LOL that was great!Quote:
Originally Posted by s7e9h3n
Printable View
LOL that was great!Quote:
Originally Posted by s7e9h3n
Such a shame s7e9h3n. Was really looking forward to some benchies. Looks like I'll have to wait till you get another rig next week. Lets hope it is a bit better :)Quote:
Originally Posted by s7e9h3n
Maybe 3DMark01? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Lightman
Does 3dMark even install on x64 based OS's? I've tried to install PCMark on my 2x2218's running 2k3 x64 and it won't work. The only way I can run PCMark is to use a separate XP 32-bit install.Quote:
Originally Posted by massman
Have you tried running the installer in XP SP2 Compatibility Mode? Might have to do the same with the .exe once it's installed.Quote:
Originally Posted by s7e9h3n
maybe I'll give this a try myself, haven't run that in years
It's running very well under XP x64 in contrary to stupid PCMark...Quote:
Originally Posted by s7e9h3n
Ahhh, ok....good to know as I should be getting an 8800ultra (or two) early next week.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightman
OT: Noticed you have a T-mobile MDA in your sig. I've got the MDA pro and when I get bored of messing with computers, I just OC my phone :p.
s7e9h3n & dave_graham
SiSoftware Sandra: http://www.sisoftware.co.uk/index.ht...buy&langx=en&a
-Arithmatic, Multimedia, Multi-core efficiency, Mem Bandwidth, Mem Latency, Cache and Memory Latency benchmarks.
Include EVEREST Memory Read/Write bandwidth please.
CrystalMark: http://www.softpedia.com/get/Tweak/S...stalMark.shtml
- ALU, FPU, MEM test. Not bothered about HDD, GDI, D2D, OGL.
wPrime: http://www.wprime.net/download.html
- 32M and 1024M if you overclock.
WinRAR: http://www.rarlab.com/download.htm
- Tools> Benchmark and hardware test. :)
ScienceMark: http://www.start64.com/index.php?opt...d=72&Itemid=76
- (couldn't find any more recent x64 Windows edition) File > Run all benchmarks. :)
TrueCrypt: http://www.truecrypt.org/downloads.php
- Tools . Benchmark > 100MB and 1GB buffer size.
You can do PassMark two CPU and one Mem test aswell: http://www.start64.com/index.php?opt...id=34&Itemid=1
SuperPi 1M and 32M would be good too for comparison please. :)
Just run whatever the damn you can :D I'd ask for server benches but I damn well know how costly they are. All above should run on x64 Windoze though and gives us a good allround indication.
Gaming benchmarks? That wouldn't interest me unless you wade through which games at what stage/settings are CPU bottlenecked and then test to compare. Cheers.
EDIT:
I forgot POV-Ray rendering: http://www.povray.org/download/
QX6850 gets 98 seconds in 3.7 and E6850 gets 196 sec.
Valve Map Compilation, Particle Simulation bench would be good.
If you can, run a single/dual core only to see the power and scaling of that in comparison to quads/octal. News outlet bloggers are going on about Core 2 being more powerful as in single core efficiency because of its 4-execution engine, so I'd like to see how this compares.
As always, thanks!
OT: Heh! I was OCing my previous MDA based on OMAP CPU (from 180 up to 240MHz :D ) mainly because of Worms WP but with this new one I can't find app which will run slow on it :p: !Quote:
Originally Posted by s7e9h3n
BTW what is powering your phone and how you OC it?
Back on topic: So you'll get Ultras together with new (hopefully working) board for K10! Looks like it will be interesting week :) . This weekend I will chill out watching F1 on TV so no rush with testing please :p: !
It was a joke of course!!! Bench new stuff 24/7 or die!! ;)
Just to clarify it for others:Quote:
Originally Posted by PetNorth
What he meant by performance scaling, is processor frequency scaling efficiency.
i.e. performance change/speed change x 100
Speed bump was 25% so maximum expected linear scaling is 100% of that 25%.
OT: Is it one of the HTCs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightman
yes ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by KTE
I decided to give this system one more shot at booting up before having to trade her in. To my surprise, I was able to get into windows on the first attempt. I installed a newer version of Sandra and ran a couple of the benchmarks. Needless to say, the results seemed WAAY off base as Sandra had this Barc. setup ~400% slower than a dual Xeon 3220 system. I've got some SS of some other slightly less embarassing benches (but not by much) which I'll post later as I'm writing from my phone ATM.
OT: @ KTE and Lightman - my phone's a qtek9000 -> a rebadged HTC Universal powered by an Intel XScale 520Mhz cpu ;)
That's quite sad. Now I just want to see when the first OEM K10 system is up for grabs and if that suffers from the same problems. Its kinda obvious K10 is not in platform stability mode yet. :( Whether its the chip, MB, BIOS, can't really tell from here.
Worst thing is, everyone can get differing results and not know if the results are accurate, underperforming 1%, or by 500%.
s7e9h3n: Is there any way to underclock the CPUs through BIOS? If you do that, like to 1.5GHz, would they run?
I'm thinking maybe the earlier chips have clock instabilities here. That's usually how a failed overclock reacts.
Ahh well, let me make note of a few related things I've seen around, just to show you what can happen. Just be careful that these server benchmarks vary very widely depending on how optimized you tune the software running (and in this case, your BIOS/CPU rev)
Techreport benching: http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/13176/4
Anandtech benching: http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3091&p=5Quote:
Originally Posted by Opteron 2347-2350
Specjbb2005
TR: Dual Opteron 2350 (2GHz) = 88949 Bops
AT: Dual Opteron 2350 (2GHz) = 70363 Bops
TR: Dual Xeon E5345 (2.33GHz) = 87718 Bops
AT: Dual Xeon E5345 (2.33GHz) = 68303 Bops
Get me? :confused: And the SPEC submitted results are usually higher than these, especially for Xeons they are submitted as the authors mention, with all tweakings and so on.
under windows xp pro, sp2, on a 3992 (single plane) with 2 x 2347 B1 processors and 4 x 1GB DDR2-667 (CAS 5) ECC/Reg modules:Quote:
Originally Posted by KTE
8 total threads
32m: 11.406 seconds
1024m: 364.062
4 total threads
32m: 23.015 seconds
1024m: 742.875
1 total thread
32m: 84.578 seconds
1024m:
also, CPU-Z is inaccurately reporting clock speed but wPrime IS accurate. weird, i guess.
I'll have the untouched WPS result files available after everything is tested.
see below
i have 2 x 2344 (HE processors) rated at 1.7ghz that I can test against as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by KTE
dave
You mean as if they were throttling???Quote:
Originally Posted by KTE
I don't think AMD CPUs can do that.
AMD processors make use of dynamic multiplier manipulation to enter into different power stages...it's MUCH more flexible than Intel's currently (which, iirc, is 3 different states).Quote:
Originally Posted by Piotrsama
cheers,
dave
Here's a few Sandra shots. I guess I didn't save as many as I had first thought :rolleyes:
Here's what Sandra says about the entire config. Note how off some of the numbers are:
http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/4...drainfotq0.jpg
Here's the CPU Info:
http://img124.imageshack.us/img124/8...acpuinfud4.jpg
Memory Bandwidth: Note the Bandwidth efficiency :shrug:
http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/3...drabandgw7.jpg
Here's the Cache and Memory bench:
http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/2953/sandracmdn8.jpg
One thing weird I did notice with these cpu's is how they're seemingly handing off workload to each other. If I don't set the affinity for a bench, say like Spi, the cpu's will randomly hand off the calculations one another every so often. It's quite odd and it also causes the bench to run slower. In all of the Sandra benchmarks I ran, it seemed that only the cache and memory bench from above gave the cpu's a consistent workload. With the other benches, the cpu usage was erratic and unpredictable. I guess it's a possibility I have a bad install of windows, but hopefully with some new HW, this will all be sorted out.....
Dave: Have you installed just windows on that? If linux, would mind in making some trials for gromacs gcc compiled benchs, with the assmble loops on it (specfp disable those).
If possible, let me know, and send you a few "guidelines". ;)
Yep, Yep!!
Looks like Barcelona's bitten the BIG 1....
So much for AMD!
We need desktop parts, and pronto.
Perkam
It's interesting how things turn sour as soon as a couple of members that regularly post in AMD section joined here :rolleyes:
showoff :p: :D j/kQuote:
Originally Posted by s7e9h3n
what size screen is the phone and how many hours did it take you to write a couple of sentences :D.....i tried surfing the net on a phone once and it was the most frustrating experience i've ever endured lol
Perkam yeah desktop parts PLS :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] M411b
WAIT WAIT.....are you being sarcastic XC? lolQuote:
Originally Posted by perkam
I hope so cuz aint that cache and memory bench like AMAZING?...or am I reading the numbers all wrong...lol
and perkam you saying that in desperation or in seriousness cuz of the excitement of the above performance...rofl
Im confused!!!!
I think that bottom screenie is AMAZING............
1573 kb/sQuote:
Originally Posted by KTE
0 errors
over 1.1GB processed
12:02 minutes
interesting thing to note about this is that a Via EDEN could probably do a GREAT job on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by KTE
Buffer size:
200mb:
Encrpyt, Decrypt, Mean (mb/s)
Twofish: 46.7, 48.1, 47.4
AES: 46.3, 40.5, 43.4
Serpent: 35.2, 35.7, 35.4
AES-twofish: 23, 21.6, 22.3
Twofish-Serpent: 20.5, 20, 20.2
Serpent-AES: 20.3, 18.3, 19.3
Serpent-AES-Twofish:14.7, 13.5, 14.1
AES-Twofish-Serpent: 14.4, 13.5, 14
1GB:
Encrpyt, Decrypt, Mean (mb/s)
Twofish: 46.8, 48.2, 47.5
AES: 46.3, 40.6, 43.4
Serpent: 35.3, 35.7, 35.5
AES-twofish: 22.9, 20.8, 21.9
Twofish-Serpent: 20.2, 19.4, 19.8
Serpent-AES: 20.1, 18, 19
Serpent-AES-Twofish:14.5, 13.2, 13.8
AES-Twofish-Serpent: 14.2, 13.1, 13.6