# Multi-Core Prime



## ovidiutabla (Jan 29, 2013)

I developed an application / benchmark that calculates PRIME numbers using a multithreaded parallel algorithm written in C++ and assembler. The software calculates prime numbers from 1 to 1.000.000.000 [one billion].

A slider will help you set the exact interval: from 1 to 10.000.000 [ten millions] and up to 1.000.000.000 [1 billion]. The default value of the slider is 100.000.000 [one hundred millions]. In that case, the application will calculate all the prime numbers between 1 and 100 millions.

Also, you can create a datafile that can be used to submit results to HWBOT.

*Download Link:*

http://www.pcgamingxtreme.ro/


----------



## Bo$$ (Feb 3, 2013)

nice work


----------



## lemonadesoda (Feb 3, 2013)




----------



## AphexDreamer (Feb 3, 2013)

Didn't close any background applications I had running but did a test run just to check it out. 

My results.


----------



## d1nky (Feb 4, 2013)

first benchmark to show 100% utilisation in task manager!!! Thanks!


----------



## Bo$$ (Feb 4, 2013)

3.3ghz somehow was showing higher


----------



## Arctucas (Feb 4, 2013)




----------



## Deleted member 74752 (Feb 4, 2013)




----------



## Melvis (Feb 4, 2013)

is the program meant to go to (Not Responding) when running the benchmark?


----------



## natr0n (Feb 4, 2013)

Melvis said:


> is the program meant to go to (Not Responding) when running the benchmark?



yeah, it does that for me too. Then completes in around less than 1 min.


----------



## ovidiutabla (Feb 4, 2013)

Melvis said:


> is the program meant to go to (Not Responding) when running the benchmark?



Thank you all!

Yes, it uses 100% of all CPU Cores, no thread to refresh UI, for accurate results.


----------



## Nordic (Feb 4, 2013)

My laptops i3-2330m did 1 to 100000000 in 1 minute 15 seconds, thats 2 cores 4 threads running at 2.2ghz. My 2500k did that same test in 19 seconds with 4 cores.

Honestly I like the benchmark. It does not show my overclock in the cpu frequency spot like others above does.


----------



## HammerON (Feb 4, 2013)

A little over clock:





And more:


----------



## johnspack (Feb 4, 2013)

Hmm,  my computer seems to suck at this one:


----------



## 1nf3rn0x (Feb 4, 2013)

Laptop:







Desktop is currently being rebuilt but I'm back to school so it will be a couple days...


----------



## nick_1992 (Feb 4, 2013)

Here is what I got at 4.3ghz


----------



## johnspack (Feb 4, 2013)

Okay,  just ran the new version,  same result.  I find it odd that I can beat an sb-e running faster than me though?


----------



## nick_1992 (Feb 4, 2013)

johnspack said:


> Okay,  just ran the new version,  same result.  I find it odd that I can beat an sb-e running faster than me though?
> http://img.techpowerup.org/130204/MultiCorePi2.png



I'll re-run it tomorrow when I have a fresh reboot and none of my extra shit running.


----------



## ovidiutabla (Feb 4, 2013)

We are version 2.0.0.0 for now, you can submit to HWBOT using the datafile created [Take Screnshot button] and the link provided.






*Download link:*

http://www.pcgamingxtreme.ro/


----------



## Deleted member 74752 (Feb 4, 2013)

I'll try the new later...was getting errors when I tried to submit earlier.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Feb 4, 2013)

Please get your x86 build sorted!

Plus, I *would* recommend a very simple UI thread updating showing that the thing is still "live". It only needs to update once every 5 seconds. That is no overhead and will not throw the results.

PS. I like the "video of the day" on your site. Funny! True!


----------



## ovidiutabla (Feb 4, 2013)

rickss69 said:


> I'll try the new later...was getting errors when I tried to submit earlier.



Please tell me all about HWBOT submission errors.



lemonadesoda said:


> http://img.techpowerup.org/130204/Capture348.png
> 
> Please get your x86 build sorted!
> 
> ...



Only the last version is available for download. I see some "." in the path in your screen, is the path correct, doesn't contain illegal characters?

I'l test some possibilities to add a UI refresh thread. Any sugestions about the benchmark?


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 4, 2013)

I find it very interesting that the i7 950 is scoring higher than my i7 3820 even though the 3820 is faster and newer. According to this the 950 is faster than the 3820. 


johnspack said:


> Okay, just ran the new version, same result. I find it odd that I can beat an sb-e running faster than me though?


Me too.






t.phase said:


> I see some "." in the path in your screen, is the path correct, doesn't contain illegal characters?



A period is an acceptable character for a windows path. A bad path wouldn't give an "invalid win32 app." error.

In defense of the application, both 32 and 64-bit versions work for me. Maybe it doesn't support Win XP / Server 03?

Make sure you have .NET 4.0 installed as well.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Feb 4, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> In defense of the application, both 32 and 64-bit versions work for me. Maybe it doesn't support Win XP / Server 03? Make sure you have .NET 4.0 installed as well.



Are you testing the x86.exe in a 64-bit environment? Or W32? I think the build is faulty and not x86 compatible. It might somehow be x86 code (ie compiler using only 32bit code) but in a x64.exe wrapper.



t.phase said:


> Only the last version is available for download. I see some "." in the path in your screen, is the path correct, doesn't contain illegal characters?


Welcome to ALT+250 a LEGAL FAT/NTFS character


----------



## ovidiutabla (Feb 4, 2013)

The benchmark is developed using Visual C++ 2012 wich doesn't support Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. 

You don't need .Net Framework 4.0, the application is written using Visual C++ and MFC [native code, not managed].


----------



## lemonadesoda (Feb 4, 2013)

t.phase said:


> The benchmark is developed using Visual C++ 2012 wich doesn't support Windows XP and Windows Server 2003.



OK, that's the problem then. I'm on W2K3.

Shame. I'd kill x86 then, because it will only give you problems with other users and create a huge dialogue. I bet 90% of x86 users are on XP/2K3. Equally 90% of peeps on W7 and above will be on x64.  (Of course, the best solution would be to get your x86 version truly x86 compatible  )

It is a* very poor show* that MS made VC++2012 "x86" incompatible with XP/2K3. Brainless decision, causing all sorts of problems for users or support staff.

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

Actually, I'm going to guess your x64 version is also incompatible with x64 XP/2K3.  I remember a similar discussion with Adobe Lightroom vs. Adobe Photoshop. In Lightroom 4.x the compiler is set by default to use one API call that is available only in the new Windows Kernal 6.x, and which is not available in Windows Kernal 5.x. Photoshop on the other hand does not use that API.  I believe it is to do with thread optimisation. Perhaps consider the x86 version not using that API call.


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 4, 2013)

lemonadesoda said:


> I bet 90% of x86 users are on XP/2K3.



Actually a very large number of 32-bit users run Vista and 7. This is 2013 not 2003. 


lemonadesoda said:


> It is a very poor show that MS made VC  2012 "x86" incompatible with XP/2K3. Brainless decision, causing all sorts of problems for users or support staff.


Or maybe it is because Microsoft has made it very clear that XP is no longer supported and they're not going to continue to do so, which is a good plan IMHO. It's old software and the only way to shove it off is to stop supporting it. Having this kind of mentality could make people start saying, "It's a shame they stopped supporting Windows NT 4.0 in .NET 4.0." It's ridiculous. MS wants to move forward not backward. There is no reason to drag your feet with an aging OS that even hospitals are phasing out at this point (mainly because MS has halted security updates for XP). Windows 7 is the next XP, time to move forward.



lemonadesoda said:


> Actually, I'm going to guess your x64 version is also incompatible with x64 XP/2K3. I remember a similar discussion with Adobe Lightroom vs. Adobe Photoshop. In Lightroom 4.x the compiler is set by default to use one API call that is available only in the new Windows Kernal 6.x, and which is not available in Windows Kernal 5.x. Photoshop on the other hand does not use that API. I believe it is to do with thread optimisation. Perhaps consider the x86 version not using that API call.



Or it has to do with MS not wanting to take the chance that it won't work so they lock it out anyways. You've over thinking it. This is a business and tactical move by MS to get people off older platforms. Something might be missing, yeah, but I bet you they don't care what it is and aren't willing to find out. 

Windows 2003 R2 was released 8 years ago and XP was released 12 years ago. I think it's time for an upgrade and I don't think you can complain about it too much with that being the case.


----------



## terrastrife (Feb 4, 2013)

AMD systems are getting rolled


----------



## lemonadesoda (Feb 4, 2013)

Thanks for the explanation. OK, I understand that the x86 compiler you are using is not XP/2k3 compatible. You are using VC2012 with certain compiler switches that are not compatible with 5.x kernel. And rather than developing 2 code streams, you decided not to support older 5.x kernel windows. That's OK. 

And yes MS has decided to drop support for older OS. I understand (and agree) with their strategy. But the argument that it is the users problem that they have "an old OS" is as logical as saying... there are more XP/2K3 installations out there than Macs. Therefore no company should develop or support software for Macs. (Oh how MS would love to say that! ) Or that SATA is already 13 years old, therefore W7 should not include compatibility with IDE devices. Or USB 1.x.  Or LAN 10/100. Or wifi a/b. 

Yes, XP might be "out of date", but it is still very common: http://www.cnn.co.uk/2012/09/03/tech/gaming-gadgets/microsoft-windows-7/index.html, esp. in markets outside of the US.

Yes, it's OK to make a decision not to support it. But every other benchmark x86 I've come across *is compatible *with XP. So saying your benchmark is x86 compatible or providing an x86.exe is likely to cause a lot of confusion. That isnt your fault, but a problem caused by MS and kernel 6.x vs kernel 5.x. I'd definitely recommend you put up a warning on the download site and say W7, W8 compatible, not compatible with XP/2K3. The reason is a requirement for Kernel 6.x APIs.

Look, we've already spent a good 10 minutes discussing this problem.  Without letting people know the restrictions of your x86 download, other people will hit the same problem and you are going to have to answer them. So put up a notice! Or fix the error message. It shouldnt say, "not a valid x86 application", but "only compatible with Kernel 6.x and above". Perhaps you have no control over that error message, in which case MS should hang their head in shame for yet another unhelpful and confusing dialog box!

You suggested I upgrade? I can't disagree that that is a nice idea in theory. But even if you offered to pay for 5x copies of W7, I would not install them on all my machines. What are they? Webserver, fileserver, netbook, MAIN MACHINE, wife's PC.

While I would be happy to upgrade the MAIN MACHINE, and would benefit from the upgrade, there is no reason to update the others. There really are no benefits. MS still maintains security updates for XP/2K3. And the cost + time and effort to bring no features or usability benefit to the other machines means downtime without win. In fact, the netbooks were DOWNGRADED from W7 starter to XP because, as you know, W7 is a disaster on a low powered machine.

And just like you don't want to maintain 2 code streams for your benchmark, because it is a PITA - and I unsderstand that - the same argument might hold for my PCs... do I want to maintain 2 application sets, Windows updates sets, OS image sets, etc. for my installations!


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 4, 2013)

lemonadesoda said:


> You are using VC2012 with certain compiler switches that are not compatible with 5.x kernel. And rather than developing 2 code streams, you decided not to support older 5.x kernel windows. That's OK.



.NET doesn't work like that unless he chose to use an older version of .NET which there is little reason to do. Plus the libraries he is using might require him to use 4.0.


lemonadesoda said:


> But even if you offered to pay for 5x copies of W7, I would not install them on all my machines. What are they? Webserver, fileserver, netbook, MAIN MACHINE, wife's PC.



Well, for the first 3 I wouldn't even consider putting Windows on the in the first place. I don't think Windows belongs on a server and I feel very strongly about that unless there is a desperate need to run AD, but for your main machine and for your wife's machine, yeah. I see no reason why you wouldn't want to run Windows 7.


lemonadesoda said:


> the netbooks were DOWNGRADED from W7 starter to XP because, as you know, W7 is a disaster on a low powered machine.


Or maybe that is because Windows 7 *Starter* is a disaster, but I still wouldn't put Windows on a Netbook anyways, XP or 7.

You've said a lot about how Windows 7 is crap but you haven't said why it is crap. In every measure, Windows 7 is just as capable, if not more than XP so I'm not sure how you're saying its the better option.



lemonadesoda said:


> the same argument might hold for my PCs... do I want to maintain 2 application sets, Windows updates sets, OS image sets, etc. for my installations!


I do if those images are intended for two very different things. You don't use the same stuff for a file server or a web server as you do with a regular desktop. There are right and wrong ways to do this.


----------



## Melvis (Feb 4, 2013)

terrastrife said:


> AMD systems are getting rolled



Considering there is only one? 

Ill post the 8350 at stock see what it gets, i don't think this benchmark likes AMD's

Edit:  Then again that's not a bad score at all?


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 4, 2013)

Melvis said:


> Ill post the 8350 at stock see what it gets, i don't think this benchmark likes AMD's



It doesn't appear to like SB-E chips either. 



Melvis said:


> Edit: Then again that's not a bad score at all?


Looks like my 3820. Not bad at all. Could you include CPU-Z there? How fast is the 8350 running?


----------



## Melvis (Feb 4, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> It doesn't appear to like SB-E chips either.
> 
> 
> Looks like my 3820. Not bad at all. Could you include CPU-Z there? How fast is the 8350 running?



Give it time to mature i guess.

Its at stock, 4.0GHz, yea sorry i forgot to add CPU-Z, trust me its at stock lol


----------



## zsolt_93 (Feb 4, 2013)

Something is not right with the scores. Or it is right but it doesn't consider the featurs of newer cpu-s. No way that my Q9400 would get this close to current gen Bulldozers ina multithreaded workload test. Or are you only running a maximum of 4 or 6 threads?


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 4, 2013)

I find it very interesting that running it with HT is almost the same as running it without HT.


----------



## Melvis (Feb 4, 2013)

zsolt_93 said:


> Something is not right with the scores. Or it is right but it doesn't consider the featurs of newer cpu-s. No way that my Q9400 would get this close to current gen Bulldozers ina multithreaded workload test. Or are you only running a maximum of 4 or 6 threads?



Yea i would have to agree with you there, that an impressive score for that CPU, and i ran my Phenom II 1055T and it took over a minute  that's just crazy slow.

I was running all 8 threads far as i know


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 4, 2013)

Ehhh.. Perfect scaling but no scaling in HT? That sound incredibly peculiar. Running 4 cores as opposed to 2 is a little over twice as fast which is weird in itself as well.

I don't think it's trustworthy it give you an accurate representation of your CPU's power. Something appears to be wrong with these numbers in general.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Feb 4, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> .NET doesn't work like that unless he chose to use an older version of .NET which there is little reason to do. Plus the libraries he is using might require him to use 4.0.
> 
> You've said a lot about how Windows 7 is crap but you haven't said why it is crap. In every measure, Windows 7 is just as capable, if not more than XP so I'm not sure how you're saying its the better option.


.NET 4 has nothing to do with it, since .NET 4.x is XP x86 compatible. My machines are "fully up to date" as much as then can be wrt MS updates, and that incl. .NET 4.x

Never said 7 was crap. Said there was no benefit for the purpose I am using the machine for. Don't put words in my mouth. You are projecting your prejudices of some users of XP onto all users of x86.


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 4, 2013)

lemonadesoda said:


> You are projecting your prejudices of some users of XP onto all users of x86.



I'm projecting my prejudice against XP because you aren't even getting security updates for it anymore. It's old and obsolete. I'm not saying you can't use it or that you shouldn't use it, I'm just saying you can't expect everything to continue working if you stick with it and don't move forward as software does.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Feb 4, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> I'm projecting my prejudice against XP because you aren't even getting security updates for it anymore.



You are full of s1ht. MS is covering XP until 2014






This weeks updates:






Yes, XP is out of date. And yes MS *will be dropping support for it. But don't go spreading lies.*


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 4, 2013)

I apologize, it was support under SP2 that ended a few years ago, not SP3. Either way my point still exists, you still can't expect everything to continue working with an aging OS.

You can't tell me that that vast number of people who have upgraded to Windows 7 did it because it was a lesser OS.


----------



## Deleted member 74752 (Feb 4, 2013)

t.phase - This is what I get when I try to make a submission at HWBot...


----------



## ovidiutabla (Feb 5, 2013)

rickss69 said:


> t.phase - This is what I get when I try to make a submission at HWBot...
> 
> 
> http://i434.photobucket.com/albums/qq69/rickss69/PC Gaming/hwboterror_zps4424ebe2.jpg
> ...



You are using an older version, please always download the latest version:

www.pcgamingxtreme.ro


----------



## Deleted member 74752 (Feb 5, 2013)

t.phase said:


> You are using an older version, please always download the latest version:
> 
> www.pcgamingxtreme.ro



That was the link you had up at the time...I'll try it again later with the new version.


----------



## ovidiutabla (Feb 5, 2013)

rickss69 said:


> That was the link you had up at the time...I'll try it again later with the new version.



The link is the same, but in the server is allways hosted the latest build. Current build is 2.0.0.0.

Benchmark for i5 3330 @ 3200Mhz:


----------



## Deleted member 74752 (Feb 5, 2013)

Here you go...

http://hwbot.org/submission/2352680..._i7_extreme_980x_12sec_252ms?recalculate=true


----------



## ovidiutabla (Feb 7, 2013)

*Update:* The application is not going to "Not Responding" anymore during the benchmark!


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 7, 2013)

t.phase said:


> The link is the same, but in the server is allways hosted the latest build. Current build is 2.0.0.0.
> 
> Benchmark for i5 3330 @ 3200Mhz:
> 
> http://i47.tinypic.com/3480im1.jpg



So a 3.2Ghz quad core, no HT versus an i7 with HT clocked at 4.5Ghz are the same speed? 

Something isn't right here.


----------



## ovidiutabla (Feb 7, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> So a 3.2Ghz quad core, no HT versus an i7 with HT clocked at 4.5Ghz are the same speed?
> 
> Something isn't right here.



i7 3770k is scoring 12-13sec.


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 7, 2013)

t.phase said:


> i7 3770k is scoring 12-13sec.



So you're telling me that an i7 3770k is just as fast as a i5-3330?  That's not better than a i5-3330 being faster than an i7 3820. Even if you forget memory and HT for a minute. Clock speeds should make certain CPUs run faster than others. I find it hard to believe that a quad-core that runs slower than another quad-core is performing better and it's not like we're comparing two disparate types of CPUs.

A benchmark really should show the i7s being a good chunk faster than the i5 even more so in a multi-threaded environment.

Still doesn't sound right.


----------



## ovidiutabla (Feb 7, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> So you're telling me that an i7 3770k is just as fast as a i5-3330?  That's not better than a i5-3330 being faster than an i7 3820. Even if you forget memory and HT for a minute. Clock speeds should make certain CPUs run faster than others. I find it hard to believe that a quad-core that runs slower than another quad-core is performing better and it's not like we're comparing two disparate types of CPUs.
> 
> A benchmark really should show the i7s being a good chunk faster than the i5 even more so in a multi-threaded environment.
> 
> Still doesn't sound right.



i5 3330 @ 3200Mhz - 18/19 sec
i7 3770k - 12/13 sec

What is wrong?


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 7, 2013)

t.phase said:


> i5 3330 @ 3200Mhz - 18/19 sec
> i7 3770k - 12/13 sec
> 
> What is wrong?



That the 3820 at 4.5Ghz is gives the same scores a a 3.2Ghz i5 and that your 3770k is scoring as high as an Intel 6-core CPU. I find it even more strange that it doesn't scale with HT (at all). Which are usually signs of much needed software optimizations because I can tell you that there is a big gap in multi-threaded performance between the i5-3330 and the i7-3820 and your benchmark isn't show it. It is also showing perfect (over perfect,) performance scaling when you add more cores which is the sign of a software problem.

Are you outputting the data your generating so we can confirm the validity of the output?

Just one more thing. The status says that between 0 and 100 million that 5,761,456 primes where found. According to the prime number theorem shouldn't that number be more like 5,428,681?


----------



## Melvis (Feb 8, 2013)

That is one crappy score with this X6  Going by the scores my X6 is 3.5x slower then a Q9400


----------



## AphexDreamer (Feb 8, 2013)

Melvis said:


> That is one crappy score with this X6  Going by the scores my X6 is 3.5x slower then a Q9400



It doesn't like AMD's I think. My FX6100 did worse than quad as well.


----------



## Melvis (Feb 8, 2013)

AphexDreamer said:


> It doesn't like AMD's I think. My FX6100 did worse than quad as well.



Agreed, but my FX 8350 did do a pretty good score to be honest. So I don't know


----------



## ThE_MaD_ShOt (Feb 8, 2013)

Melvis said:


> That is one crappy score with this X6  Going by the scores my X6 is 3.5x slower then a Q9400





AphexDreamer said:


> It doesn't like AMD's I think. My FX6100 did worse than quad as well.





Melvis said:


> Agreed, but my FX 8350 did do a pretty good score to be honest. So I don't know



I too have to agree. I think it hates Amd. I think I should have faired better then a tad under 1 min.


----------



## Novulux (Feb 8, 2013)




----------



## CrackerJack (Feb 8, 2013)




----------



## ovidiutabla (Feb 9, 2013)

The benchmark is developed using and AMD FX 8350 CPU  It doesn't hate AMD, just single thread performance on AMD is lower than Intel. I work now on a much more CPU intensive benchmark, optimized for perfect parallelism and multithreading. I will be back soon with news!


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 9, 2013)

t.phase said:


> The benchmark is developed using and AMD FX 8350 CPU  It doesn't hate AMD, just single thread performance on AMD is lower than Intel. I work now on a much more CPU intensive benchmark, optimized for perfect parallelism and multithreading. I will be back soon with news!



Then AMD's CPU should be doing better because its not single threaded performance that is lacking. There is also no scaling with HT enabled. I wouldn't call that optimized. I'm still going to mention how the 950 scores lower than my 3820 despite faster clocks, a better ipc, and faster memory. In places where you would expect improvement, your benchmark offers none. Your benchmark says that an 8-core AMD CPU is half as fast as an i5 (heck even a core 2 quad) quad-core and it says that an i5 is just as fast as an i7. Everything I've been seeing is telling me that this is not optimized because then it would scale properly.


----------



## Deleted member 74752 (Feb 9, 2013)

It should be clear by now that this is for data gathering purposes rather than any real benefit for the one running the "benchmark".


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 9, 2013)

rickss69 said:


> It should be clear by now that this is for data gathering purposes rather than any real benefit for the one running the "benchmark".



Obviously, unless you really think a 950 is faster than a 3820 or if a C2Q is faster than a 8350. I haven't been able to see any consistant results, which concerns me with what is actually being calculated. The point is that stuff looks weird and we can't validate what is happening behind the scenes.


----------



## ovidiutabla (Feb 9, 2013)

OK, thanks all for testing this. The software is optimized for multicore but the algorithm is not that complex and may not reveal 100% accurate the differences between different CPU's.

Having this experience and this goal, I developed a new benchmark, witch use a far more complex multithreaded algorithm. *Multi Core PI.*

The old benchmark Multi Core Prime is no longer in development. I hope you will find this benchmark more useful and will reveal more accurate performance differences between platforms.

Multi Core PI calculates PI decimals using Bailey–Borwein–Plouffe formula. The benchmark is using a multithreaded algorithm written in C++ and provide excellent parallelism. Multi Core PI is written in Visual C++ using MFC and Win32API.

*How it works*

A slider will help you set the decimals of PI, from 10.000 to 100.000. Default is 80.000. Just hit Run benchmark button to start benching your CPU.

*Submit to HWBOT*

First, press Take Screenshot button. A screenshot and a XML datafile will be created. Attentio! CPUZ must be running!
Second, follow the link provided on the dialog and submit your datafile to HWBOT.

*Supported operating systems*

Microsoft Windows XP / Server 2003
Microsoft Windows Vista / 7
Microsoft Windows 8 / Server 2012

*His own thread*

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2841926#post2841926

*Download link*

http://www.pcgamingxtreme.ro/


----------



## AphexDreamer (Feb 9, 2013)




----------



## zsolt_93 (Feb 9, 2013)

I am not sure if this test is any better. 15 Seconds difference and the fx has +2 cores and +1300MHz/core.


----------



## ovidiutabla (Feb 9, 2013)

Is 27% faster. The FX. The test is accurate. Remember, singlethreading performance on Intel is far superior than singlethreading performance on AMD. +2 cores at +1300Mhz don't do more than 27%.

The FX 8350 requires about 4200MHZ with 8 cores to match i5 at 3200Mhz with 4 cores. Thread / Thread, Intel is about 50% faster. Do the math, how many cores + you have to supply to overcome this?

So, I think this test is very accurate. Please test some more.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Feb 9, 2013)

Is it possible to make a beanchmark that were more FX optimized? To utilize the modules more efficiently?


----------



## ovidiutabla (Feb 9, 2013)

AphexDreamer said:


> Is it possible to make a beanchmark that were more FX optimized? To utilize the modules more efficiently?



It is developed using an FX 8350... is optimized, it uses efficiently all the cores [check task manager].


----------



## Deleted member 74752 (Feb 9, 2013)

My question is how is this benchmark going to help anyone make any kind of decision regarding their hardware? The only thing I have seen thus far is that raising cpu clock speed will result in a quicker conclusion of the test...any other tweaking has little effect.


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 9, 2013)

t.phase said:


> It is developed using an FX 8350... is optimized, it uses efficiently all the cores [check task manager].



Just because it "uses 100% cpu" doesn't mean it's efficiently using all the cores. Your benchmark "uses" all hyper-threading threads but still doesn't yield any significant performance improvement.


----------



## ovidiutabla (Feb 10, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> Just because it "uses 100% cpu" doesn't mean it's efficiently using all the cores. Your benchmark "uses" all hyper-threading threads but still doesn't yield any significant performance improvement.



Check Multi Core PI...

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2841926#post2841926


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 10, 2013)

t.phase said:


> Check Multi Core PI...
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2841926#post2841926



Saying it and doing it are two different things. You know, I'm going to bitterly fight this considering your benchmark says an i7 950 is faster than my i7 3820 and how HT doesn't scale. Those are signs that something is wrong. This still doesn't change the fact that 100% in the CPU task manager doesn't mean multi-core resources are being optimized (even more so since HT doesn't give any improvement.)


----------

