Rundown to SuperPrime 1.0Final : Need your help!

Hey people,

This is the latest beta of the SuperPrime benchmark.

Home page: www.superprime.org

Direct download: Links and Downloads Manager - SuperPrime™ (you can download ZIP file directly.)

Requirements:

- Microsoft .NET 2.0 Runtime (x86 and x64) (or if you are feeling generous, install .NET 3.5 - recommended)
- Microsoft VC++ 9.0 Runtime (you can download this from within the program as well)
- A fast system!

A example screenshot:

http://www.superprime.org/images/lat...tion-0.9.5.PNG

Please give me your feedback so that I can improve this tool and make it as usable as possible.

Shoutout to all the quad owners: Care to give this a spin? Show us where you stand.

Regards,KiD0M4N

You've got a first tester. ;)

I've tested it to spot problems. What's happening at 2200 vs 2400 multi thread?

Test 1&2 @ 2200MHz - 400MHz - 4-4-4-8 1T: single thread and multi-thread
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/d...0X4/SuperP.png

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/d...perP-Multi.png


Test 3&4 @ 2400MHz - 436MHz - 4-4-4-8 1T: single thread and multi-thread
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/d...SuperP2400.png

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/d...2400-Multi.png

:( Damn photobucket.... I cant see any of the images because it says that "Bandwidth exceeded." Please rehost the images at www.imgx.org or www.imageshack.us or something :(

I will be glad to give out fixes for any/all problems you see.... and thanks again for testing... (waiting for the rehosted pics now :P)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

You've got a first tester. ;)

I've tested it to spot problems. What's happening at 2200 vs 2400 multi thread?

Test 1&2 @ 2200MHz - 400MHz - 4-4-4-8 1T: single thread and multi-thread
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/d...0X4/SuperP.png

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/d...perP-Multi.png


Test 3&4 @ 2400MHz - 436MHz - 4-4-4-8 1T: single thread and multi-thread
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/d...SuperP2400.png

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/d...2400-Multi.png

---

I can see the images on this comp, but not on my other one.. same photobucket error. weird.

to cure your curiosity Kidoman the problem is:

all 1E8:

2.2ghz 1thread: 3.35
2.2ghz 4thread: 1.12m

2.4ghz 1thead: 3.15m
2.4ghz 4thread: 1.5m

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mAJORD

I can see the images on this comp, but not on my other one.. same photobucket error. weird.

to cure your curiosity Kidoman the problem is:

all 1E8:

2.2ghz 1thread: 3.35
2.2ghz 4thread: 1.12m

2.4ghz 1thead: 3.15m
2.4ghz 4thread: 1.5m

---

Thats very weird.... maybe a one of thing?

I have run this benchmark on a 8 core machine (na, not Clovertown, but a Xeon server I had access to at work) and it scaled perfectly.

Could you please try a rerun of the same, maybe it was something in the background.

Heres my results.

Hey mAJORD,

Were the CPU specs detected properly in the screenshots? TIA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC]Atomicpineapple

Heres my results.

---

Thanks for posting the result.

One small doubt: Was anything running in the background during the benchmark? Also, could you please post a screenshot of taskmanager showing the utilization of all the cores during the entire duration of the 8 core run.

Remember, there is a single threaded part to the benchmark (I put it in because I wanted to include a single threaded memory intensive test which put in some weight to single threaded performance of the CPU.)

TIA, waiting for the screen shot :up: :D

PS: First time SuperPrime has run on a 8 core clovertown machine :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mAJORD

I can see the images on this comp, but not on my other one.. same photobucket error. weird.

to cure your curiosity Kidoman the problem is:

all 1E8:

2.2ghz 1thread: 3.35
2.2ghz 4thread: 1.12m

2.4ghz 1thead: 3.15m
2.4ghz 4thread: 1.5m

---

Thanks. Yep all that is correct. Sorry full bandwidth ran out in 3 days.

Here's the links:
http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/6744/superpak7.png
http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/3...rpmultibz7.png

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/1...erp2400am0.png
http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/8...00multimf6.png

BTW your program (IE8) is very good for RAM stability testing. Much better than SuperPi 32M.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

Thanks. Yep all that is correct. Sorry full bandwidth ran out in 3 days.

Here's the links:
http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/6744/superpak7.png
http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/3...rpmultibz7.png

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/1...erp2400am0.png
http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/8...00multimf6.png

BTW your program (IE8) is very good for RAM stability testing. Much better than SuperPi 32M.

---

Thanks for your words.

I am gonna get cracking on AMD datasheet for its Barcy processors so that I can detect the cache sizes properly. The intel algorithm isn't working out too well evidently.

Also one request to you KTE (since you are the first guy to run Phenom on this :P)

Could you post a screen shot with the task manager showing the utilization of all the 4 cores and run a 4 core IE8? it will help me diagnose the anomaly in the results.

Remember, the last part of the benchmark is intentionally single threaded, to give weight to single thread performance (majority of apps in real world) as well as the multi threaded performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KiD0M4N

Could you post a screen shot with the task manager showing the utilization of all the 4 cores and run a 4 core IE8? it will help me diagnose the anomaly in the results.

---

Here you go :)

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/7051/cpuusageyz1.png

Some pointers:

It uses 88-97% CPU usage throughout. Stays from 92-94% most of the time.

Single thread section loads ALL cores 25% each. I can change this by setting affinity obviously. ;)

Also, there's a problem with it. If you cancel it early then it takes that time as your benchmark time. :p:

Q6600 @ 3.6GHz (400x9.0). Side note: I'm interested (as it seems many prime benchmarks are popping up), what algorithm are you using to calculate primes?

Heres the screenies you asked for, all background tasks shut off.
Final times were 24.XX sec and 1.39 min.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

Here you go :)

Some pointers:

It uses 88-97% CPU usage throughout. Stays from 92-94% most of the time. The threading efficiency goes down slightly with the number of cores I guess. With my C2D E6600, the CPU utilization stays pegged at 100% during most of the run.

Single thread section loads ALL cores 25% each. I can change this by setting affinity obviously. ;)

Also, there's a problem with it. If you cancel it early then it takes that time as your benchmark time. :p:

---

The threading efficiency goes down slightly with the number of cores I guess. With my C2D E6600, the CPU utilization stays pegged at 100% during most of the run.

When in the single thread section, the OS does the division of work... so to optimize your score, set the affinity :P

If you cancel prematurely, the score appears with a brown under line and will reflect the same when saved to the hard drive (did you try that feature btw :P)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metric

Q6600 @ 3.6GHz (400x9.0). Side note: I'm interested (as it seems many prime benchmarks are popping up), what algorithm are you using to calculate primes?

---

Nice score.... I am using "Coarse multi threading" instead of fine grained multithreading using a combination of primality algorithms ATM. The particular algorithm which is used is decided based on the "hugeness" of the number in question. And then some trickery to keep all the cores loaded to the hilt at all times :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC]Atomicpineapple

Heres the screenies you asked for, all background tasks shut off.
Final times were 24.XX sec and 1.39 min.

---

Thanks for the screen shot mate :) :)

So it is indeed loading all the cores :) I wish there was someone with > 8 cores in XS so I could test it at greater than 8 threads :)

A new version, 0.9.7 is coming out momentarily with updates to read cache information from AMD cpus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metric

Q6600 @ 3.6GHz (400x9.0). Side note: I'm interested (as it seems many prime benchmarks are popping up), what algorithm are you using to calculate primes?

---

Actually, I developed SuperPrime in Oct'06. After Nov'06 kinda lost touch because of work and then wPrime popped up.... but anyways, messa back, and committed to making this a helluva benchmark :P

New version (0.9.7) out people.

Includes AMD cache detection and couple of improvements. Please report back if it works as expected.

http://forums.erodov.com/local_links.php?catid=7

I've tried it before with P4, Celeron D and E6750. It loads Intel cores to 97-100% while loading AMD to 88-95%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KiD0M4N

When in the single thread section, the OS does the division of work... so to optimize your score, set the affinity :P

---

4 cores @ 1.8GHz, NB @ 1.96GHz, HT @ 1.47GHz, RAM @ 700MHz

4 threads - 4 cores
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/7...s4coresfr7.png

4 threads - 2 cores
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/857...s2coresrr3.png

2 threads - 2 cores
http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/3...threadsxg9.png

2 threads - 1 core
http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/4...ds1coreol3.png

1 thread - 1 core
http://picsorban.com/upload/1thread1core.png

1 thread - 2 cores
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/6...d2coresfq6.png

;)

Quote:

---

If you cancel prematurely, the score appears with a brown under line and will reflect the same when saved to the hard drive (did you try that feature btw :P)

---

Can't tell, I'm color blind :p:

Quote:

---

A new version, 0.9.7 is coming out momentarily with updates to read cache information from AMD cpus.

---

The dll you're using reads K10h speed wrongly. It'll do that for a while TBH because the speed is calculated in complex ways. Why not use the same method wPime uses to get CPU info?

Damn KTE! Thats some extensive testing :P :P Appreciate it :)

Now, the DLL which I am using is written by me from scratch since my search for a CPUID library failed miserably. It seems the real time CPU clock on the X4 is operating at the NB's frequency and not the core frequency. Interesting. (thats why the NB frequency is showing instead of the Core frequency, just a educated guess.)

Also slightly confused with your "x threads - y cores" results. For example, in the "2 threads - 1 core" screenshot, have you disabled 3 cores from the X4 and run the benchmark with the Core - 2 option? The 4 thread - 4 core result really intrigues me. Please post that screenshot (as mentioned below to help me debug this.)

I have updated my code to read the cache of AMD cpus now, care to give 0.9.7 a spin and please (if possible) take a screenshot of a 1E8 run (4 cores) + taskmanager (showing the 4 cores/utilization) + CPUz screenshot. You can use the "Screenshot" button on SuperPrime itself to easily save the screenshots :)

0.9.7: http://forums.erodov.com/local_links.php?catid=7

NB speed is what dictates CPU speed although it doesn't calculate it, if NB speed is too high it'll drop the CPU and HT speed right down to compensate. It's quite complex. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KiD0M4N

Also slightly confused with your "x threads - y cores" results. For example, in the "2 threads - 1 core" screenshot, have you disabled 3 cores from the X4 and run the benchmark with the Core - 2 option? The 4 thread - 4 core result really intrigues me. Please post that screenshot (as mentioned below to help me debug this.)

---

Let me clarify.

Cores = how many cores I enabled for the benchmark to use by setting Affinity (works fine).
Threads = how many cores I chose in SuperPrime.

SuperPrime ran 4 threads on 2 cores faster than 4 threads on 4 cores. ;)

BUT 2 threads on 1 core was slower than 2 threads on 2 cores (as expected)

Meaning, it has problems with over 2 cores. :(

CPU utilization stays as I said earlier for ALL runs.: 88-95%.

If I set affinity to 1 core with 1 thread, 2 threads, 3 threads or more, it'll stay at 88-95% on average.

If I set affinity to 4 cores with 1 thread, 2 threads, 3 threads or more, it'll stay at 88-95% on average.

I'm at work and have brought the system in but dep. head looks a little mad right now so can't access the system to start the tests with new build yet. :D

This behavious is quite weird... I will read up on the docs more so that I can code a different speed detection algorithm for the 10h family.

As stated here (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=13), the algorithm is scaling perfectly with the increased cores (upto 8 in that post, dual clovertown) but it seems weird with the Barcelona.

Waiting for your screenshot of the 4 thread 4 core run so that I get a idea on whats wrong and a validation of my cache detection code :)

PS: If you can point me to "any" tech doc which will aide in CPU Mhz calculation, I will be grateful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

NB speed is what dictates CPU speed although it doesn't calculate it, if NB speed is too high it'll drop the CPU and HT speed right down to compensate. It's quite complex. ;)

Let me clarify.

Cores = how many cores I enabled for the benchmark to use by setting Affinity (works fine).
Threads = how many cores I chose in SuperPrime.

SuperPrime ran 4 threads on 2 cores faster than 4 threads on 4 cores. ;)

BUT 2 threads on 1 core was slower than 2 threads on 2 cores (as expected)

Meaning, it has problems with over 2 cores. :(

CPU utilization stays as I said earlier for ALL runs.: 88-95%.

If I set affinity to 1 core with 1 thread, 2 threads, 3 threads or more, it'll stay at 88-95% on average.

If I set affinity to 4 cores with 1 thread, 2 threads, 3 threads or more, it'll stay at 88-95% on average.

I'm at work and have brought the system in but dep. head looks a little mad right now so can't access the system to start the tests with new build yet. :D

---

Windows is very accurate at getting Phenom frequency real-time and so is the RDTSC. If you want to grab that, use the Windows API Counters QueryPerformanceFrequency() and QueryPerformanceCounter().

I can't read this because I have no PDF software installed, but try it (attached).

I ran your latest BETA ;)

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/1622/24001090spjq0.png

http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/7207/sprbf0.png

I was looking throught wPrime and it seems its using a embedded CPUz program (from www.cpuid.com) to do the detection. I can do that as well, but thats not a very elegant solution. I will keep looking.

PS: Looked at your attachment, I went through that exact document (order# 25481) to code the cache detection algorithm. I think I am going to try the CPUz approach tonight :P

And I will definitely wanna work with to see why its utilizing only 88% cpu. Weird :/ On Intel quads, it uses 100% very nicely.

Getting a benchmark error with the 5E5 set :confused: (Both 0.9.6 and 0.9.7 are affected) Rest of the benchmark sets seem to be working.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metric

Getting a benchmark error with the 5E5 set :confused: (Both 0.9.6 and 0.9.7 are affected) Rest of the benchmark sets seem to be working.

---

Fixed that bug in the latest version :) :)

http://forums.erodov.com/local_links...tid=7#linkid15

http://www.superprime.org/

Code:

---

Changelog:

Version 0.9.8

- Added CPUz integration.
- Fixed a small bug in L1 cache detection for AMD processors.
- Improved (or not?) the threading algorithm to improve CPU utilization.
- Changed version to 0.9.8

---

Sorry for the slow bench..All I have is a server machine with those horrible FBDimms that everyone talks about..:p:
http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/1...ecloveros4.jpg

SneakPeak at 0.9.8.1..

Much cleaner layout.. Also, a new feature coming up..

http://forums.erodov.com/imagehostin...872b7cd5cf.png

Non-Optimised run.. =X

Well here's 2.7GHz Phenom 9500 for your comparison ;)

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/969/supersy7.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

Well here's 2.7GHz Phenom 9500 for your comparison ;)

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/969/supersy7.png

---

Glad to have you back on the thread mate.

0.9.8.2 version is out, and I took your advise. Pls give it a try and see if the detection of system parameters is improved.

http://forums.erodov.com/local_links...tid=7#linkid17

PS: KTE, didn't you get any auto update messages from 0.9.7?

Nope, I didn't get any update reminders. But it runs the check with the latest version fine.

Congrats on the new version! I like it, the layout is nicer, runs smooth, more CPU usage (92-98%), brilliant detection. It also runs faster. :toast:

Here's a quick run with it:
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/2654/superil9.th.png

Many thanks to Franck/CPUz :) :)

KTE, need one help from you. Since you are the only guy with a L3 cache here, care to PM/email me a register dump from your system?

Download CPUz 1.42 and About > Register Dump.
You already have my email id.

Will be able to fix that small little nagging bug once and for all.

I think the reduced CPU utilization compared to C2D, C2Q and Clovertowns is because of the TLB workaround? I think the stress on the TLB is causing the CPU to slow down substantially.

Anyone with a C2D care to post a result at around 2.6G? For a comparo against this Phenom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

Nope, I didn't get any update reminders. But it runs the check with the latest version fine.

Congrats on the new version! I like it, the layout is nicer, runs smooth, more CPU usage (92-98%), brilliant detection. It also runs faster. :toast:

Here's a quick run with it:
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/2654/superil9.th.png

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KiD0M4N

Many thanks to Franck/CPUz :) :)

KTE, need one help from you. Since you are the only guy with a L3 cache here, care to PM/email me a register dump from your system?

---

OK will do. I'm in work but I'm off because of two broken knuckles. :D

Quote:

---

I think the reduced CPU utilization compared to C2D, C2Q and Clovertowns is because of the TLB workaround? I think the stress on the TLB is causing the CPU to slow down substantially.

---

I don't experience the bug unless I go above 2.16GHz NB or above 2.86GHz CPU so I never applied the patch. ;)

Quote:

---

Anyone with a C2D care to post a result at around 2.6G? For a comparo against this Phenom.

---

I have one, I'll match the timings and post it. Gimme 30-45 minutes, I'm one handed. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

OK will do. I'm in work but I'm off because of two broken knuckles. :D
I don't experience the bug unless I go above 2.16GHz NB or above 2.86GHz CPU so I never applied the patch. ;)

I have one, I'll match the timings and post it. Gimme 30-45 minutes, I'm one handed. :D

---

Wah... thats cool. Thanks bhaijan :P

I am out of sorts seriously... why isnt the utilization pegged to 100% like in C2Ds... am I missing something somewhere.

Waiting for the register dump. :up:

Here its is. Off to start C2 system now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

Here its is. Off to start C2 system now.

---

THANKS and thanks....

Registers :P yum yum....

Can you integrate some sort of encripted validation in order to keep validate result? If you can, i will certainly open an competition ladder for this application on our community.

Here's an E6750 on P35 running 365x7 2555MHz (close enough?) with DDR2-912 4-4-4-4 2T PL5 (closest I could do): 58.62s ;)

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/4875/superqz4.th.png

I'm going to run the same test again on Phenom when I get time using only two cores and see what the difference from 2 core vs 4 core is.

C2D 6300 @458 MHz FSB
The Frequencies and the Multi are wrong

http://www.abload.de/thumb/superprimetd0.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mindmaster

C2D 6300 @458 MHz FSB
The Frequencies and the Multi are wrong

http://www.abload.de/thumb/superprimetd0.jpg

---

Hey,

First of all thnx for trying this out.

I have a request. Care to save the result (Right click on the result display > Save to file...) and host it here? I would love to figure out why its giving such a weird result.

Regards,
Karan Misra

Ask Mindmaster for CPU-Z screenshots. Then you can compare if its just your app or others too. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

Here's an E6750 on P35 running 365x7 2555MHz (close enough?) with DDR2-912 4-4-4-4 2T PL5 (closest I could do): 58.62s ;)

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/4875/superqz4.th.png

I'm going to run the same test again on Phenom when I get time using only two cores and see what the difference from 2 core vs 4 core is.

---

Yup, that will shed some light.

Here ya go.

X2 5000+ BE at same mult/speed/HT (etc) as Phenom 9500 (2 threads). Couldn't keep RAM frequency the same but it shouldn't matter that much. ;)

X2 - Phenom
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/6263/supertm1.th.png - http://img487.imageshack.us/img487/6...rk10dq6.th.png

This is what I don't understand about the bench. How can 2 threads on 2 cores (above) get the same or higher time than 4 threads on 2 cores (below)? :confused:
http://img490.imageshack.us/img490/7...2corjl1.th.png

Looks good, I noticed it doesn't run on 64-bit OS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G H Z

Looks good, I noticed it doesn't run on 64-bit OS.

---

Yup, it does. This was on win2K3 ent 64 bit:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...6&postcount=25

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G H Z

Looks good, I noticed it doesn't run on 64-bit OS.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

Yup, it does. This was on win2K3 ent 64 bit:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...6&postcount=25

---

Thanks for the confirmation.

I have personally run it on Vista X64 and tested it. Ran perfectly. G H Z did you try the latest version? 0.9.8.2

Let me know.

Regards,
Karan

A re-boot fixed the initial problem where sprime would simply dissapear after execution of the bench - something about checking single threaded results or similar in log window (.NET 3.5), now I can complete the bench.

Don't mind the temp differences, one quad is B3, the other G0.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...y/sprime_2.jpg

I do get a system error on completion, could be that this is a server with more security than a desktop.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...prime-er_2.jpg

Either way this is a nice program, only changes I'd suggest are to consider a a different naming scheme for the different test sequences, test/defense against speed hack programs & online validation.

Great work so far :)

Thanks so much G H Z :up: :up: :up: :up: :welcome: :woot:

I am working feveresly on the online validation and result submission. If you see, I have worked some kind of encryption into the results, and I will always be around (unless Global warming floods my home, i.e.) to take care of "those dem haxxers!" if need be. A method of checking is already incorporated (something to do with the single threaded checking :P)

I will definitely work on the naming scheme of the runs. Any suggestions?

I am myself developing this on VS2008 (.NET 3.5) but the application profile set to .NET 2.0 so as to make sure it runs everywhere with atleast 2.0 installed.

I will definitely try this on a server enviroment (VMware, here I come) and try to get that error fixed.

@David: Did you get the same error in the ~19 sec 1E8 run of yours? I think both are on Windows Server 2003 OS? (both yours and G H Z's run i.e.)

Regards,
Karan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G H Z

A re-boot fixed the initial problem where sprime would simply dissapear after execution of the bench - something about checking single threaded results or similar in log window (.NET 3.5), now I can complete the bench.

Don't mind the temp differences, one quad is B3, the other G0.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...y/sprime_2.jpg

I do get a system error on completion, could be that this is a server with more security than a desktop.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...prime-er_2.jpg

Either way this is a nice program, only changes I'd suggest are to consider a a different naming scheme for the different test sequences, test/defense against speed hack programs & online validation.

Great work so far :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KiD0M4N

Thanks so much G H Z :up: :up: :up: :up: :welcome: :woot:

I am working feveresly on the online validation and result submission. If you see, I have worked some kind of encryption into the results, and I will always be around (unless Global warming floods my home, i.e.) to take care of "those dem haxxers!" if need be. A method of checking is already incorporated (something to do with the single threaded checking :P)

I will definitely work on the naming scheme of the runs. Any suggestions?

I am myself developing this on VS2008 (.NET 3.5) but the application profile set to .NET 2.0 so as to make sure it runs everywhere with atleast 2.0 installed.

I will definitely try this on a server enviroment (VMware, here I come) and try to get that error fixed.

@David: Did you get the same error in the ~19 sec 1E8 run of yours? I think both are on Windows Server 2003 OS? (both yours and G H Z's run i.e.)

Regards,
Karan

---

I didn't get any errors at all. Just installed, bumped the machine up a little and let it fly..
Perfect.:D

here's mine, the cpu speed is a bit wrong...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrogBite

here's mine, the cpu speed is a bit wrong...

---

I hope so or you just cut my clovers time in 1/2:rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrogBite

here's mine, the cpu speed is a bit wrong...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

I hope so or you just cut my clovers time in 1/2:rofl:

---

Na, that was a 5E7 run... + not valid (see the brown line below the score) + I have no clue why it didn't detect your hardware properly.

FrogBite, care to send me your CPUz dump so I can fix it right up? Thanks again.

here

GHZ: the error you were getting is typical of RAM instability/fault. I use this app to test my RAM, far better than 32M/2k6. Is your RAM perfect with Memtest?

SuperPrime catches RAM instability very quickly.

really like this keep up the good work

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrogBite

here

---

Thanks for the dump FrogBite.

I ran it through the benchmark and it recognized the settings perfectly. Even though the dump was from 1.38 Cpuz (thanks againt Franck :P)

http://www.imgx.org/pthumbs/small/3899/itsworking.jpg

(ignore that error in timing measurement, will fix that small little in next version.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

GHZ: the error you were getting is typical of RAM instability/fault. I use this app to test my RAM, far better than 32M/2k6. Is your RAM perfect with Memtest?

SuperPrime catches RAM instability very quickly.

---

:) Glad to know that. But I would love to catch the error and show it as a exception rather than as a system error. Am working on that now :)

It would be good but hefty work Karan. Because the error can sometimes be a combination of CPU+RAM. It's also good that it doesn't freeze/reboot your system but just crashes the app with the error. I've tried it at very unstable clocks to test. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

GHZ: the error you were getting is typical of RAM instability/fault.

---

Yeah it's perfect. This system is stock and in some cases I don't even bother testing when there's too many boxes to look at, this one happened to get a little more personal attention :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G H Z

Yeah it's perfect. This system is stock and in some cases I don't even bother testing when there's too many boxes to look at, this one happened to get a little more personal attention :up:

---

That error was definitely one off...

I had asked a couple of friends of mine to test it at unstable ocs (where 1M was completing... but P95 worker threads were crashing)... SuperPrime simply rebooted their system.

Since this is managed code, there are 0 memory leaks... so that is out of question. Whats possible is I am, in a certain combination of conditions, released a memory block too early... I will definitely look "DEEP" into this.

@KTE: Yea bro, if it is the CPU, the CLR would crash and would give any sort of exception to me. Let me put some catch conditions around it anyway.

@GHZ: Are you able to repeat the crash everytime? Like... does it crash and then show the result?

Those are just some of my test findings, could be applicable and also unapplicable. If I have an unstable oc on RAM or CPU (pass everything but fail Memtest/P95 in-place large FFT 3 hr), I get no crash on running SuperPrime. It will run on completion and then show up the error towards the final single threaded bench.

I tested RAM CR 1 and 2 like this at DDR2-800, DDR2-900, DDR2-1000 and DDR2-1200. Because 32M would pass with ease but not SuperPrime. If Cinebench 10 (multi) runs fine, then it won't be RAM/CPU fault related. :)

Was stress testing y'day and this was a saved run.

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/8929/sppi1.jpg

Full settings were (apart from CR which was 2):
http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/4452/setuphu4.jpg

Hi KTE!

:welcome: :up: :shocked: for the thorough testing of the SuperPrime benchmark.

I have a new release for you and it incorporates some suggestions I have received from here and other forums.

Changelog:

Code:

---

Version 0.9.8.3

- Fixed error detection logic to the entire benchmark.
- Renamed the benchmarks to give them more meaning.
- Quadrapuled the memory usage and the intensity of memory checking.
- Fixed certain flaws in the system information detection phase.
- Changed version to 0.9.8.3

---

Download link: http://forums.erodov.com/local_links.php?catid=7

You should (hopefully....) have been intimated about the same by the earlier versions of SuperPrime as well.

A example run:

http://forums.erodov.com/imagehostin...dc2f4b726f.png

Please let me know how this one fares for you :) :)

Regards,
Karan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

Those are just some of my test findings, could be applicable and also unapplicable. If I have an unstable oc on RAM or CPU (pass everything but fail Memtest/P95 in-place large FFT 3 hr), I get no crash on running SuperPrime. It will run on completion and then show up the error towards the final single threaded bench.

I tested RAM CR 1 and 2 like this at DDR2-800, DDR2-900, DDR2-1000 and DDR2-1200. Because 32M would pass with ease but not SuperPrime. If Cinebench 10 (multi) runs fine, then it won't be RAM/CPU fault related. :)

Was stress testing y'day and this was a saved run.

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/8929/sppi1.jpg

Full settings were (apart from CR which was 2):
http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/4452/setuphu4.jpg

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KiD0M4N

@GHZ: Are you able to repeat the crash everytime? Like... does it crash and then show the result?

---

I tested 9.8.2 again today on the same server and did not see the error again...maybe we can blame MS for this one ;)

9.8.3 looks good, I will run a couple of tests tomorrow :up:

Karan yaar, I've ran the latest version again. Stock. ;)
You can compare to older run here: http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/3...rpmultibz7.png

It's much better now, the CPU usage is excellent and all the config is picked up. But the "checking results" takes a little while longer than the previous version. Still made some excellent improvements very quick! :toast:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G H Z

I tested 9.8.2 again today on the same server and did not see the error again...maybe we can blame MS for this one ;)

9.8.3 looks good, I will run a couple of tests tomorrow :up:

---

Thanks G H Z, waiting :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

Karan yaar, I've ran the latest version again. Stock. ;)
You can compare to older run here: http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/3...rpmultibz7.png

It's much better now, the CPU usage is excellent and all the config is picked up. But the "checking results" takes a little while longer than the previous version. Still made some excellent improvements very quick! :toast:

---

KTE mere bhai, I have more than 4x the memory used during the actual benchmark and during the "Checking Result" stage.

Care to give this a run near 3G? Would love to see how X4 scales the benchmark with increased CPU powah.

Regards,
Karan

Someone please complete the 256M run on a 64bit machine and post back with the results.... and if possible, a attached .sprime file (right click result > Save.) I need to validate that run... and I cannot run 256M as I don't have a 32bit OS ATM.

I'll try near 2.8GHz when I can. This CPU won't bench something this intensive past those MHz, although I've benched 2.84GHz in 3DMark06. Which shows you how good of a stability tester your app really is. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

I'll try near 2.8GHz when I can. This CPU won't bench something this intensive past those MHz, although I've benched 2.84GHz in 3DMark06. Which shows you how good of a stability tester your app really is. :)

---

I think the intensity should have increased somewhat with 9.8.3

Looking forward to some numbers from 2.8Ghz X4.... :) :) :welcome: , and thanks :) :up:

Hehe, just for you Karan. ;)

Believe me, it is very hard to run these new AMD X4, sometimes even 1MHz above stock does not boot up. Not as easy as X2/C2. So I battled it to bits today. The 2850MHz ran, but it errored towards the end repeatedly. This is what I said about "instability" showing up after you press "Done":
http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/2...rrorcv2.th.jpg

Fastest I ran today successfully was 2816MHz. Some similar runs to show scaling.

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/863/2717smke2.jpg http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/739/2750smxr9.jpg http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/1530/2795smsr3.jpg http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/5886/2816smew7.jpg

:up:

There is something wrong with the new build. It runs all test fine until the "checking rsuklts" stage where it takes 4 minutes and then just gives the error above. We are talking stock everything here while the system hardware is completely fine. :confused:

Here's adding a 3.6G C2 quad.

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/441...estscu8.th.png

You still around karan? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

Here's adding a 3.6G C2 quad.

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/441...estscu8.th.png

You still around karan? :confused:

---

Ofcourse I am here :P I am working on the next major build. Yes it slightly slowed down, but a lot of features are being added :) :)

Karan, have you made the source code available?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

Karan, have you made the source code available?

---

Because of the way the validation works, won't it make it a very hackable benchmark (if it takes off i.e.)

You're right in a way there, good thinking. ;)
We have too much of benchmark hacking going on nowadays already and it's next to impossible to catch and ruins all the benchmark.. as well as just hacking in general. :D

My only point of asking was to look over your CPUZ implementation (to load the appropriate system details), nothing else really. Since you have it working very well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

You're right in a way there, good thinking. ;)
We have too much of benchmark hacking going on nowadays already and it's next to impossible to catch and ruins all the benchmark.. as well as just hacking in general. :D

My only point of asking was to look over your CPUZ implementation (to load the appropriate system details), nothing else really. Since you have it working very well.

---

I can guide you on the CPUz implementation over IM :welcome:

Also, think your system is stable, give this a run and be ready for some surprises:

http://forums.erodov.com/imagehostin...f723f08841.jpg

Code:

---

Version 0.9.9

- Changed the benchmark subsystem to use Intel LINPACK libraries.
- Added a "stability" checking mode.
- Added a explicit option to run the 64bit version of the benchmark on capable OS.
- Changed version to 0.9.9

---

http://forums.erodov.com/local_links.php?catid=7

SuperPrime™ - A benchmark to reckon with! - www.erodov.com

Regards,
Karan