Why are my SuperPi 32MB results that bad?

[funkflix]

Hi

Look @ this :

http://people.freenet.de/funkflix/pi32mb.jpg

Don't understand that, all other Benchmarks are fine, but the SuperPi
bigger then 1MB really sucks!?

I use Win2000, i think it is the Problem!? Any tips here?

Thx. :)

[eva2000]

that ain't bad it's to do with AMD64s heh

my 3400+ newcastle and Win2k SP4

http://www.fileshosts.com/AMD/DFI/6002_650/3400_2/Kingston/KHX3200/1x512/2/LDT_AUTO/10x/260-260-2226-1T-9-12-2211-1.66-3.54-1.5-1.7_DSlvl1_7x16x_3120/superpi-32m.jpg

[funkflix]

Hmm, really strange! Something is wrong! Look @ this results :

http://pc-tweaker.ch/Pictures/SuperPI%20-%20HWLUXX.JPG

They are all under 30 min with less MHz and S754, its that only bcs of Win2k?

:confused:

[Zeus]

I experienced something similar, go to task manager and watch the CPU utilization whilst running SuperPi at anything over 4million digits.

At 1m, 2m and 4m you'll see a full 100% CPU load throughout the whole run, going 8 or higher makes the CPU load go up and down.

From what i heard this has something to do with win 2K.

On a lighter note, your wallpaper seem to make up for any bad SuperPi result. :slobber: :D

[funkflix]

On a lighter note, your wallpaper seem to make up for any bad SuperPi result. :slobber: :D

Hehe. :D

Ok thx, i will test it later.

[Fried_Spam]

Hehe. :D

Ok thx, i will test it later.

Test the wallpaper? :confused:

You don't need to. I can tell you that it works. :D

[Fried_Spam]

Damn, forgot to give you my 32m results. With system in sig I get 33 minutes and 32 seconds. I thought that people were having faster times with Win2k. Maybe that is only in shorter runs though.

[funkflix]

:wierd:


@Topic

Yeah its wierd! Look :

http://people.freenet.de/funkflix/32mbfehler.jpg

Dunno why :confused:

[bachus_anonym]

i would blame it on the OS... something is definitely not right.
on WindowsXP, with my AXP-M @ 255x10.5 = 2683MHz i'm getting 32m50s.
i've had a case when i screwed up my OS a bit and everything was running fine except for SuperPi. i mean, normally Initial value on 16M run is 9s but then i was getting like 24s everytime i fired it up. so i reinstalled my OS making sure that ACPI was Enabled and APIC Disabled and everything was OK since then...

[funkflix]

I'm without APIC but with ACPI, maybe this is the Problem?

Hmm, but dont think so, on my second Win2k for benching i have ACPI-Multiprocessor installed and i must enable APIC in bios to boot
into. But there i have the same results!

[bachus_anonym]

you see, if on second Win2k for benching you have "ACPI Multiprocessor" then it means that this is what u have set in BIOS before installing Windows:

1.
ACPI - Enabled
APIC - Enabled
if your first rig has "ACPI Uniprocessor" then it is still same config in BIOS as above.

This is gonna give you "Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI PC)":

2.
ACPI - Enabled
APIC - Disabled

For that change you can do it without reinstalling Windows but i would not recommend that. Do a fresh install with #2 config in BIOS. it's more stable and your SuperPi32M socres should be fine then. not the same performance "3dmark01-wise" but well, at least it's more stable at very high HTT (FSB)....

[funkflix]

Thats my normal Win2k, fresh install. Have done no changes on it.
APIC was disabled while installing it and i have no biosoption for ACPI!

http://people.freenet.de/funkflix/acpi.jpg

:confused:

[cpulloverclock]

Thats my normal Win2k, fresh install. Have done no changes on it.
APIC was disabled while installing it and i have no biosoption for ACPI!

http://people.freenet.de/funkflix/acpi.jpg

:confused:
Win2K is a very very very very very very bad os for superpi

[funkflix]

Thx. :)

And best one is?

[niaboc79]

win server 03 is great for SPI32M

http://membres.lycos.fr/niaboc79/Photos/Benchmarks/FX53%20939/SPI32M_23m49s.JPG

[STEvil]

wow.. i'm doing better than I thought for 32m???

9x250 on my 2800+ clawhammer (512k L2) 1:1 with 1.5-2-2-0 ram timings gets me 32 minutes and around 40 seconds. with screensaver enabled.. lol

16m was 16 minutes 01 seconds

[NapalmV5]

GravediggA,

Damn, who's the babe on the desktop? :slobber: You always cover her face.....can you post a pic of just her. Please?!? Thanx!!!

[Dissolved]

niaboc79, man make your sig smaller it takes up almost all my screen

[moosturdsoed25]

its heidi klum

[reject]

i got 33m 33s with about 10 apps running... on untweaked winxp (meaning not a clean boot had about 25 services running)

[CodeRed]

Thx. :)

And best one is?

Win 2003 server or XP SP2 work well for the larger Super Pi benchies. Must be something to do with improvements in disk caching over Win 2000 :cool:

[STEvil]

Havent actually tried this yet, but....

[funkflix]

its heidi klum

Exaktly! :)

@STEvil

Thx, i would try it.

@CodeRed

Will give XP SP2 a try somedays. :)

[bachus_anonym]

Havent actually tried this yet, but....
i have been playing with Windows Server 2003 Standard for about a week now. comparing tweaked WS2003 and WinXP, the first one gives me about 20MB/s better Sandra scores but i get quite strange SuperPi16M gains:
at 263x10 i got a boost of 12s but at 251x11 only 3s...

switching to System Cache (as you're showing on the screenie) didn't really make any difference.

[funkflix]

Do not even have that option at my Win2k!? :rolleyes:

[STEvil]

i'm on winxp

[funkflix]

Ok, install Win XP. Just fresh, no drivers or tweaks.

http://people.freenet.de/funkflix/pi32mbxp.jpg

Now it's better! :)

[bachus_anonym]

told ya.... fresh install often solves all problems... congarts on a nice score!

can you do me a HUGE favour and run superPi16M if u get a chance, plizzz :)

[funkflix]

Fresh install won't work with Win2k! ;) It's just a thing of WinXP! Never tried
XP before.

Maybe tomorrow i will give the 16M a try! :)

[niaboc79]

I'm loosing 6s by loop with xp or 2000 with same driver and clock, use win server 03

[funkflix]

The 32m isn't really important for me. ;) Only the +36min get me feeling crazy! :D Don't want to use XP either 03, i'm back now on Win2k.