Default clocks@cinebench2003
mulitiple cpu 1347pts@19.5s
http://www.iamxtreme.net/coolaler/co...ENSFIELD/3.gif
Default clocks@cinebench2003
mulitiple cpu 1347pts@19.5s
http://www.iamxtreme.net/coolaler/co...ENSFIELD/3.gif
:eek: 19sec at default :eek: :eek:
Thank you!!!
woot!!!!!
The only difference between Coolaler and a crystal ball is that Coolaler has a pulse.
Can we compare the cinebench results with :
http://www.coolaler.com/images/xoops...ial/avi/04.jpg
If so, thats some scary performances. Quite literally twice as fast. Makes sense i guess
I want that genius boy nn_step to tell me how this is fsb starved.
:eek: AMD :slapass:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ailleur
Not to be a downer, but that is only a 54% performance increase going from 2 cores to 4 cores, as opposed to an 86% increase going from 1 core to 2 cores (in overall score).
Hard to say if it's from the FSB or because they are seperated dies, but there is certainly a noticable scaling drop.
hahahahahahaha :lol: :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by FUGGER
1 core 63 seconds, 4 cores 19 secondes, 63/4=16Quote:
Originally Posted by ethernal
Looks pretty damn linear to me.
The image i copied is from another test coolaler ran with a "regular" e6700
3D Mark 2006!
[grovel]
Please show us how well it overclocks...PLEASE!!!
[/grovel]
I'm eagerly looking forward to two of these bad boys together in a nice 8 core Clovertown rig...:D:D
TMPGEnc
4CPU already in the preferences
http://www.iamxtreme.net/coolaler/co...ENSFIELD/7.gif
muliti CPU transfer dual files
http://www.iamxtreme.net/coolaler/co...ENSFIELD/8.gif
compare with
Conroe@2.95G
http://www.iamxtreme.net/coolaler/meromvsconroe/c09.gif
Merom@2.96G
http://www.iamxtreme.net/coolaler/meromvsconroe/m09.gif
quad cores win :)
*has seizure out of amazement* :eek: :woot:
I demand superpi times! lol
I was really hoping that it would have the 1333mhz fsb, I mean theres no doubt that a 1066 bus is a bottleneck. The 1333 bus would still be a bottleneck but at least it wouldn't have been quite as bad.
Puts everything to shame at stock, just wait till it's OC'ed...
You realize that you are calculating that 54% performance increase between chips with two different clock speeds?Quote:
Originally Posted by ethernal
The scaling is almost perfectly linear:
Single CPU: 63 seconds
Quad Core: 19 seconds
63/(19*4) = 0.82
So there is about an 18% decrease from theoretical max.
The 8 core AMD HT enabled system shows a 4.73x (best case) speed up with 8 cores.
4.73 / 8 = 0.59
Which is a 41% decrease from theoretical max.
Which one do you think is scaling better?
Interesting eh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ailleur
Well, I will admit, I didn't compensate for the difference in clockspeed. The E6700 is 11% faster (in terms of clockspeed) than an E6600. So, it actually scales 75%. This is still a bit less than 86%, but not as drastic as 54%. Still, something is clearly slowing it down a tad, but 12% is relatively excusable. Some of that could be the software's threading inefficiency. But still, there is a decrease in scaling (which is to be expected).
Remember, this is an early engineering sample. The chip is 1333mhz fsb capable. Maybe it will ship that way. 1333mhz fsb capable mobos will become more common.Quote:
Originally Posted by kdrp
Remember Woodcrests are already shipping with 1333MHz FSB, so it is definitely not a chip limitation.
conroe@ 4ghz has worse cinebench than kentsfield at stock...
someone at amd just passed out lol
stock vcore limit
http://www.iamxtreme.net/coolaler/co...NSFIELD/10.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolaler
:banana: :banana: :toast:
oh my :slobber:Quote:
Originally Posted by coolaler
what are the temps like compared to Conroe
Someone at AMD passed out?Quote:
someone at amd just passed out lol
Fugger and I just hit the floor stone cold!