Here is mine:
Attachment 86920
Windows XP MCE x32 of course :)
Just warm-up with funky new Phenom 9950 (20 minutes in my comp:D)!
More to come (I hope)!
Printable View
Here is mine:
Attachment 86920
Windows XP MCE x32 of course :)
Just warm-up with funky new Phenom 9950 (20 minutes in my comp:D)!
More to come (I hope)!
update, same machine running at 3.6 instead of 3.2
about at 2000 point gain
ok, its aparent we love this thing.
for those who seem to love it more and want to put in some time. can we get some performance data tables? meaning show us the change in score by comparing about 5 different clock speeds with 3 different memory speeds each. aka 15 benches and run it about 3-4 times for each clock/memory combination and track the average.
sure it sounds like alot but actually it should take less than a half hour, id figure 2 minutes at each setting.
for a good table make sure you show even steps, like 2.2, 2.5, 2.8, 3.1, 3.4. this way we can graph the data and see what really makes this thing work. im not worried about max clocks but those who can push farther feel free to. or if u want to get more advanced show high bus speed vs low, ect.
@ particle, hows the changes to the program to show a single core score?
i tried it at stock 2.3ghz on my quad and tried it on ddr2-667, ddr2-800 and ddr2-1066 with the scores all being the same.
@Manicdan:
Looks kinda like this:
odd results, the highest one says .99%
i was expecting to see it run once on one core, and then on every core combined, much like cinebench.
ofcoarse if possible the single core version should be lower so it dosnt take forever, so 32MB should be good. that one seemed to run a bit fast at 4.3 seconds
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...iccpubench.jpg
E7300 at 4GHz, 6GB DDR2-1000, Biostar TPower I45, Velociraptor 150GB.
Here's my result. It's a killer. :rofl:
EDIT: 8308 KCUs
T2350 @ 1862mhz
1gb DDR2 @ 266mhz 4-3-3-6 with tweaked subtimings
a little benching @ work
Does this require a multi-core CPU? I tried to run it on my laptop for the heck of it (P-M 1.7GHz, windows XP) and I got this error :shrug:
No, as far as I know it doesn't, I ran it on an A64 winchester without problems.
It requires .NET Framework 2.0, which you can get here:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...DisplayLang=en
I have a bad habit of checking, what I actually run - what does SoapHttpClientProtocol do in this benchmark?
It suggests that this program may send some private data besides benchmarking.
Kind of a fun little thing. I like it :up:
http://lakesidepc.com/gcpu.jpg
:doh: I thought I had it on my laptop but I don't :am:Quote:
Originally Posted by xoqolatl
well dual qauds intel's and no 4x4 testers that's ashamed....
:confused:
I did post my Dual Quad...
I seen it but that's two INTEL quadQuote:
Originally Posted by jcool
I don't see two AMD quad's on board posted
Ah, ok. When you said 4x4 I got confused, since 4x4 was AMD's attempt at a dual socket enthusiast platform, using two dual cores to compete with the (then) upcoming Intel quads - which failed miserably because of the cost and power consumption, as you may know.
Have we yet worked out why the x86 version is so much more efficient than the x64 version, or some way of running the x86 version on an x64 system?
Why should the 32bit version be more efficient?
Anyone compared them yet? Normally the x64 version should be faster... it certainly doesn't seem slow on my XP x64 machine ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcool
Quote:
Originally Posted by possessed
And from the program creator:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Particle
I think it depends on what hardware you have. I don't think an 8 core would be faster in x86 mode... dualies maybe.
If the person who wrote the program says it's faster in x86 mode, I'm prepared to believe them :rolleyes:
Yeah if he says so... just don't think multicore optimization works as well in x86.
Who still runs x86 anyways?