yet wprime says 3.074g weirdly.
Printable View
yet wprime says 3.074g weirdly.
wprime is often wrong ;) I will update my cpuz right away, it is still the same hdd as during G|C :p: Same bios also - need to update I think. Hopefully that 32m passes, I'll do it with new CPUz ;)
€dit: 32m with new CPUz
http://s11.directupload.net/images/081212/5wn3dizu.png
Oh come on SoF, don't do that, you had to leave some numbers in the middle of test, then it would be a teaser, this is just plain cruel :D
If this ~ 4GHz score is on air cooling and without ACC, it's really quite impressive :)
Waiting for some more tests, hopefully without black coloured squares :D
Looks like my GA 790FX-DQ6 SB600 based board will love this new 940BE :)
SoF can you say what type of air cooling are you using?
Thanks for that screeny SoF,is the Northbridge clock 2Ghz by default(NB multi 10)? We saw 1.8Ghz HTT def. clock but didn't see what NB clocks are default for 940BE.
it's simple scythe mugen laying on it with 120 and 92mm fan full speed on 2 sides without additional weight. wprime1024m 1.32V 46°C load :)
sorry but I have to keep performance covered for now :( This chip is running real cold :up:
http://s11b.directupload.net/images/081212/gxoympot.png
man that's impressive..Quote:
Originally Posted by SoF
2 fans on that mugen and at 3300 with only 1.320 with default of 1.35....46 celcius seems pretty high compared to what we've been hearing of running like 3.8g 1.5 volts and only 37 celcius or something....
I never have good cooling values on air ;) it is not mounted properly as I will go DICE as soon as possible. but maybe takes me until next week end :(
alright that makes more sense, the other guy was using a DuoOrb cpu cooler which I assume isn't far off in cooling performance.
Is every 940 Phenom2 Black Editions? .. or is there some normal ones too?
can't wait for iocedmyself to show up again with game fps numbers.
SoF can you test max air northbridge clock?
and how far you can keep high nb with a high core clock?
faior- All 940's are black edition just like the 9950's were all BE.
Thanks a lot mate! :) Didnt know all 9950 were BE though, damn if Id knew that I would have bought it elsewhere for cheaper, darn. Not every webshop tells if its BE or not :SQuote:
Originally Posted by Caveman787
I tested nb with 2.400 for prime with 3600mhz cpu and 2.200 mhz nb / 4020 mhz cpu some minutes ago.
Sweet I'm gonna assume they both worked.
I have a feeling we may see 2,600 mhz northbride with good clocks this time.
Which combined with a 2,000mhz htt will yield some nice performance.
2.200 mhz nb / 4020 mhz cpu ,wow :). Was it stable?(i presume it was :))Quote:
Originally Posted by SoF
So by your experience ,NB has some hefty headroom which is great since it can net ~5% speed gain in many cases versus default/stock NB clock..
Btw yes am benching at 3ghz with 2ghz NB. And sorry for absence but OS hard disk died had to reinstall everything
SiSoftware Sandra
Benchmark Results
Multi-Media Int x16 iSSE2 : 170280iit/s
Multi-Media Float x8 iSSE2 : 223516fit/s
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.
Performance vs. Speed
Multi-Media Int x16 iSSE2 : 56.61iit/s/MHz
Multi-Media Float x8 iSSE2 : 74.31fit/s/MHz
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.
Performance Test Status
Run ID : AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 940 Processor (Quad-Core, 3.01GHz, 4x 512kB L2, 6MB L3)
Platform Compliance : Win64 x64
NUMA Support : No
SMP (Multi-Processor) Benchmark : No
Total Test Threads : 4
Multi-Core Test : Yes
Cores per Processor : 4
SMT (Multi-Threaded) Benchmark : No
Processor Affinity : P0C0T0 P0C1T0 P0C2T0 P0C3T0
System Timer : 14.32MHz
Rendered Image Size : 640x480
Processor
Model : AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 940 Processor
Speed : 3.01GHz
Model Number : 9024
Cores per Processor : 4 Unit(s)
Type : Quad-Core
L2 On-board Cache : 4x 512kB, ECC, Synchronous, Write-Back, 16-way, 64 byte line size
L3 On-board Cache : 6MB, ECC, Synchronous, Write-Back, 48-way, 64 byte line size, 4 threads sharing
Features
SSE Technology : Yes
SSE2 Technology : Yes
SSE3 Technology : Yes
Supplemental SSE3 Technology : No
SSE4.1 Technology : No
SSE4.2 Technology : No
EMMX - Extended MMX Technology : Yes
SSE4A Technology : Yes
HTT - Hyper-Threading Technology : No
Performance Tips
Notice 5008 : To change benchmarks, click Options.
Notice 5004 : Synthetic benchmark. May not tally with 'real-life' performance.
Notice 5006 : Only compare the results with ones obtained using the same version!
Tip 2 : Double-click tip or press Enter while a tip is selected for more information about the tip.
no I only tested 4020 with 1m - can't get it stable, think it needs ACC (what does not work yet for me, waiting what others say about deneb and acc). shortly did 4080 1m but crashed during saving :(
SiSoftware Sandra
Benchmark Results
Dhrystone ALU : 41008MIPS
Whetstone iSSE3 : 34658MFLOPS
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.
Performance vs. Speed
Dhrystone ALU : 13.63MIPS/MHz
Whetstone iSSE3 : 11.52MFLOPS/MHz
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.
Performance Test Status
Run ID : AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 940 Processor (Quad-Core, 3.01GHz, 4x 512kB L2, 6MB L3)
Platform Compliance : Win64 x64
NUMA Support : No
SMP (Multi-Processor) Benchmark : No
Total Test Threads : 4
Multi-Core Test : Yes
Cores per Processor : 4
SMT (Multi-Threaded) Benchmark : No
Processor Affinity : P0C0T0 P0C1T0 P0C2T0 P0C3T0
System Timer : 14.32MHz
Number of Runs : 64000 / 640
Processor
Model : AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 940 Processor
Speed : 3.01GHz
Model Number : 9024
Cores per Processor : 4 Unit(s)
Type : Quad-Core
L2 On-board Cache : 4x 512kB, ECC, Synchronous, Write-Back, 16-way, 64 byte line size
L3 On-board Cache : 6MB, ECC, Synchronous, Write-Back, 48-way, 64 byte line size, 4 threads sharing
Features
SSE Technology : Yes
SSE2 Technology : Yes
SSE3 Technology : Yes
Supplemental SSE3 Technology : No
SSE4.1 Technology : No
SSE4.2 Technology : No
EMMX - Extended MMX Technology : Yes
SSE4A Technology : Yes
HTT - Hyper-Threading Technology : No
Performance Tips
Notice 5008 : To change benchmarks, click Options.
Notice 5004 : Synthetic benchmark. May not tally with 'real-life' performance.
Notice 5006 : Only compare the results with ones obtained using the same version!
Tip 2 : Double-click tip or press Enter while a tip is selected for more information about the tip.
SiSoftware Sandra
Benchmark Results
Cache/Memory Bandwidth : 40.74GB/s
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.
Speed Factor : 36.50
Results Interpretation : Lower index values are better.
Performance vs. Speed
Cache/Memory Bandwidth : 13.87MB/s/MHz
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.
Float SSE2 Cache/Memory Results Breakdown
Data Item Size : 16bytes
Buffering Used : No
Offset Displacement Used : Yes
Detailed Benchmark Results
2kB Blocks : 152.92GB/s
4kB Blocks : 190.88GB/s
8kB Blocks : 195.38GB/s
16kB Blocks : 198.55GB/s
32kB Blocks : 210.45GB/s
64kB Blocks : 185.46GB/s
128kB Blocks : 169.42GB/s
256kB Blocks : 151.32GB/s
512kB Blocks : 99.10GB/s
1MB Blocks : 84.62GB/s
4MB Blocks : 35.76GB/s
16MB Blocks : 7.52GB/s
64MB Blocks : 5.77GB/s
256MB Blocks : 5.77GB/s
1GB Blocks : 5.83GB/s
Performance Test Status
Run ID : AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 940 Processor (Quad-Core, 3.01GHz, 4x 512kB L2, 6MB L3); AMD ??? (9600); 1x 4GB DDR2 PC2-17200 (5.0-5-4-8)
Platform Compliance : Win64 x64
NUMA Support : No
SMP (Multi-Processor) Benchmark : No
Total Test Threads : 4
Multi-Core Test : Yes
SMT (Multi-Threaded) Benchmark : No
Processor Affinity : P0C0T0 P0C1T0 P0C2T0 P0C3T0
System Timer : 14.32MHz
Page Size : 4kB
Use Large Memory Pages : No
Processor
Model : AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 940 Processor
Speed : 3.01GHz
Model Number : 9024
Cores per Processor : 4 Unit(s)
Type : Quad-Core
L2 On-board Cache : 4x 512kB, ECC, Synchronous, Write-Back, 16-way, 64 byte line size
L3 On-board Cache : 6MB, ECC, Synchronous, Write-Back, 48-way, 64 byte line size, 4 threads sharing
Features
SSE Technology : Yes
SSE2 Technology : Yes
SSE3 Technology : Yes
Supplemental SSE3 Technology : No
SSE4.1 Technology : No
SSE4.2 Technology : No
EMMX - Extended MMX Technology : Yes
SSE4A Technology : Yes
HTT - Hyper-Threading Technology : No
Chipset 1
Model : ASUS ??? (9600)
Revision : A1
Front Side Bus Speed : 1x 201MHz (201MHz)
In/Out Width : 16-bit / 16-bit
Maximum Bus Bandwidth : 804MB/s
Chipset 2
Model : AMD (Family 10h) Athlon64/Opteron/Sempron HyperTransport Technology Configuration
Revision : A1
Front Side Bus Speed : 2x 2.01GHz (4.02GHz)
In/Out Width : 16-bit / 16-bit
Maximum Bus Bandwidth : 15.70GB/s
Logical/Chipset 2 Memory Banks
Bank 0 : 2GB DDR2 5.0-5-4-8 CR3
Bank 1 : 2GB DDR2 5.0-5-4-8 CR3
Channels : 1
Bank Interleave : 2-way
Memory Bus Speed : 2x 536MHz (1.07GHz)
Multiplier : 8/3x
Width : 128-bit
Memory Controller in Processor : Yes
Cores per Memory Controller : 4 Unit(s)
Maximum Memory Bus Bandwidth : 16.75GB/s
Performance Tips
Notice 5008 : To change benchmarks, click Options.
Notice 5004 : Synthetic benchmark. May not tally with 'real-life' performance.
Notice 5006 : Only compare the results with ones obtained using the same version!
Tip 11 : Use the 'Switch Chart Type' button to switch between Detailed and Combined charts.
Warning 5010 : Cannot use Large Memory Pages due to lack of privileges.
Tip 2 : Double-click tip or press Enter while a tip is selected for more information about the tip.
SiSoftware Sandra
Benchmark Results
Int Buff'd iSSE2 Memory Bandwidth : 11.18GB/s
Float Buff'd iSSE2 Memory Bandwidth : 11.18GB/s
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.
Performance vs. Speed
Int Buff'd iSSE2 Memory Bandwidth : 10.68MB/s/MHz
Float Buff'd iSSE2 Memory Bandwidth : 10.68MB/s/MHz
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.
Int Buff'd iSSE2 Memory Bandwidth
Assignment : 10.93GB/s
Scaling : 10.89GB/s
Addition : 11.49GB/s
Triad : 11.42GB/s
Data Item Size : 16bytes
Buffering Used : Yes
Offset Displacement Used : Yes
Bandwidth Efficiency : 66.77%
Float Buff'd iSSE2 Memory Bandwidth
Assignment : 10.94GB/s
Scaling : 10.86GB/s
Addition : 11.49GB/s
Triad : 11.44GB/s
Data Item Size : 16bytes
Buffering Used : Yes
Offset Displacement Used : Yes
Bandwidth Efficiency : 66.76%
Performance Test Status
Run ID : AMD ??? (9600); 1x 4GB DDR2 PC2-17200 (5.0-5-4-8)
Platform Compliance : Win64 x64
Memory Used by Test : 1.75GB
NUMA Support : No
SMP (Multi-Processor) Benchmark : No
Total Test Threads : 4
Multi-Core Test : Yes
SMT (Multi-Threaded) Benchmark : No
Processor Affinity : P0C0T0 P0C1T0 P0C2T0 P0C3T0
System Timer : 14.32MHz
Page Size : 4kB
Use Large Memory Pages : No
Features
SSE Technology : Yes
SSE2 Technology : Yes
SSE3 Technology : Yes
Supplemental SSE3 Technology : No
SSE4.1 Technology : No
SSE4.2 Technology : No
EMMX - Extended MMX Technology : Yes
SSE4A Technology : Yes
HTT - Hyper-Threading Technology : No
Chipset 1
Model : ASUS ??? (9600)
Revision : A1
Front Side Bus Speed : 1x 201MHz (201MHz)
In/Out Width : 16-bit / 16-bit
Maximum Bus Bandwidth : 804MB/s
Chipset 2
Model : AMD (Family 10h) Athlon64/Opteron/Sempron HyperTransport Technology Configuration
Revision : A1
Front Side Bus Speed : 2x 2.01GHz (4.02GHz)
In/Out Width : 16-bit / 16-bit
Maximum Bus Bandwidth : 15.70GB/s
Logical/Chipset 2 Memory Banks
Bank 0 : 2GB DDR2 5.0-5-4-8 CR3
Bank 1 : 2GB DDR2 5.0-5-4-8 CR3
Channels : 1
Bank Interleave : 2-way
Memory Bus Speed : 2x 536MHz (1.07GHz)
Multiplier : 8/3x
Width : 128-bit
Memory Controller in Processor : Yes
Cores per Memory Controller : 4 Unit(s)
Maximum Memory Bus Bandwidth : 16.75GB/s
Performance Tips
Notice 5008 : To change benchmarks, click Options.
Notice 5004 : Synthetic benchmark. May not tally with 'real-life' performance.
Notice 5006 : Only compare the results with ones obtained using the same version!
Tip 2 : Double-click tip or press Enter while a tip is selected for more information about the tip.
SiSoftware Sandra
Benchmark Results
Memory (Random Access) Latency : 89ns
Speed Factor : 83.40
Results Interpretation : Lower index values are better.
Performance vs. Speed
Memory (Random Access) Latency : 0.08ns/MHz
Results Interpretation : Lower index values are better.
Detailed Benchmark Results
1kB Range : 3clocks / 1ns
4kB Range : 3clocks / 1ns
16kB Range : 3clocks / 1ns
64kB Range : 3clocks / 1ns
256kB Range : 16clocks / 5ns
1MB Range : 56clocks / 19ns
4MB Range : 86clocks / 29ns
16MB Range : 248clocks / 83ns
64MB Range : 266clocks / 89ns
Performance Test Status
Run ID : AMD ??? (9600); 1x 4GB DDR2 PC2-17200 (5.0-5-4-8)
Platform Compliance : Win64 x64
System Timer : 14.32MHz
Memory Access : Random
Processor
Model : AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 940 Processor
Speed : 3.01GHz
Model Number : 9024
Cores per Processor : 4 Unit(s)
Type : Quad-Core
L2 On-board Cache : 4x 512kB, ECC, Synchronous, Write-Back, 16-way, 64 byte line size
L3 On-board Cache : 6MB, ECC, Synchronous, Write-Back, 48-way, 64 byte line size, 4 threads sharing
Chipset 1
Model : ASUS ??? (9600)
Revision : A1
Front Side Bus Speed : 1x 201MHz (201MHz)
In/Out Width : 16-bit / 16-bit
Maximum Bus Bandwidth : 804MB/s
Chipset 2
Model : AMD (Family 10h) Athlon64/Opteron/Sempron HyperTransport Technology Configuration
Revision : A1
Front Side Bus Speed : 2x 2.01GHz (4.02GHz)
In/Out Width : 16-bit / 16-bit
Maximum Bus Bandwidth : 15.70GB/s
Logical/Chipset 2 Memory Banks
Bank 0 : 2GB DDR2 5.0-5-4-8 CR3
Bank 1 : 2GB DDR2 5.0-5-4-8 CR3
Channels : 1
Bank Interleave : 2-way
Memory Bus Speed : 2x 536MHz (1.07GHz)
Multiplier : 8/3x
Width : 128-bit
Memory Controller in Processor : Yes
Cores per Memory Controller : 4 Unit(s)
Maximum Memory Bus Bandwidth : 16.75GB/s
SiSoftware Sandra
Benchmark Results
Memory (Linear Access) Latency : 14ns
Speed Factor : 13.90
Results Interpretation : Lower index values are better.
Performance vs. Speed
Memory (Linear Access) Latency : 0.01ns/MHz
Results Interpretation : Lower index values are better.
Detailed Benchmark Results
1kB Range : 3clocks / 1ns
4kB Range : 3clocks / 1ns
16kB Range : 3clocks / 1ns
64kB Range : 3clocks / 1ns
256kB Range : 10clocks / 3ns
1MB Range : 22clocks / 7ns
4MB Range : 25clocks / 8ns
16MB Range : 44clocks / 15ns
64MB Range : 43clocks / 14ns
Performance Test Status
Run ID : AMD ??? (9600); 1x 4GB DDR2 PC2-17200 (5.0-5-4-8)
Platform Compliance : Win64 x64
System Timer : 14.32MHz
Memory Access : Linear
Processor
Model : AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 940 Processor
Speed : 3.01GHz
Model Number : 9024
Cores per Processor : 4 Unit(s)
Type : Quad-Core
L2 On-board Cache : 4x 512kB, ECC, Synchronous, Write-Back, 16-way, 64 byte line size
L3 On-board Cache : 6MB, ECC, Synchronous, Write-Back, 48-way, 64 byte line size, 4 threads sharing
Chipset 1
Model : ASUS ??? (9600)
Revision : A1
Front Side Bus Speed : 1x 201MHz (201MHz)
In/Out Width : 16-bit / 16-bit
Maximum Bus Bandwidth : 804MB/s
Chipset 2
Model : AMD (Family 10h) Athlon64/Opteron/Sempron HyperTransport Technology Configuration
Revision : A1
Front Side Bus Speed : 2x 2.01GHz (4.02GHz)
In/Out Width : 16-bit / 16-bit
Maximum Bus Bandwidth : 15.70GB/s
Logical/Chipset 2 Memory Banks
Bank 0 : 2GB DDR2 5.0-5-4-8 CR3
Bank 1 : 2GB DDR2 5.0-5-4-8 CR3
Channels : 1
Bank Interleave : 2-way
Memory Bus Speed : 2x 536MHz (1.07GHz)
Multiplier : 8/3x
Width : 128-bit
Memory Controller in Processor : Yes
Cores per Memory Controller : 4 Unit(s)
Maximum Memory Bus Bandwidth : 16.75GB/s
do you know the edit function? by the way I don't like sandra benches at all :p:
€dit: finally I have 4 gig 32m running but 4.1 crashes 1m ^^ still no good ram clock even with current bios (P05).
http://s10b.directupload.net/images/081213/gfdowoo7.png
heh yeah i know the edit function but i hate seein those single posts that take an entire page. Others asked for sandra benches so i figured i may as well
3.6ghz Intercore
SiSoftware Sandra
Benchmark Results
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 4.70GB/s
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.
Inter-Core Latency : 71ns
Results Interpretation : Lower index values are better.
Performance vs. Speed
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 1.60MB/s/MHz
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.
Inter-Core Latency : 0.02ns/MHz
Results Interpretation : Lower index values are better.
Detailed Benchmark Results
Processor Affinity : CPU0-CPU2 CPU1-CPU3
Inter-Core Bandwidth @ 2x 8kB : 4.77GB/s
Inter-Core Bandwidth @ 4x 8kB : 4.76GB/s
Inter-Core Bandwidth @ 2x 32kB : 4.95GB/s
Inter-Core Bandwidth @ 4x 32kB : 4.90GB/s
Inter-Core Bandwidth @ 16x 8kB : 4.74GB/s
Inter-Core Bandwidth @ 2x 128kB : 5.23GB/s
Inter-Core Bandwidth @ 4x 128kB : 4.71GB/s
Inter-Core Bandwidth @ 16x 32kB : 4.81GB/s
Inter-Core Bandwidth @ 64x 8kB : 4.76GB/s
Inter-Core Bandwidth @ 16x 128kB : 5.19GB/s
Inter-Core Bandwidth @ 64x 32kB : 4.87GB/s
Inter-Core Bandwidth @ 64x 128kB : 3.12GB/s
Performance Test Status
Run ID : AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 940 Processor (Quad-Core, 3.01GHz, 4x 512kB L2, 6MB L3)
Platform Compliance : Win64 x64
Buffering Used : Yes
NUMA Support : No
SMP (Multi-Processor) Benchmark : No
Total Test Threads : 4
Multi-Core Test : Yes
SMT (Multi-Threaded) Benchmark : No
System Timer : 14.32MHz
Processor
Model : AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 940 Processor
Speed : 3.01GHz
Model Number : 9024
Cores per Processor : 4 Unit(s)
Type : Quad-Core
L2 On-board Cache : 4x 512kB, ECC, Synchronous, Write-Back, 16-way, 64 byte line size
L3 On-board Cache : 6MB, ECC, Synchronous, Write-Back, 48-way, 64 byte line size, 4 threads sharing
Performance Tips
Notice 5008 : To change benchmarks, click Options.
Notice 5004 : Synthetic benchmark. May not tally with 'real-life' performance.
Notice 5006 : Only compare the results with ones obtained using the same version!
Tip 11 : Use the 'Switch Chart Type' button to switch between Detailed and Combined charts.
Tip 2 : Double-click tip or press Enter while a tip is selected for more information about the tip.
xtremesystems.org is not for stable testing usually also :ROTF: I did a little prime at around 3.6 with 1.4V yesterday for about 30min fine. Think 3.8 should be no problem with average air cooling. scales good with voltage.Quote:
Originally Posted by lo squartatore
AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 940 Processor
CPU speed: 3608.79 MHz, 4 cores
CPU features: RDTSC, CMOV, Prefetch, 3DNow!, MMX, SSE, SSE2
L1 cache size: 64 KB
L2 cache size: 512 KB
L1 cache line size: 64 bytes
L2 cache line size: 64 bytes
L1 TLBS: 48
L2 TLBS: 512
Prime95 32-bit version 25.6, RdtscTiming=1
Best time for 768K FFT length: 12.826 ms.
Best time for 896K FFT length: 15.363 ms.
Best time for 1024K FFT length: 17.573 ms.
Best time for 1280K FFT length: 21.910 ms.
Best time for 1536K FFT length: 26.959 ms.
Best time for 1792K FFT length: 32.044 ms.
Best time for 2048K FFT length: 36.146 ms.
Best time for 2560K FFT length: 47.483 ms.
Best time for 3072K FFT length: 57.918 ms.
Best time for 3584K FFT length: 69.354 ms.
Best time for 4096K FFT length: 78.383 ms.
Best time for 5120K FFT length: 106.893 ms.
Best time for 6144K FFT length: 129.516 ms.
Best time for 7168K FFT length: 155.793 ms.
Best time for 8192K FFT length: 179.298 ms.
Timing FFTs using 2 threads.
Best time for 768K FFT length: 8.663 ms.
Best time for 896K FFT length: 11.567 ms.
Best time for 1024K FFT length: 13.117 ms.
Best time for 1280K FFT length: 16.420 ms.
Best time for 1536K FFT length: 19.897 ms.
Best time for 1792K FFT length: 23.754 ms.
Best time for 2048K FFT length: 27.026 ms.
Best time for 2560K FFT length: 35.748 ms.
Best time for 3072K FFT length: 42.690 ms.
Best time for 3584K FFT length: 50.396 ms.
Best time for 4096K FFT length: 57.087 ms.
Best time for 5120K FFT length: 71.616 ms.
Best time for 6144K FFT length: 88.316 ms.
Best time for 7168K FFT length: 107.699 ms.
Best time for 8192K FFT length: 122.878 ms.
Timing FFTs using 3 threads.
Best time for 768K FFT length: 7.151 ms.
Best time for 896K FFT length: 12.434 ms.
Best time for 1024K FFT length: 13.562 ms.
Best time for 1280K FFT length: 15.674 ms.
Best time for 1536K FFT length: 17.912 ms.
Best time for 1792K FFT length: 20.610 ms.
Best time for 2048K FFT length: 22.946 ms.
Best time for 2560K FFT length: 33.583 ms.
Best time for 3072K FFT length: 38.143 ms.
Best time for 3584K FFT length: 43.591 ms.
Best time for 4096K FFT length: 48.397 ms.
Best time for 5120K FFT length: 56.122 ms.
Best time for 6144K FFT length: 69.391 ms.
Best time for 7168K FFT length: 85.529 ms.
Best time for 8192K FFT length: 95.301 ms.
Timing FFTs using 4 threads.
Best time for 768K FFT length: 6.646 ms.
Best time for 896K FFT length: 11.919 ms.
Best time for 1024K FFT length: 12.367 ms.
Best time for 1280K FFT length: 14.569 ms.
Best time for 1536K FFT length: 17.115 ms.
Best time for 1792K FFT length: 19.788 ms.
Best time for 2048K FFT length: 21.897 ms.
Best time for 2560K FFT length: 31.301 ms.
Best time for 3072K FFT length: 35.879 ms.
Best time for 3584K FFT length: 41.123 ms.
Best time for 4096K FFT length: 45.414 ms.
Best time for 5120K FFT length: 52.534 ms.
Best time for 6144K FFT length: 62.155 ms.
Best time for 7168K FFT length: 74.891 ms.
Best time for 8192K FFT length: 84.444 ms.
Best time for 58 bit trial factors: 3.269 ms.
Best time for 59 bit trial factors: 3.264 ms.
Best time for 60 bit trial factors: 3.261 ms.
Best time for 61 bit trial factors: 3.269 ms.
Best time for 62 bit trial factors: 6.000 ms.
Best time for 63 bit trial factors: 5.997 ms.
Best time for 64 bit trial factors: 6.002 ms.
Best time for 65 bit trial factors: 5.966 ms.
Best time for 66 bit trial factors: 5.971 ms.
Best time for 67 bit trial factors: 5.932 ms.
Thanks for all the sandra results, wast that 2009.SP1 or SP2? I received new WC parts so i can not run comparisons atm. Undervolt looks really good. 1.1V for 2GHz NB is another nice detail. Also ACC seems to work on your board!
SoF's chip and some others say that 3.8-3.9 is the sweet spot.
iocedmyself's chip says that everything can be sweet. :D
Decisions decisions, lol.
heh oops actually was using 2008 1.13.12 sandra. I'll reload 2009 edition and rerun benches this afternoon or tomorrow With hard disk death and having to reinstall just trying to keep some info flowing
But yeah imma have to say that 3.8-4.0ghz will prolly be the sweet spot for most retail chips on good air cooling, and i again i have to say i suspect the 4+1 phase power is holding back stability because looking in the bios as the supplied vcore voltage it's anywhere between +.002v and .150 of what the cpu voltage is actually set to and i would thin that under operations that would be even more shakey. I can bench up to 4.0 but it isn't 100% stable and results aren't scaling as well as they should so not really worth posting IMHO.
Yes ACC seems to work so long as it's set to auto, i don't know enough about how it functions to go in and manually set % for any reliable results. But as for the undervolt i actually just grabbed the slider with the mouse and pulled it down to something under 1.25 =o)
Oh btw all other settings aside from Vcore and Cpu are stock voltages/freqs
I'm thinking of finally breaking down and putting this under water sometime in the next week or two along with putting it on a 750SB FX board just to see the limit of the thing. One thing that i must say about this BIOS is that it really doesn't like ANY changes being made. After every change i've made it hangs after saving changes and i have to cycle power again, but after that it will boot fine and stable. Where as when it isn't stable it will actually force me into the bios citing boot failure change setttings or reset to default. So i'm not sure if it's just the BIOS revision or the board itself.So more to come as i sort through my reinstall.
Auto ACC is probably changing core settings with each overclock, necessitating a reboot. Some of us have used manual ACC to achieve stable overclocks both in AOD and in the bios. The system must reboot to effect these changes.Quote:
Originally Posted by iocedmyself
BTW, with Phenom I's some us have found that at least +2 to +4 per core is required, sometimes auto ACC won't get you there. It definitely ups the the cpu voltage, in some cases significantly. Just for reference I have set my 9950BE at ACC per core settings of +4 +2 +2 +4.
Hey! so you are saying that the ht stock frecuency is 2000 indeed???Quote:
Originally Posted by iocedmyself
Well what i was talking about was ANY change i make in the bios regardless of if ACC is enabled or not. Ii've tried every manuel setting on all cores but benifits aren't apparent or seemingly consistaint. But i'll keep that in mind and see where i can get using +2 and +4 to all cores.
Btw the only definitive thing i've gleaned about ACC is that reboot is required when changing the ACC settings in over drive, so i've only bothered changing the settings in BIOS usually after i've pushed the chip a bit to far and gotten a BSOD.
Yes 2000mhz is the default clock for for HT, if the boad supported the new 3.0 or 3.1 it would default to that,but as the bios only allows HT selection up to 2200mhz. I have however overcloed HTT to 2600 @ 260x10 with cpu at 14 multi so seems HTT is more pliable like the older 939 chips were.
Hello,Quote:
Originally Posted by SoF
Is it me ? Or why can't I see SuperPI result of Phenom II ? Amd doesn't want ? Or it sucks so much ?
At 4Ghz, a penryn can terminate the loop2 less than 1 minute. The phenom II doesn't appear to do this with no optimised ram :(
Nice work from AMD, I wish Phenom II will roxxx !
Sincerely,
wait for results with 230 htt and some cold - it will do a lot faster but nobody is allowed to show performance yet ;) this is simple air testing and I am more not that good on air :p: Pi never was something you should judge AMD's performance with but I want to compare it to AMD results until now - and for that it really rocks!
Intel vs AMD in super pi isn't what we're trying to look at. Times are blacked out because the parts are still under some sort of nda and they are only allowed to show clocks and voltages at this point it seems.
well i'm not under any NDA and was not told specifically that i couldn't show performance, just erring on the side of caution. Plus screenies are a PITA when you're running 4 monitors :)
Super Pi is largely dependent on cache sizes and doesn't really speak much for real world performance in most things, especially when you're talking of benchmark performance.
Okay... :(
It's just that I have seen some results in games and others benchmarks. But no Superpi (a really good bench from my point of view :) )
But, if it can't do sub10 (with high frequencies and real cold) I think that AMD will stay in retreat against Intel. And continue the war of price.... :(
Wait and see... :D
Sincerely,
at 1066 ram, 200 x 10 HTT and 3.4ghz cpu, chip will complete 1mb Super PI in 18-19 seconds from what i've tested
Thank for your answer :)
It's a good result for an AMD CPU, but not better than an old, old Q6600... :(
I wish it will be better in games... and cheaper than Q6600.
Sincerely,
well actually i did point out earlier that the 3.0ghz performance of the deneb was more then double that of a 3.4ghz 9850be in GTA IV which actually does utilize all four cores, and did so with double the draw distance and near 20% less cpu load and memory use
SPi works much better on Intel CPU-s because of architectural differences, but it doesn't reflect real world performance. Games are a totally different story, I expect Deneb to be very competitive in that area...Quote:
Originally Posted by Progerien
well it won't be cheaper, and also shouldn't be. It is 45nm tech, uses a ton less power, less heat, and looks to OC a lot better...Thats enough to ask more for it I believe.:p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Progerien
iocedmyself do run some gameing benchs like GTA4, WIC, etc with screens if possible......
This processor seems more and more of an economic saver after considering i was going to buy a i7 set up and not buy a laptop...!!!
I am close to sub 17s 1m and think there is a lot room for improvements with cold.
well...then get 'er cold then :D... By the time I get one of these...all the best scores will have been achived LOL...keep it coming..Quote:
Originally Posted by SoF
iocedmyself
Could you please run Everest's Cache and Memory bench?
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/6...hememocpk9.png
Thank you in advance!
Sub 17s..... this is serious business for green side. That phenom seems to have a lot of headroom to improve :yepp:.Quote:
Originally Posted by SoF
Sigh been a long time since i used Everest, sad to say i forgot how you ran that benchmark and ended up running all the other benches and saving screenies before it dawned on me :D
Ingame bench Grand Theft Auto IV
Hello my name's Marco, I write from Italy.
Iocedmyself thank you for your great job :clap:
Do you tell us what graphic card have you used in your ingame bench GTA IV?
I have another question: what is the maximum temperature do you have for MAXIMUM LOAD in ALL 4 CORES? In example running Orthos or Prime95 for a few minutes...
Thank you a lot!:up:
Iocedmyself thanks for the GTA4 bench.
If possible can you sink the settings to this :-
http://bbs.52hardware.com/attachment...jZJk8hLRCx.jpg
This is a screen of an i7 @ 3.6ghz with 4870x2, with this we can make a point to point comparison oh an i7@3.6 to an PhII @ 3.6
Hey marco,
for gpu, using a 4870x2, stock clocks and cooling
Load temps @ 3.0ghz 1.35vcore are 34-35c in 23/24c ambient
Load temps @ 3.6ghz 1.3875 are 38c
And for comparison having voltage jacked way up past needed
Load temps @ 3.6 @ 1.6v are 46c
lo squartatore i allready asked IOCEDMYSELF to do a similar test against the i7 at 3.6Ghz
The best thing is the GPU is the same "4870 x2"!!!
Are you comparing this to the Q9550 result posted on Guru3D if so they used a different GPU 9800 GX2.
Are more interesting the settings asks ajaidev two posts ago...Quote:
Originally Posted by lo squartatore
In that condition we have a comparison to Intel i7.
Be quite please.:yepp:
iocedmyself thanks for sharing, do you realise that if you post the benchmark results that ajaidev requested (welcome to the forums dude) that you will be one of the first persons not affiliated to AMD to post a DIRECT comparison with an i7, and all at Xtreme Systems
:cool:
Just like the old days, XS bringing the breaking news
:D
Look forward to seeing this comparison
:yepp:
Thanks a lot! :up: What was the NB clock? 2.0 or 2.2?Quote:
Originally Posted by iocedmyself
Damn close, saving grace for Phenom II is that there is still headroom to overclock where i7 has been shown to have difficulty going past 3.6 on air, with 4ghz far out of reach :D
can you do the gta4 test again at 1280x1024 using 75Hz refresh rate? or 60/75Hz make no difference?
NB clock was at 2ghzQuote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda
Btw regarding view distance in GTA IV it relates to how much video ram is used, @ 1920x1200 view distance of 32 takes Vram utilization to 984 megs i believe, which is orange warning for Vram load.
Using a 24inch LCD so RR70 would be best i could do, but doesn't make any difference as i don't have Vsynch enabled.Quote:
Originally Posted by annton
view distance is low so that limited video memory does not. GTA4 is very buggy when it eats up all the video RAM. So to limit the score problem with respect to ram the view distance was low.
Oh forgot the results are really great with respect to Intel QX series and does not do bad at all as compared to the all mighty i7's!!
iocedmyself thanks for sharing the results :up:
I wonder if the fps would go a bit up if NB clock was 2.2 or 2.4Ghz :).Either way very nice score for a Phenom II :)
Bollocks for the "not used comment".It's 12x10 resolution,in what lower resolution you want them to test the game?640x480 :p:?Quote:
Originally Posted by lo squartatore
lo squartatore read this:-
To check the performance of the CPUs, we use our "Promenade” benchmark. In this is, due to heavy traffic, many pedestrians and a far view distance, quite challenging for the processor and rather representing for GTA 4 since you will spend a lot of time on the street. Because we don't want to repress the frame rate too much, we use maximal details but reduce the range of visibility to 50 percent - a value reserved to graphics cards with 1,024 MiByte VRAM according to Rockstar's in-game presets.
taken from pcgameshardware.com
It has been said and rumored that 10-25 is what you would see in a typical console yes the xbox 360 and ps3.
The detail on the other hand is at 70 and is what counts.
3.0 ghz, 2ghz NB 2ghz HT 50 draw distance 100 detail distance 1280x1024
3.0 ghz, 2ghz NB 2ghz HT 70 draw distance 100 detail distance 1280x1024
3.0 ghz, 2ghz NB 2ghz HT 47 draw distance 100 detail distance 1920x1200
3.6 ghz, 2ghz NB 2ghz HT 79 draw distance 100 detail distance 100 car density 16 shadow density 800x600
3.6 ghz, 2ghz NB 2ghz HT 34 draw distance 100 detail distance 100 car density 16 shadow density 1920x1200
3.6ghz 3dmark 06 1920x1200
Don't recall off hand what score i got with 9850, and i'm unsure as to whether or not the PCI-E slot is running as gen 2.0 or not , but thought i'd share regardless
Right. Now someone compare those benchies to an i7 running the same graphics card and clock speed... :)
Have to reinstall it and then i'll bench dx9 and 10. Though i have to say that i don't consider DX9 very accurate measurment as ATI 4800 cards do vastly better in DX10 where Nvidia is more geared towards DX9.Quote:
Originally Posted by lo squartatore
Thanks iocedmyself, great work you're doing here. That first score at 3.6Ghz didn't look pretty for the phenom II though, as it was 22% percent i7 (no one in their right mind would turn HT on for gaming, that anomally is well established), vs Phenom II 70%. Am I the only one noticing that huge gap? Are you sure no other process was stealing huge cpu cycles? Good job man, keep up the good work.Quote:
Originally Posted by iocedmyself
3.4ghz 2ghz NB & HT view 34 detail 100 @ 1680x1050 @ 60hz
hey iocedmyself any differences when running 64 bit ?
Phenom II 940 preorder 279,90€ (FINLAND)
ETA 7th of January 2009
940 http://www.verkkokauppa.com/popups/p...o.php?id=31641
920 http://www.verkkokauppa.com/popups/p...o.php?id=31559
Well this is what i get if i set affinity to ONE CORE, with view distance 22 and detail distance 70 @ 3ghz. So if i7 has 8 threads to toy with....not that difficult to see how you could get 22% with 60fps when there is the core shutdown stuff. But regardless it's not about how much of the CPU is utilized it's the performance you get out of it.
8 threads is not the same as 8 cores; besides the game has to be able to utilize 8 threads. Let's assume it does, that's still 44% compared to 70%. The point I'm trying to make is an efficiency, clock/clock in game comparison. The available headroom on i7 is huge and should not be ignored since this is a comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by iocedmyself
maybe it's the fact that is reads 4 core so it thinks well here 4 threads. so since it's has 8 threads but only 4 cores. maybe the code isn't totally working out there is 8 threads, because it's only 4 cores.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
need to see this game a 8 core server system with Shanghai's too then.
You are quite wrong the game "GTA4" takes HT as added cores as in total of 8 CORE's on an i7 :eek: The reason why it does not show up as 42 instead of the seen 21 is that HT just sits on its arse doing noting "HT will do noting great if enabled or disabled"Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
So the game thinks its running on a 8 Core computer and compute scores for all 8 so called cores or threads. So if first on is at 40, second at 40, third at 40 and forth also at 40 but the HT all at 0, this will give you a result of amm 20% overall utilization. :ROTF:
Now besides this you do know that the game IDs my Q6600 as a PIII Xeon :shakes:
Are we assuming that they run the benchmark with HT on then? ;) Because that'll usually lead to lower scores/fps.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
Simple explanation:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
GTA IV can spawn 3 threads which can utilize CPU fairly well. For that reason Single, Dual and Triple-Core will show CPU utilization close to 100%!
Quad-Core will be utilized in 75% assuming no other thread is using it and GTA IV will extract everything from remaining 3 cores.
Six-Core CPU will hit max. 50% utilization.
8 cores/threads can be utilized 37% by GTA IV!
Now Core i7 is not hitting close to theoretical 37% and the reason for that can be either HT lowering utilization or GPU saturation (in other words CPU too fast for a given GPU).
Is that clear enough? :)
3.0 ghz, 2ghz NB 2ghz HT 47 draw distance 100 detail distance 100 car density 16 shadow density 1920x1200 = 40.19fps
3.6 ghz, 2ghz NB 2ghz HT 34 draw distance 100 detail distance 100 car density 16 shadow density 1920x1200 = 31.97fps
did you turn of a core or two at 3.6?
as i see it,lesser the draw distance lesser the fps.either this benchmark is BS or there was some other factor reducing the framerates.Quote:
Originally Posted by lo squartatore
Are you sure those settings are maxing the GPU? I don't think those settings are very gpu-bound. In any case, your last statement takes nothing from what I said; if the i7's HT is the culprit, meaning the cpu is taking a negative hit, the results are still better than the PHII :yepp: And if the gpu is maxed, then are you saying it takes only 22% of the processing power of a Ci7 at 3.6ghz to max the a 4870x2 with GTA IV? Or are you leaning towards the unknown? :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightman
The cpu score in 3dmark 06 is very low. I saw yesterday an screenshot of 3dmark 06, with a phenom II 940 @ 3,8Ghz, 5700 pts in cpu score, here:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/Forums/...=210814&page=2
Then the score of iocedmyself with his phenom II 940 @ 3,6Ghz is the same that you would get with a phenom 9850 @ 3,3 GHZ, here:
http://service.futuremark.com/result...eResultType=14
So I wonder what's wrong, iocedmyself's ram timings are not good but I think the score should be better than that, what do you think guys?
I mistakenly thought i had shadow density and car density maxed in the 3.0 one, i did not, they were maxed in the 3.6 which creates a heavy performance hit.
as for 3dmark 06 i was benching at 1920x1200, not the default 1280x1024, will rerun default momentarily
on vista 64 (not tuned to performance at all) i get ~4500 cpu points on 3dmark06 with cpu@3.36ghz nb@2400 mem@950/4.4.4.12 and bumping cpu up to 3.44ghz in only get ~4600 cpu points... i was getting ~5000 on xp32 @ 3.36