Generic CPU Bench

[Deleted member 3]

Should say x86, are you sure you're not running the original file? Apparently it worked for Luke so I didn't completely screw up here

 

[lemonadesoda]

My results on 2.7Ghz Q6600 AGP 2GB DDR1 system.

time: 10,478ms
thru: 25,019 KCU/s

WOW, My results are a lot fast than some Q6600 overclocked to 3.2GHz. Is the program buggy, or is DDR1 with it's lower latency than DDR2 helping out here?

 

[Mussels]

Should say x86, are you sure you're not running the original file? Apparently it worked for Luke so I didn't completely screw up here

it did work, i had to redownload.

Luke MSN'd be and said he had to do the same thing, so i guess the upload was the wrong one briefly.

 

[Deleted member 3]

At first I'd say cache, though it's a different URL so that shouldn't be it. Perhaps temp stuff of whatever tool you're using to unpack. Or other magical reasons.

 

[Mussels]

At first I'd say cache, though it's a different URL so that shouldn't be it. Perhaps temp stuff of whatever tool you're using to unpack. Or other magical reasons.

it *did* work - i edited the post!

I downloaded it the second it was uploaded, and it didnt work. got it again moments ago and it worked. Same post now has both results in it, and the x86 wtfpwned the x64

 

[freakshow]

here is an update on mine score 7200 @ 4.17ghz and mem 1100mhz

 

[theonetruewill]

time: 5,746ms
throughput: 22,811 KCU/s

E8400 @ 4.23 - I will get this to 4.4 at some point for proper benching.

 

[SLK320]

 

[Chicken Patty]

nice clock bro, Have you had any luck going any higher?

 

[Tatty_Two]

Best yet, I needed top spot back! Q9650 @4.4gig....sorry about speedstep being enabled! This chip is now starting to break in, got her to boot to windows at 4.6gig but at the high FSB's required (for a quad....510+) she dont like them much, but I can now run 24/7 at 4.1gig on just 1.29V on air Idle temps at 31C.....low 60's load.

 

[xu^]

Download rig

 

[xu^]

Q6600 @3.2ghz in 32bit mode

 

[Tatty_Two]

Tried a run at 4.5gig on the Q9650, gets a bit toasty at load at that speed and voltage.....anyone smell burning?

5.387
48,662

 

[RadeonX2]

Tried a run at 4.5gig on the Q9650, gets a bit toasty at load at that speed and voltage.....anyone smell burning?

5.387
48,662

insane

 

[Tatty_Two]

insane

Not sure if thats an insult or compliment ....but thanked you anyways!

 

[RadeonX2]

Not sure if thats an insult or compliment ....but thanked you anyways!

lol dude I will never ever insult any1 here so that's a compliment lol

freaking fast chip u got there...

 

[lemonadesoda]

My results on 2.7Ghz Q6600 AGP 2GB DDR1 system.

time: 10,478ms
thru: 25,019 KCU/s

Apologies for quoting myself, but can anyone explain why I am STOMPING on the Q6600 results posted by others? Others are on DDR2 with 3.2Ghz OC on CPU. I am on DDR1 with just 2.7Ghz OC on CPU. Only when others get over 3.2 do they beat my DDR1 system. Results seem odd. Could the benchmark be "funny" in the way it calculates its performance stats?

I cant believe that DDR1 is so much faster (latency) than DDR2, that it can make a 2.7 beat a 3.2, or can it?

 

[btarunr]

Tried a run at 4.5gig on the Q9650, gets a bit toasty at load at that speed and voltage.....anyone smell burning?

5.387
48,662

Whoa! easy..you wouldn't want to be left with a ₤300 cookie. It's not even edible

 

[roofsniper]

Apologies for quoting myself, but can anyone explain why I am STOMPING on the Q6600 results posted by others? Others are on DDR2 with 3.2Ghz OC on CPU. I am on DDR1 with just 2.7Ghz OC on CPU. Only when others get over 3.2 do they beat my DDR1 system. Results seem odd. Could the benchmark be "funny" in the way it calculates its performance stats?

I cant believe that DDR1 is so much faster (latency) than DDR2, that it can make a 2.7 beat a 3.2, or can it?

possibly a ton of small calculations that finish quickly so a lower latency would be a better advantage. trying settings ur latency to 5-5-5-15 and see if you take a huge hit.

 

[exodusprime1337]

here's a new submission by me, turns out 32bit mode seems to yield a higher score?? idk what that's all about.

 

[wolf2009]

Tried a run at 4.5gig on the Q9650, gets a bit toasty at load at that speed and voltage.....anyone smell burning?

5.387
48,662

u gotta change your custom title

 

[MKmods]

can I play too...

 

[Mussels]

what a terrible screenshot, its barely readable. at least use MSpaint and just cut the rest of the desktop off, if you have to make it smaller.

 

[xu^]

Apologies for quoting myself, but can anyone explain why I am STOMPING on the Q6600 results posted by others? Others are on DDR2 with 3.2Ghz OC on CPU. I am on DDR1 with just 2.7Ghz OC on CPU. Only when others get over 3.2 do they beat my DDR1 system. Results seem odd. Could the benchmark be "funny" in the way it calculates its performance stats?

I cant believe that DDR1 is so much faster (latency) than DDR2, that it can make a 2.7 beat a 3.2, or can it?

Probably because a lot of the Early results were done in AMD64 mode which seems to be considerably slower than the x86 mode that you used.

 

[lemonadesoda]

^^ x86 vs. AMD64 version? Ah, that might explain it. So we need TWO scoreboards. And "Generic Benchmark" should be updated to the OUTPUT screen clearly shows WHICH code was run.