# FPULoG



## craigwhiteside (Dec 11, 2007)

ey guys put your times here 

1000000 iterations only 

look for time it was completed and post here 

1.tattyone - E6850 @ 4.4GHz = 2.375s - fastest computer
2.tigger69 - E6750 @ 3.760ghz =  2.761s 
3.bcracer220 - E6750 @ 3.6 = 2.907s
4.newtekie1 - E2160@3.33GHz = 3.141s
5.sneekypeet - E6400@3.04GHz = 3.672
6.necrofire - AMD X2 6000+ @3150MHz = 3.922s
7.technicks - Intel Quad Core Q6600@2.4GHz = 3.985s
8.craigwhiteside - E6400@2.6GHz = 4.172s
9.SpookyWillow - Athlon X2 3800+@ 2.7GHz = 4.250s
10.Fizban - T7200@ 2.4GHz = 4.352s - fastest laptop
11.spud107 - Athlon X2 4200+@2.69GHz = 4.359
12.cdawall's school computers - E6600@ 2.4GHz = 4.391s
12.stordoff - E2160 @ 1.8GHz = 4.961
13.cdawall - Athlon 64 3000+ @2.4ghz = 4.969s
14.Namslas90 - AMD 3800+ New Orleans @1Ghz = 5.094s
15.imperialreign - Pentium 4 524@ 4.26GHz = 5.047s 
16.JrRacingFan - Celeron D 347 @ 4.3GHz = 5.156s
17.pt - TURION TL-60 X2@ 2GHz = 5.781s
18.Jizzler - Intel P4D@ 3.84GHz = 6.188s
19.snuif09 - Sempron 3400+ AM2@2.4GHz = 6.521s
20.



on my core 2 duo e6400 @ 2.6GHz i get 4.172 seconds

Edit: Screenshots would be preferred


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 11, 2007)

E2160@3.33GHz=3.141s


----------



## craigwhiteside (Dec 11, 2007)

wow nice time


----------



## pt (Dec 11, 2007)

AMD TURION 64 X2 Mobile TL-60 @ 2000mhz


----------



## craigwhiteside (Dec 11, 2007)

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?p=565031#post565031

read that , this also features as a system stability and burn in tester


----------



## craigwhiteside (Dec 11, 2007)

scores updated


----------



## pt (Dec 11, 2007)

we need tatty, giorghos and trt to run this


----------



## Namslas90 (Dec 11, 2007)

AMD 3800+ New Orleans @1Ghz
1000 Iterations .0051secs
1000000 Iterations 5.094secs


----------



## craigwhiteside (Dec 11, 2007)

1GHZ , you got screenie 

ya i think tatty will get around 3-2 seconds lol


----------



## Namslas90 (Dec 11, 2007)

Heres two, don't know why but it was not that dark;


----------



## craigwhiteside (Dec 11, 2007)

i think i remember why i your scoring so high , my benchmark uses small and lots of instructions to the cpu (which is what amd processors do best with) rather than intel doing less instructions but bigger amounts of data .
but the core 2 duo's architecture seems to be good for this kind of processing too


----------



## Namslas90 (Dec 11, 2007)

Here's another rig,  AMDX2 3800 Manchester @2.0Ghz. Ram undervolted by .2V(Bios related)


----------



## craigwhiteside (Dec 11, 2007)

nice score , ill put your fastest one up on the leaderboard though


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Dec 11, 2007)

First, this is software, so it doesn't belong in general hardware.

Second, make it multitreaded. Way more useful then.


----------



## Necrofire (Dec 11, 2007)

Here's mine.
AMD X2 6000+ @3150MHz

EDIT: I'm in second for the time being


----------



## cdawall (Dec 11, 2007)

a64 3000+ @2ghz ram @ 400mhz 2.5-3-3-6 1T
6.172s






a64 3000+ @2.2ghz ram @ 440mhz 3-3-3-8 1T
5.484s






a64 3000+ @2.4ghz ram @ 480mhz 3-4-4-8 1T
4.969s







im going to (when i have the chance) drop this down to a single stcik of 512mb (my CT-5) and do a  run @2.4ghz ram @480mhz 2-3-2-0 1T


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 11, 2007)

PIII-M@1GHz=15.082 seconds


----------



## craigwhiteside (Dec 11, 2007)

hehe xD, lovely score for p3


----------



## spud107 (Dec 12, 2007)




----------



## craigwhiteside (Dec 12, 2007)

nice score spuddy


----------



## cdawall (Dec 12, 2007)

@ craig im in the wrong spot n the scores list: 

8.Namslas90 - AMD 3800+ New Orleans @1Ghz = 5.094
9.pt - TURION TL-60 X2@ 2GHz = 5.781s
10.cdawall - Athlon 64 3000+ @2.4ghz = 4.969s

shouldnt i be in 8th?


----------



## sneekypeet (Dec 12, 2007)

E6400 @ 3040...380X8


----------



## imperialreign (Dec 12, 2007)

Pentium 4 524 @ 3.9GHz = 5.641s


----------



## Necrofire (Dec 12, 2007)

imperialreign said:


> Pentium 4 524 @ 3.9GHz = 5.641s



Is there a reason for the screenshot of the entire desktop. By posting a larger image, you run the risk of the stupid "bandwidth exceeded" message from imageshack. Did you know that techpowerup has image hosting?


----------



## craigwhiteside (Dec 12, 2007)

scores updated


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 12, 2007)

Necrofire said:


> Is there a reason for the screenshot of the entire desktop. By posting a larger image, you run the risk of the stupid "bandwidth exceeded" message from imageshack. Did you know that techpowerup has image hosting?



He shrunk it down enough that it should shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## craigwhiteside (Dec 12, 2007)

ya use techpowerup's image hosting, will be much faster uploading an generally easier to put on a post


----------



## Necrofire (Dec 12, 2007)

Sorry, I didn't mean to get all attack-y, it's just easier on you and us if you follow these easy steps.

1. After you run the test, hit alt+printscreen, this captures ONLY the window you need (Yeah, I know that CPU-z is also in the pic, but it wasn't needed).
2. Paste into Paint, and then look carefully at the pic. Most screen caps can be saved as png and benefit from it. In this case, because of the amount of colors and complexity around the fire area, it's best to just go ahead and save it as a jpg.
3. upload via this area while posting.*





4. Then just copy-paste the link it gives into this area, and DONE!

Easy as caek, deelishus caek.

As you can see, that pic is png, because of the simplicity, and the amount of text.
Please everyone take a note, do not ever save a screencap of a bunch of text as jpg, it's never worth it.

Back on topic though, I'm thinking that I will be the top AMD processor for a VERY long time, or at least until someone manages to overclock a Phenom to 3GHz.
Anyone else agree?


----------



## imperialreign (Dec 12, 2007)

> Is there a reason for the screenshot of the entire desktop. By posting a larger image, you run the risk of the stupid "bandwidth exceeded" message from imageshack. Did you know that techpowerup has image hosting?



Not to get too defensive . . . but that 'link' image is only 3KB in size, whereas your and mine and almost everyone elses avatars clock in at just under the 19KB limit.

I don't really think 3KB is hurting the bandwidth that much - and I personally don't feel like adding a full size screenie to the image hosting servers and just taking up extra space for something that really doesn't need it.

Just my opinion.


----------



## Tatty_One (Dec 12, 2007)

Conservative first run, was not sure the kind of stress it placed on the CPU....not too much so I'll up the CPU speed and give it a run sometime soon, it's late here and I'm old and knackered 

Am cheating a little as I am just running on one core, I can do this speeds on both cores but for 2 cores this kind of speed is near the limit.


----------



## ace80 (Dec 12, 2007)

Tatty dl cpuz 1.42, when i disabled 1 core it still recognised it as a 6750.
Then again i did disable it using a diff method which could be the reason?

I'll have a stab at this app in a mo.


----------



## Necrofire (Dec 13, 2007)

Tatty_One said:


> Conservative first run, was not sure the kind of stress it placed on the CPU....not too much so I'll up the CPU speed and give it a run sometime soon, it's late here and I'm old and knackered
> 
> Am cheating a little as I am just running on one core, I can do this speeds on both cores but for 2 cores this kind of speed is near the limit.



I ran the test on one core only and got 0.2 seconds longer than when running on both cores. Just seems weird for a single-core program.

@imperialreign: Off topic, but yeah, I understand that we do take up space on the server, and incur more bandwidth by having TPU hosting our pics. I just really don't like imageshack, their policies on images is crappy.


----------



## Tatty_One (Dec 13, 2007)

ace80 said:


> Tatty dl cpuz 1.42, when i disabled 1 core it still recognised it as a 6750.
> Then again i did disable it using a diff method which could be the reason?
> 
> I'll have a stab at this app in a mo.



If you look it still recognises mine as an E6850 in there, just not in both boxes if you get my meaning, it says what the proccie is at default.


----------



## Tatty_One (Dec 13, 2007)

Necrofire said:


> I ran the test on one core only and got 0.2 seconds longer than when running on both cores. Just seems weird for a single-core program.
> 
> @imperialreign: Off topic, but yeah, I understand that we do take up space on the server, and incur more bandwidth by having TPU hosting our pics. I just really don't like imageshack, their policies on images is crappy.



Thats interesting, you may have some background services taking up some cpu cycles so when you go dual then the other core takes care of them....ODK, I will do a run tonite at the same speed with both cores and see how it pans out for me.


----------



## craigwhiteside (Dec 13, 2007)

wow nice score tatty , anyway the test is quite stressfull, try putting it to 100,000,000 cycles, it will last 250s for you, so have a look at your cpu load, it should be around 100%, if you go dual core try running two of them at the same time and set the affinity's for each core then have a look at your task manager, mine reaches 100% and gets quite slow.
i looked at the temps and it seems as if i get higher load temps with this rather than using orthos lol

the calculations i used to find calculate the floating point trigonometry equations based in my program are quite complex since the fpu and also the alu does some jobs too (so it kinda uses all of the cpu's processing infastructure), because it has to add/subtract/multiply/divide/square root/xor/and/or,  1,000,000 (or more) calculations (which is quite taxing on the cpu) to calculate the correct trigonometric answers, it then compares the answers it calculates to the ones in my program, if all of them are correct then the iterations are completed  and your time is shown for how long it took the cpu to calculate all of the calculations

Edit: your pc might actually seem to freeze because of the bombardment of calculations, the cpu actually puts on hold all other processes and concentrates on the two FPULoG programs when it is calculating 10,000,000 calculations for both of them, so yea it is quite stressful


----------



## Tatty_One (Dec 13, 2007)

craigwhiteside said:


> wow nice score tatty , anyway the test is quite stressfull, try putting it to 100,000,000 cycles, it will last 250s for you, so have a look at your cpu load, it should be around 100%, if you go dual core try running two of them at the same time and set the affinity's for each core then have a look at your task manager, mine reaches 100% and gets quite slow.
> i looked at the temps and it seems as if i get higher load temps with this rather than using orthos lol
> 
> the calculations i used to find calculate the floating point trigonometry equations based in my program are quite complex since the fpu and also the alu does some jobs too (so it kinda uses all of the cpu's processing infastructure), because it has to add/subtract/multiply/divide/square root/xor/and/or,  1,000,000 (or more) calculations (which is quite taxing on the cpu) to calculate the correct trigonometric answers, it then compares the answers it calculates to the ones in my program, if all of them are correct then the iterations are completed  and your time is shown for how long it took the cpu to calculate all of the calculations




Nice, I am working late tonite but if I have time I might try a 4.4Gig run.....wonder if I can break 2.000, probably not.


----------



## craigwhiteside (Dec 13, 2007)

lol rub it in all our faces eh xD, hope i could reach 2.5s when i get my new mobo for christmas .
anyway any you guys tried running two of them at the same time, each on one of the cores, if so what load you get?


----------



## craigwhiteside (Dec 13, 2007)

working on a multi threaded benchmark for people with 2 or more cores 
this is going to be a much more complicated program with using the memory, cores, fpu, alu, northbridge and the cache. this will probably be the most stressfull thing out there for your cpu, ram and northbridge.


----------



## Tatty_One (Dec 13, 2007)

craigwhiteside said:


> working on a multi threaded benchmark for people with 2 or more cores
> this is going to be a much more complicated program with using the memory, cores, fpu, alu, northbridge and the cache. this will probably be the most stressfull thing out there for your cpu, ram and northbridge.



Just looked at your specs craig, I reckon you could do with buying a couple of items I am putting on fleabay this weekend!

1.  This E6850 CPU 
2.  Either a 2GB kit of used Crucial Ballistix that will do 1160mhz @ 5-5-5-15 or 1000mhz @ 4-3-4-12.....or
3.  Brand new unused 2GB Kit of Patriot Extreme Performance PC6400 that will do 1200mhz @ 5-5-5-15 or 1080mhz @ 4-4-4-12


----------



## craigwhiteside (Dec 13, 2007)

oo lovely , tell me as soon as you get it up , i might buy something 

hehe, halo 2 time, with ps3 controller


----------



## Abdullahamir (Dec 13, 2007)

Thanks man look mine one 









its nice or not tell me man


----------



## craigwhiteside (Dec 13, 2007)

, abdullahamir  LOL


----------



## Abdullahamir (Dec 13, 2007)

hey look mine one good or not good pls tell me and thanks for ur site and can u tell me from where u got this site thanks


----------



## craigwhiteside (Dec 13, 2007)

what cpu do you have?

if you tell me i can compare with the others scores to see how your cpu stacks against the others , on and when doing a print screen do only the program, by clicking on the program when its running and pressing alt+print screen, it will take a print screen of only the program


----------



## Abdullahamir (Dec 13, 2007)

Thanks for telling me man and my cpu specs is 
intel core duo 1.6 ghz 533 mhz fsb and 2 mb l2 cache
256 mb vga card
120 gb hardisk
dvd+and-rw
1 gb ddr2 ram
bluetooth2.0+edr
wireless 
and here is not any place from where i can post my own windows vista lite


----------



## cdawall (Dec 13, 2007)

thats good for a 1.6ghz laptop


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Dec 13, 2007)

Look at this for a price tatty-

http://www.aria.co.uk/SuperSpecials...rmance+(2x1GB)+&utm_campaign=newsletter041207

buy these craig


----------



## Abdullahamir (Dec 13, 2007)

Good specs and very nice body man and thanks for giving that 2 gb ram link but i wont buy that tigger69 bcoz i have laptop and laptop ram is quiet expensive


----------



## craigwhiteside (Dec 13, 2007)

O.O

OMG LOL CHEAP CHEAP GOOD GOOD OMG CAPS FTW!!!!!!!!!!! 

oh and by the way abdull tigger was talking to me lol


----------



## craigwhiteside (Dec 13, 2007)

i copyrighted my software 

http://myfreecopyright.com/registered_mcn/C78_88TJ_8768


----------



## Tatty_One (Dec 13, 2007)

tigger69 said:


> Look at this for a price tatty-
> 
> http://www.aria.co.uk/SuperSpecials...rmance+(2x1GB)+&utm_campaign=newsletter041207
> 
> buy these craig



Yup I know, I posted that deal in the "hot deals" section earlier this week, they only have the Infineon chips though, I know cause I bought and sold some last week, the ones I have are the Micron D9's   and my Ballistixs are D9 B3's..........


----------



## Abdullahamir (Dec 13, 2007)

Oh i thought that he was talking to me and thanks for giving me link


----------



## vega22 (Dec 14, 2007)

e4300 @ 3.2ghz on 1.42v 400x8, ddr800 4-4-4-12


----------



## pt (Dec 14, 2007)

congratz on becoming a mod!


----------



## Necrofire (Dec 14, 2007)

Credit this to "phaux"

Athlon64 3000+ @ 2.2GHz.


----------



## craigwhiteside (Dec 14, 2007)

nice score necro


----------



## craigwhiteside (Dec 14, 2007)

oh and thanks pt


----------



## Tatty_One (Dec 14, 2007)

Another one for me


----------



## JrRacinFan (Dec 14, 2007)

Oh hey craig, my time was run at stock clocks 3.06Ghz. When I get home I will do a small bench and update with a screenshot.

Here yah go! @4.3Ghz


----------



## JrRacinFan (Dec 15, 2007)

New score posted


----------



## craigwhiteside (Dec 15, 2007)

scores updated , nice score btw , big improvement lol


----------



## Fizban (Dec 15, 2007)

Best score so far: 5.179 seconds


----------



## stordoff (Dec 15, 2007)

E2160 @ 1*2*00 MHz 

6.068 Seconds

lol, Forgot to reset multiplier last time I was overclocking. I'll post an updated score shortly


----------



## craigwhiteside (Dec 15, 2007)

hehe, nice score for it at 1.2GHz lol


----------



## stordoff (Dec 15, 2007)

Updated E2160 @ 1800 MHZ

4.961 Seconds

Still doesn't seem like a great time, but better than it was


----------



## bcracer220 (Dec 15, 2007)

e6750 @ 3.6 with g.skill 4-4-4-12 = 2.907 seconds, want me to upload a screenshot?


----------



## craigwhiteside (Dec 15, 2007)

if you dont mind bc


----------



## cdawall (Dec 18, 2007)

my schools e6600 based PC


----------



## craigwhiteside (Dec 18, 2007)

woah , at my school we have pentium 4's @ 2ghz


----------



## Fizban (Dec 18, 2007)

We have Core 2 Duos at my college as well, at least in the CIS labs, the rest of the school has pentium 3's and 4's.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 18, 2007)

i got there e6600 to do a better run


----------



## craigwhiteside (Dec 18, 2007)

w00t for E6600


----------



## imperialreign (Dec 18, 2007)

I ran it with my CPU cranked just over 4GHz, pulled 5.1 or something like that - didn't take a screenie, so I'll pump er up and run it again later


----------



## craigwhiteside (Dec 18, 2007)

would be great imperial


----------



## imperialreign (Dec 19, 2007)

OC at 4.26GHz = 5.047s best run





If I dare bump up the CPU anymore - she might be in league with some of the stock dual cores in this bench - but I'm already starting to hit some hight temps under massive load, so . . .


----------



## craigwhiteside (Dec 19, 2007)

nice run 

your desktop is scary lol


----------



## craigwhiteside (Dec 19, 2007)

snuifs score is added


----------



## Fizban (Dec 19, 2007)

Actually you beat my laptop's core 2 Duo when at stock speeds. at 2.0 GHz it maxed at 5.195 was only OC'ed to 2.4 GHz that it broke under 4.5 seconds.


----------



## imperialreign (Dec 19, 2007)

> nice run
> 
> your desktop is scary lol




The Predator kicks ass, though, man!  



> Actually you beat my laptop's core 2 Duo when at stock speeds. at 2.0 GHz it maxed at 5.195 was only OC'ed to 2.4 GHz that it broke under 4.5 seconds.



but, I had to clock a P4HT to 4.2GHz to accomplish that - on a mid-range P4.  Now, if this bench could make use of multiple cores - dual and quads would hand my P4 it's ass!


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Dec 19, 2007)

A slightly better score.I'm gunning for more tho'


----------



## craigwhiteside (Dec 19, 2007)

woah , nice score lol


----------



## craigwhiteside (Dec 19, 2007)

almost finished adding the final touches to the new program


----------



## pt (Dec 20, 2007)

does it run on ubuntu?


----------



## craigwhiteside (Dec 21, 2007)

it might, im doing it in c++, so should be easy to convert


----------



## Tatty_One (Dec 21, 2007)

Bring it on!


----------

