Also, what about a run of dual super pi? (one on each core)
I'm wondering what will be the affect on performance when both cores make heavy use the L2 cache.
Printable View
Also, what about a run of dual super pi? (one on each core)
I'm wondering what will be the affect on performance when both cores make heavy use the L2 cache.
Hmmm ... seems like it should you on page 2 for CPU scores?Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorWang
http://img303.imageshack.us/img303/3645/cputest2yq.png
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Coolest
will be test soon.
now pcmark05_cputest :D
seems everything goes faster when add a 6600LE on board :D
pi_1m=21.390sec now
cienbench9.5=398/738
sciencemark2=1308
pi_fast=32.55sec/40.41sec
Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorWang
Awesome news dude :D
Whats the CPU load still ? 25% ?
Things can only get faster...So prepare yourselfs :D
Can you run Aquamark?
No longer using mem for the IG? That's a massive jump Victor...glad to see your hard work in tracking down issues is paying off in a HUGE way!!!Quote:
seems everything goes faster when add a 6600LE on board
Awesome Results man!
Thanks to everyone who is trying to get results for everyone. (Fugger, FCG, Victor)
after disable NIC and uninstall its driver,Quote:
Originally Posted by ORCBEAST
cpu load came to normal.
idle=0%~1% :p: :p:
have you thought about trying an ati card victorwang?
i'll go ahead and agree with a previous post that the CPU-Z latentcy test would be a nice one to run. See if this improvment is coming from a fast cache, or a fast core:D .
Amazing Results :eek: :eek: :eek:
will be nice to see 3dmark06 cpu score :banana: :banana:
Omg!! Get this baby higher :)
cienbench9.5=398/768
what was time that render?
For comparison cinebench:
955XE @ 4.5GHz (300x15 3:4 4-4-4-12)
389/798(28sec, 4 threads)
FX57 @ 2.4GHz (240x10 1:1 2-2-2-5) = 358
FX57 @ 2.64GHz (240x10 1:1 2-2-2-5) = 399
FX57 @ 3.0GHz (200x15 1:1 2-2-2-5) = 451
Impressive considering I have to run my 4400+ at 2.85 ghz to equal his 2.4 ghz run in cinebench 2003
damn, conroe is faster then I expected.
Seems like it's realy time 4 a conroe setup :D
Some Cinebench 9.5 scores:
http://www.3dfluff.com/mash/cb95/top.php
Now.... More test come after a 6600LE added :D
http://vic.expreview.com/read.php?2
for you to compare:
955EE @ 300*14, with 78gtx 512m, 3Dmark05_cputest=8197 ;)
E6600 @ 266*9, with 6600LE, 3Dmark05_cputest=8320 :D :D :D
:woot: those results are better than i exspected
This thread, whole XS, especially this CPU ... TOTALLY INSANE! :D :slobber:
I even cant believe those Pi Times! :eek:
@ Victor:
Can't connect to your blog! :D :D :(
The 3DMark06 CPU test seems a bit low, can someone with a X2 post results @ 2.4GHz?
Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorWang
Could you add the pictures here ? They dont load for me because the server is so loaded :(
Pifast seems a bit low?
so, those who speculated that Yonahs L2 was slowed down becasue it would be same as higher clocking Conroe were right. 14 cycle latentcy of Conroe is the same as Yonah. The 3 cycle L1 also the same or not, don't remeber that number for Yonah?
First thing to take into account, this is not DDR2-800@ tight timings, but plain vanilla 533.. There is still some performance to be had :D