows 7







By r1rhyder at 2009-05-22


cool little benchmark


----------



## lemonadesoda (May 22, 2009)

^^ hot stuff!


----------



## Imsochobo (May 24, 2009)

well, 2x xeons, 8 cores? ofc it wins if its multithread, dunno bout geek benchy.


----------



## chuck216 (May 24, 2009)

Here's my Phenom II 940 at my standard overclock :

chuck216 | Phenom II X4 940 BE | 3.50 Ghz | DDR2 800 | 6368 | 7599 | 8547 | 2520 | 2136 | 1819.4285 | 32 bit version


----------



## CrackerJack (May 24, 2009)




----------



## A Cheese Danish (May 24, 2009)

CrackerJack, I think something is wrong with your readings. It says you have a quad core, running 1 core.
Check in your BIOS and see what's up...Also check with CPU-z


----------



## CrackerJack (May 24, 2009)

A Cheese Danish said:


> CrackerJack, I think something is wrong with your readings. It says you have a quad core, running 1 core.
> Check in your BIOS and see what's up...Also check with CPU-z



yeah i notice that after posting, checking it now


----------



## chuck216 (May 24, 2009)

Mine shows the same thing, Not really concerned probably an issue with geekbench's detection software and phenom processors.


----------



## A Cheese Danish (May 24, 2009)

chuck216 said:


> Mine shows the same thing, Not really concerned probably an issue with geekbench's detection software and phenom processors.



Yeah, I just noticed that too. Hmm. Very strange


----------



## CrackerJack (May 24, 2009)

chuck216 said:


> Mine shows the same thing, Not really concerned probably an issue with geekbench's detection software and phenom processors.



mine cpu is not supported by my board though, but it appears yours isn't either lol that could be the problem there also. the biggest problem with mine, is cpu voltages are off. bios, cpu and overdrive show different settings. wprime 2.00 just shows 0.00


----------



## chuck216 (May 24, 2009)

CrackerJack said:


> mine cpu is not supported by my board though, but it appears yours isn't either lol that could be the problem there also. the biggest problem with mine, is cpu voltages are off. bios, cpu and overdrive show different settings. wprime 2.00 just shows 0.00



It shows as 4 cores on the Geekbench result browser page:


----------



## disturbed117 (Jul 16, 2009)




----------



## lemonadesoda (Sep 7, 2009)

lemonadesoda | Atom 280 | 1.66 Ghz | DDR2 | 911 | 932 | 778 | 1023 | 1085 | calculate it! | Sony VAIO W

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/165193


----------



## Deleted member 74752 (Sep 7, 2009)

rickss69 | Core i7 965 | 4205.5MHz | DDR3 | 11254 | 12475 | 13947 | 6466 | 7138 | 2679 |Game rig


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Sep 7, 2009)

how bout a crappy Core Duo Mobile Yonah chip?


----------



## Deleted member 74752 (Sep 7, 2009)

rickss69 | Core i7 965 | 4189.6MHz | DDR3 | 11533 | 12710 | 14367 | 6595 | 7379 | 2759 |Game rig


----------



## Melvis (Jun 24, 2010)

Old school run, ill put up a Phenom X6 score a bit later, see how far ill go up the ladder then lol

EDIT: oops sorry,

Melvis | AMD X2 4600+ | 2.4GHz | DDR500 | 2618 | 2667 | 3397 | 1677 | 1605 | 1091 | Windows XP 32


----------



## jellyrole (Jun 24, 2010)

jellyrole | i7 920 D0 | 4Ghz | 1600 Trident | 10284 | 11659 | 12447 | 6017 | 6440 | 2571 | comment


----------



## brokencage (Aug 6, 2010)




----------



## Fatal (Aug 6, 2010)

Fatal | Phenom II X4 940 BE | 3.70 Ghz | DDR2 1066 | 6766 | 8005 | 8823 | 3022 | 2725| 1828.6846 | 32 bit version


----------



## Frick (Aug 6, 2010)

Will do when I get home.

Is it possible for you to arrange the results a bit more? Best results on the top and so on?


----------



## JrRacinFan (Aug 6, 2010)




----------



## Athlon2K15 (Mar 31, 2011)

we still updating this thread? Is anyone interested in maintaining a geekbench thread for scores?


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Nov 23, 2012)

lemonadesoda said:


> BUMP for a more modern PC/CPU to add to the list. Thanks!



coming right up, 2600k system at 4.2ghz.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Nov 23, 2012)

Geekbench score- 12797

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1317942

I do got to say I like how it does both single core and multi core benching and comparison. And I can confirm it uses all 8 processing threads of my 2600k(watched task manager while benching)

Name .......  | CPU .  | Speed .. | MemoryType  | GBScore | Integer | FP . | Memory | StreamScore | GeekScore/Ghz | comment
BarbaricSoul | 2600k | 4.20 Ghz | DDR3 1600     | 12797  .... | 13242  |1682 | 7976  ....   | 9384   .......        | 3046.9           ........... | 2600k system in system specs


----------



## lemonadesoda (Nov 23, 2012)

Was that Geekbench version 2.4.x or 2.1.x? http://www.sendspace.com/file/zputtn Please use v2.1.x for this thread. The results are (unfortunately) not compatible.

@all. Please post your result in the correct submission format, so I can copy+paste into the table. Thanks! Example here



> Name | CPU | Speed | MemoryType | GeekbenchScore | Integer | FP  | Memory | StreamScore | GeekScore/Ghz (calculate it!) | comments and/or link to geekbench URL result
> lemonadesoda | Q6600 | 2.70 Ghz | DDR 400       | 4550                | 6321 | 5335 | 1680  | 1349  | 1687 |


----------



## trickson (Nov 23, 2012)

I got this.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1319126


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Nov 23, 2012)

lemonadesoda said:


> was that geekbench version 2.4.x or 2.1.x? https://rapidshare.com/#!download|487p5|285755957|geekbench.v2.1.4.rar|2900|0|0



2.4


----------



## MetalRacer (Nov 23, 2012)

MetalRacer|i7 3930k|5.2GHz|DDR3 2133|20767|23498|26279|9649|14153|3993|

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/537533


----------



## MetalRacer (Nov 23, 2012)

MetalRacer|i7 3770k|4.8GHz|DDR3 2133|15330|16261|18787|9850|10934|3193|

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1319510


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 23, 2012)

Aquinus | i7 3820 | 4.62 Ghz | DDR3-2400 (10-12-11-33-1T) | 13131 | 13827 | 15091 | 8923 | 12254 |  2842 | 128.6Mhz bclk


----------



## Melvis (Nov 24, 2012)

Melvis | Phenom II X4 965 | 3.4 Ghz | DDR3 1333 | 6317 | 7353 | 8291 | 2960 | 2501 | 1858 | Windows 7 64


----------



## chevy350 (Dec 3, 2012)

Here's what I'm getting 

chevy350 |2600k | 4.4GHz | DDR3-1866 | 13228 | 13994 | 16661 | 7937 | 9120 | 4017 |

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1374381


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Dec 3, 2012)

Add it if you want, here is my >$300 laptop with it's 1.3ghz E-300 APU

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1357582


----------



## Melvis (Dec 3, 2012)

Melvis | AMD A8-5600k | 3.8 Ghz | DDR3 1333 | 6063 | 6427 | 7646 | 3884 | 3612 | 1596 | Customers Comp

CPU-Z said it only hit 3.8GHz, its meant to do 3.9


----------



## lemonadesoda (Dec 5, 2012)

chevy350 said:


> Here's what I'm getting
> 
> chevy350 |2600k | 4.2GHz | DDR3-1866 | 17674 | 14770 | 26935| 10231 | 10311 | 6546 |



I make that 4204 Geekscore / Ghz

Could you kindly rerun that under Geekbech 4.1.x (see OP). Thanks.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Dec 5, 2012)

@Aquinus

Look into reducing TRFC a tad. Might help your ram latency. Help squeak even a little more performance out of your build.


----------



## chevy350 (Dec 5, 2012)

lemonadesoda said:


> I make that 4204 Geekscore / Ghz
> 
> Could you kindly rerun that under Geekbech 4.1.x (see OP). Thanks.



Yes I can re-run with the earlier version, just paid for the unlock a year or so ago and like to keep it updated. As far as the score/ghz I tried following the op but it wasn't very clear as to which score to use since your example shows a score that wasn't listed in your example post lol.....will get the results updated with the 4.1.x later tonight when I get home from work


----------



## lemonadesoda (Dec 5, 2012)

Great, thanks

The Geekscore / Clock speed = Take the main overall result / your actual OC clockspeed

++++++++++++

Anyone else browsing this thread... please add your result, esp if you run a Xeon or AMD dual / quad CPU system.


----------



## Arctucas (Dec 5, 2012)

Arctucas | i7 950 | 4273 MHz | DDR3 1600 | 10986 | 12428 | 13436 | 6387 | 6571 | 2571 | http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1369754


----------



## chevy350 (Dec 6, 2012)

Well I would re-run and re-post but get this from op link


Download not available

The file of the above link no longer exists. This could be for several reasons:

    The file was deleted by the user who uploaded it.
    The file contained illegal contents and was deleted from our servers by our Anti-Abuse team.
    The link is incorrect.
    The server is busy and can not process the request.

File not found. (e029a7af)


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 6, 2012)

JrRacinFan said:


> @Aquinus
> 
> Look into reducing TRFC a tad. Might help your ram latency. Help squeak even a little more performance out of your build.



Good thing to know. I usually leave TRFC on auto, I figured the motherboard/memory has a better idea for how long and often it should refresh. Do you know much about secondary memory timings? I usually leave them alone. It was my impression that improvements are minimal on most secondary timings unless they're way off.

I really need to do some thorough testing with my rig to find out exactly what limits on what components are there because there is a lot to configure on SB-E. I can get a decent overclock out of it but I feel like it wants to go faster but can't. Maybe it's just me wanting it to go faster and it doesn't.   (Not to say that it is slow, it certainly is not.)


----------



## lemonadesoda (Dec 6, 2012)

Here is my copy of v2.1.4. Not sure how long the upload will stay there. Perhaps this could be transferred to TPU/downloads... I'll PM Mr W1zzard

http://www.sendspace.com/file/zputtn


----------



## W1zzard (Dec 6, 2012)

lemonadesoda said:


> Here is my copy of v2.1.4. Not sure how long the upload will stay there. Perhaps this could be transferred to TPU/downloads... I'll PM Mr W1zzard
> 
> http://www.sendspace.com/file/zputtn



http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/2188/GeekBench_v2.1.4.html


----------



## Arctucas (Dec 6, 2012)

My previous post was with 2.1.10.

I ran 2.1.4 and got:

Arctucas | i7 950 | 4273 MHz | DDR3 1600 | 11207 | 12518 | 13688 | 6496 | 7366 | 2622 | http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1373607

A small increase.


----------



## MetalRacer (Dec 7, 2012)

chevy350 said:


> Here's what I'm getting
> 
> chevy350 |2600k | 4.2GHz | DDR3-1866 | 17674 | 14770 | 26935| 10231 | 10311 | 6546 |
> 
> http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1357525



I think we are suppose to be running the 32bit test.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Dec 7, 2012)

Arctucas said:


> My previous post was with 2.1.10.
> 
> I ran 2.1.4 and got:
> 
> ...



I'll upload the re-run.  But in general don't worry about which 2.1.x version you use... they are pretty close results and well within a reasonable tolerance of +/-3%. The problem is when someone uses 2.4.x, or 64bit, where the results can be quite different. To put it all into perspective, the idea of the table isn't about small %, but seeing the order of magnitude differences between old and new, and atom vs. xeon. etc.


----------



## chevy350 (Dec 7, 2012)

MetalRacer said:


> I think we are suppose to be running the 32bit test.



Yup I just noticed that as well, grabbed the 2.1.4 that was upped so I'll get it re-run....and in 32-bit as well lol. I paid the small fee to run the 64-bit and was just out of habit to run it on 64 instead of 32 

Edited results in post #111  big change over the 64-bit results lol


----------



## lemonadesoda (Dec 7, 2012)

Thanks for fixing. I was really wondering how you managed to score such a result!


----------



## Melvis (Dec 8, 2012)

Melvis| A10-5800K | 3.8/4.2 Ghz | DDR3 1333 | 6697 | 7112 | 8712 | 3959 | 3671 | 1762 | Customers Comp


----------



## lemonadesoda (Dec 27, 2012)

I've just got this little princess - silent low power unit to replace an old P4 Northwood.






Let's see how she does

Lemonadesoda | i5-3210M | 2.50GHz | DDR3 800 | 4960 | 4835 | 5612 | 4172 | 4693 | 1984| AsRock Vision HT 321B


----------



## Krazy Owl (Dec 28, 2012)

sweeper said:


> http://img.techpowerup.org/090322/geekbench
> 
> full specs in sig.... <-------



Why does it indicate P4 when you have AMD 6X in your specs ?


----------



## lemonadesoda (Jan 9, 2013)

Just swapped out my Xeon CPUs which were a E5420 and L5420 paired.  Now driving 2x E5472.  Small speed bump to 3.0GHz

Results 

Lemonadesoda | 2xE5472 | 3.00GHz | FB-DDR2 400 | 8712| 12426| 10540 | 2097| 2549 | 2904 | Workstation


----------



## Melvis (Jan 21, 2013)

Melvis| AMD FX 8350 | 4.0/4.2 Ghz | DDR3 1600 | 9773 | 11312 | 12821 | 4304 | 4657 | 2443 | Main Rig


----------



## lemonadesoda (Jan 21, 2013)

^thanks for submitting all those results Melvis. Great to populate the datebase with different CPUs


----------



## Melvis (Jan 21, 2013)

lemonadesoda said:


> ^thanks for submitting all those results Melvis. Great to populate the datebase with different CPUs



No problem at all, and more to come  ill do a test of a 1.7GHZ APU the E2-1800 next!


----------



## HammerON (Jan 21, 2013)

HammerON | i7 970 | 4.0 GHz | DDR 3 1066 | 13848 | 15684 | 18003 | 5612 | 9360 | 3462 | Win7






Didn't see any 1366 Gulftown's on your list


----------



## Compgeke (Jan 22, 2013)

Have an Atom Z520.






Specs of this...thing:
Dell Mini 10 (Inspiron 1010)
1.33 GHz Atom Z520
1 gig unupgradable ram
Intel GMA 500


----------



## lemonadesoda (Jan 22, 2013)

Compgeke | Atom Z520 | 1.33 GHz | ??? | 725 | 625 | 757 | 803 | 704 | 529| Dell mini 10

Compqeke, please show a screenshot of CPU-Z, CPU page, and Memory page. Thanks!


----------



## Compgeke (Jan 22, 2013)

Memory type remains undetermined, probably DDR2, however it's integrated to the motherboard, and there is one 2 GB upgrade but it's actually a motherboard swap.

Here's the CPU-Z CPU screen:





The first memory page:





And this one probably wasn't needed, but the completely useless second memory page.


----------



## de.das.dude (Jan 22, 2013)

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1562462





*de.das.dude | AMD X4 945 | 3.0 GHz | DDR2-1066 |  | 5255 | 6443 | 6958| 2004 | 1642 | 1751.7 | Win7 x64*


----------



## de.das.dude (Jan 22, 2013)

Compgeke said:


> Memory type remains undetermined, probably DDR2, however it's integrated to the motherboard, and there is one 2 GB upgrade but it's actually a motherboard swap.
> 
> Here's the CPU-Z CPU screen:
> http://goput.it/77h.jpg
> ...



yup ddr2


----------



## Aquinus (Jan 22, 2013)

de.das.dude said:


> yup ddr2



The 5-5-5 timings gave it away.


----------



## TRWOV (Feb 4, 2013)

TRWOV | Core i5-2320 | 3.5Ghz | DDR3-1600 | 8407 | 8807 | 9119 | 7079 | 7176 | 2402 | http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1610900


----------



## AphexDreamer (Feb 4, 2013)

AphexDreamer| FX6100 | 4530Mhz| DDR3 1333 | 9916 | 10043 | 14350 | 4237 | 5314 | 2189| Main Rig http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1610983


----------



## Deleted member 74752 (Feb 4, 2013)

rickss69 | 980X | 3.99GHz | DDR3 1600 | 13691 | 15670 | 17432 | 5622 | 9797 | 3431 | gamer


----------



## lemonadesoda (Feb 4, 2013)

Hey, TRWOV, where's your Conroe865PE build?


----------



## phoen (Feb 4, 2013)

phoen | i7-3770K | 4.80GHz | DDR3-2400 | 15914 | 17017 | 10100 | 13869 | 3110 | http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1612049


----------



## TRWOV (Feb 5, 2013)

lemonadesoda said:


> Hey, TRWOV, where's your Conroe865PE build?



Right here 

TRWOV | QX6800 | 3.19Ghz | DDR400 | 5407 | 7464 | 6249 | 2155 | 1771 | 1694 | http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1614648


----------



## lemonadesoda (Feb 5, 2013)

Nice


----------



## Rickkins (Feb 6, 2013)

10160


----------



## Deleted member 74752 (Feb 6, 2013)

rickss69 | 980X | 4339MHz | DDR3 | 15121 | 17961 | 18910 | 5949 | 10268 | 3484 | http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1619412

64 bit - http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1619476


----------



## Deleted member 74752 (Feb 6, 2013)

Here is that Acer netbook/Atom run you requested...

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1620264


----------



## lemonadesoda (Feb 6, 2013)

That intel 980X is rather nice


----------



## NinkobEi (Feb 6, 2013)

You should sort the table by Geek score. Its kind of hard to compare the chips!


----------



## TRWOV (Feb 6, 2013)

You can sort tables by clicking on the headers:


----------



## DRDNA (Feb 7, 2013)

TRWOV said:


> You can sort tables by clicking on the headers:
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=49942&stc=1&d=1360191983



Geek score sort is in error, it is not sorting correctly.
Two clicks on Integer seems to sort well for performance scores tho.


----------



## TRWOV (Feb 7, 2013)

mmm... it's sorting fine for me.  Take in mind that the first click will sort in ascending order, the second in descending order.


----------



## DRDNA (Feb 7, 2013)

TRWOV said:


> mmm... it's sorting fine for me.  Take in mind that the first click will sort in ascending order, the second in descending order.



For me their are many out of order scores on geekbench sort..it does do a sort just not correct for me...for me geekbench puts a 920 DO as top performer but Integer does sort for me correctly putting the true top dogs in their rightful position. It's all good tho.


----------



## TRWOV (Feb 7, 2013)

Maybe it's browser related? What are you using? In Chrome it sorts fine:





If scores starting with 9 get to the top I'd guess that your browser requires zero fill (000920, 001250, etc.) to sort properly.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Feb 7, 2013)

Durvelle27| AMD FX 4100 | 4.6GHz | DDR3 1333 | 7612 | 7471 | 10644 | 4231 | 4261 | 1655 | Main Rig


----------



## Melvis (Feb 9, 2013)

Melvis| AMD E2-1800 | 1.7GHz | DDR3 1333 | 1782 | 1731 | 2051 | 1442 | 1700 | 1048 | Lenovo x131e

Move over Atoms, real Notebook CPU coming through


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Feb 9, 2013)

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1628815


----------



## phoen (Feb 9, 2013)

New score:





phoen | i7-3770K | 4.90GHz | DDR3-2400 | 15825 | 16287 | 19009 | 10237 | 14248 | 3229 | http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1629545


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Feb 9, 2013)

uuuaaaaaa | AMD Phenom II X6 1100T Black Edition | 4013Mhz | DDR3 1333 | 10062 | 12156 | 13660 | 3650 | 2974 | 2507.35 | browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1629630


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 9, 2013)

uuuaaaaaa said:


> uuuaaaaaa | AMD Phenom II X6 1100T Black Edition | 4013Mhz | DDR3 1333 | 10062 | 12156 | 13660 | 3650 | 2974 | 2507.35 | browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1629630



You forgot the screenshot.


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Feb 9, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> You forgot the screenshot.



I thought that the link to the results was enough 

uuuaaaaaa | AMD Phenom II X6 1100T Black Edition | 4013Mhz | DDR3 1333 | 10100 | 12067 | 13646 | 4000 | 3011 | 2516.82 | http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1629839


----------



## Melvis (Aug 26, 2013)

Melvis | Intel Pentium D 945 | 3.4GHz | DDR2 533 | 2271 | 2795 | 2210 | 1735 | 1724 | 668

Freebee Computer.


----------



## TrainingDummy (Aug 26, 2013)

TrainingDummy | AMD A8-3870 | 3.1GHz | DDR3 1333 | 5894 | 6831 | 7575 | 3039 | 2444 |  Blah http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/2273447


----------



## MightyMission (Aug 26, 2013)

MightyMission | i5 2500k | 5000mhz | 2 x 4 GB Ripjaws X 2133 | 11788 | 12562 | 12978 | 9409 | 9680 | 2357.6 |







hopefully I done this right?


----------



## Compgeke (Aug 26, 2013)

Compgeke | Core i5 520M | 2.4 GHz | PC3-10600 | 3719 | 3995 | 4399 | 2542 | 2728 | 1549.48 | Lenovo Thinkpad T410







And tonight your wish for a Xeon E5400 system will be granted, I have a Dual E5405 server in the garage.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Aug 26, 2013)

Geekysubmission






[/IMG]


(Clockspeed@4.6Ghz - dont forget)


----------



## lemonadesoda (Aug 27, 2013)

Link to screenshot is fine. You don't have to duplicate in the thread. However (for other posters who forgot), remember to post your results in the *Name | CPU | Speed | MemoryType | GeekbenchScore | Integer | FP | Memory | StreamScore | GeekScore/Ghz | comments and/or link to geekbench URL result* format.

Also, don't forget the FRITZ test! http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89777


----------



## Compgeke (Sep 17, 2013)

I lied, it's far past August 26th, but here's my Poweredge 2950 III.

Compgeke| 2x Xeon E5405 | 2 GHz | DDR2-667 FBDIMM | 5943 | 8290 | 7087 | 1833 | 1945 | 2971.5


----------



## HammerON (Sep 20, 2013)

HammerON | i7 4770K | 4.7 GHz | DDR 3 2666 | 14752 | 15939 | 16718 | 9040 | 15145 | 3139


----------



## DOM (Sep 20, 2013)




----------



## Compgeke (Nov 3, 2013)

Had to test this machine. Seems it's the slowest system tested in the chart here. It's a bit of an oddball in that it's a VIA CoreFusion system. The processor is Nehemiah C3 based so everything detects it as that. 

Compgeke | VIA CoreFusion "Luke" | 1 GHz | DDR-400 | 321 | 282 | 433 | 243 | 224 | 321 | http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/2348895


----------



## d1nky (Nov 3, 2013)

D1NKY - fx-8350 - ddr3 - 16240 - 20343 - 18709 - 3099 - ???? - 3087 

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/175454


----------



## lemonadesoda (Nov 15, 2013)

updated


----------



## Melvis (Feb 18, 2014)

Melvis | AMD A10-7700K | 3.4GHz | DDR3 1600 | 6832 | 7452 | 9102 | 3555 | 3279 | 2009 | New Customers Build


----------



## JunkBear (Feb 19, 2014)

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/2424448

JunkBear / Athlon 64 X2 4600+ / 2.4 Ghz / DDR2-800 / 2563 / 3294 / 1680 / 1770 / 1068 / Made from salvaged parts


----------



## TRWOV (Feb 22, 2014)

TRWOV | PDC E5800 | 3.2Ghz | DDR400 | 3402 | 4526 | 3819 | 1677 | 1462 | 1063 | http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/2426270


----------



## TheHunter (Feb 22, 2014)

Geek bench2
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/2426459




Geek bench 3
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/428740

Single-Core Score Multi-Core Score
Geekbench 3.1.2 Tryout for Windows x86 (32-bit)
4611 17864


----------



## TRWOV (Feb 23, 2014)

TRWOV | AMD E-300 | 1.3Ghz | DDR3-1066 | 1384 | 1347 | 1584  | 1099 | 1391 | 1064 | http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/2426845


----------



## Compgeke (Feb 2, 2015)

While I don't have an E5500 system I did pick up a dual X5600 system yesterday.

Compgeke | 2x Xeon X5672 | 3.2 GHz | DDR3-1333 | 12418 | 12594 | 19310 | 4063 | 4399 | 3880.625 (or 1940.3125 if I divide by 2 for two chips) | Poweredge R510 and interleaved RAM.

Just a heads up this system IS an OEM'd one and the BIOS reports as PE_SC3 which is a 1950 III. I assume this was some sort of coding laziness by whoever OEM'd it originally and rather than fixing code modded BIOS.


----------



## Melvis (May 19, 2016)

Would anyone be interested in seeing some newer CPU results, like from a 4690K and i3-6100 etc?


----------



## Enterprise24 (May 19, 2016)

My 32 bit result. 64 bit will produce a small boost.


----------



## MrGenius (May 19, 2016)

Well...I thought about it. Then ran a few versions of GB. I decided no. Someone else can have it. I'm pretty filled up on overseeing benchmark threads. And I've never cared too much for CPU benchmarks anyway. They're fun and all. Actually they're no fun at all(most of them at least). Hence why they don't interest me very much. The pay to play thing is a huge turn off for me too. No 64-bit for free? WTF? Whatever.

Here's some results if anybody cares. I'm not doing no math or giving a real crap about my scores. Sorry. These are from my 3570K @ 4.8GHz.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/view/2600496
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/6645014


----------



## Melvis (May 19, 2016)

Im confused, isnt this thread ran by Lemondesoda?


----------



## MrGenius (May 19, 2016)

Is it? Hasn't been updated since Nov 15, 2013 Feb 18, 2014. You might be surprised how many of these threads are left abandoned by their OPs. If someone doesn't grab the wheel and take over...then what? Probably not a damn thing is what. It's not like I'd be rude enough to not ask him first anyway. So I don't know what you're insinuating. It's called a favor the last I checked.

Speaking of abandoned benchmark threads, I think I'm just about to start up a new one for  Unigine Tropics Demo v1.2. Since that one's deceased too.


----------



## Melvis (May 20, 2016)

MrGenius said:


> Is it? Hasn't been updated since Nov 15, 2013 Feb 18, 2014. You might be surprised how many of these threads are left abandoned by their OPs. If someone doesn't grab the wheel and take over...then what? Probably not a damn thing is what. It's not like I'd be rude enough to not ask him first anyway. So I don't know what you're insinuating. It's called a favor the last I checked.
> 
> Speaking of abandoned benchmark threads, I think I'm just about to start up a new one for  Unigine Tropics Demo v1.2. Since that one's deceased too.





Wow ok dude settle down I was just asking was all no need to get cranky about it 0.o


----------



## MrGenius (May 20, 2016)

Melvis said:


> Wow ok dude settle down I was just asking was all no need to get cranky about it 0.o


Sorry. That was a bit snippy. I'm not trying to be a dick about it. I tried to put a better spin on it with the last couple sentences. Maybe distract from the first paragraph. Looks like that didn't work so well. 

Anyway...I'm doing that as we speak. And somebody should PM the OP and/or get this one going again. The more the merrier IMO. I love benchmark threads in general. This one isn't my favorite though. That's for sure. 

Tropics thread coming in t minus.....

Wait...have I lost my mind? Isn't 3 benchmark threads enough? I better sleep on this one. I'll probably do it anyway. But I feel like I should think it over a bit more.


----------



## XTR³M³ (Aug 2, 2018)

SC: 5290 - MC: 30642

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/9213237


----------

