Default clocks@cinebench2003
mulitiple cpu 1347pts@19.5s
Default clocks@cinebench2003
mulitiple cpu 1347pts@19.5s
19sec at default
Thank you!!!
woot!!!!!
E6600 @ 3.6
IN9 32x MAX
EVGA 8800Ultra
750W
The only difference between Coolaler and a crystal ball is that Coolaler has a pulse.
E8400 @ 3.84Ghz 1.25v LOAD
ABIT IP35 PRO
4 GB G.SKILL F2-8000CL5D-4GBPQ
EVGA 8800 ULTRA 660/1110
PC POWER & COOLING 750 QUAD
THERMALRIGHT ULTRA 120 EXTREME
2 X SEAGATE BARRACUDA ES.2 ST3250310NS 250GB RAID 0
sisoft test
Can we compare the cinebench results with :
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.
Last edited by Ailleur; 06-20-2006 at 06:42 PM.
AMD
Intel 9990XE @ 5.1Ghz
ASUS Rampage VI Extreme Omega
GTX 2080 ti Galax Hall of Fame
64GB Galax Hall of Fame
Intel Optane
Platimax 1245W
Intel 3175X
Asus Dominus Extreme
GRX 1080ti Galax Hall of Fame
96GB Patriot Steel
Intel Optane 900P RAID
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.
hahahahahahahaOriginally Posted by FUGGER
retired computer enthusiast
1 core 63 seconds, 4 cores 19 secondes, 63/4=16Originally Posted by ethernal
Looks pretty damn linear to me.
The image i copied is from another test coolaler ran with a "regular" e6700
Last edited by Ailleur; 06-20-2006 at 06:52 PM.
3D Mark 2006!
Originally Posted by dmn_link (Gamespot)
[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...
Last edited by lutjens; 06-20-2006 at 06:52 PM.
Server: HP Proliant ML370 G6, 2x Xeon X5690, 144GB ECC Registered, 8x OCZ Vertex 3 MAX IOPS 240GB on LSi 9265-8i (RAID 0), 12x Seagate Constellation ES.2 3TB SAS on LSi 9280-24i4e (RAID 6) and dual 1200W redundant power supplies.
Gamer: Intel Core i7 6950X@4.2GHz, Rampage Edition 10, 128GB (8x16GB) Corsair Dominator Platinum 2800MHz, 2x NVidia Titan X (Pascal), Corsair H110i, Vengeance C70 w/Corsair AX1500i, Intel P3700 2TB (boot), Samsung SM961 1TB (Games), 2x Samsung PM1725 6.4TB (11.64TB usable) Windows Software RAID 0 (local storage).
Beater: Xeon E5-1680 V3, NCase M1, ASRock X99-iTX/ac, 2x32GB Crucial 2400MHz RDIMMs, eVGA Titan X (Maxwell), Samsung 950 Pro 512GB, Corsair SF600, Asetek 92mm AIO water cooler.
Server/workstation: 2x Xeon E5-2687W V2, Asus Z9PE-D8, 256GB 1866MHz Samsung LRDIMMs (8x32GB), eVGA Titan X (Maxwell), 2x Intel S3610 1.6TB SSD, Corsair AX1500i, Chenbro SR10769, Intel P3700 2TB.
Thanks for the help (or lack thereof) in resolving my P3700 issue, FUGGER...
TMPGEnc
4CPU already in the preferences
muliti CPU transfer dual files
compare with
Conroe@2.95G
Merom@2.96G
quad cores win
*has seizure out of amazement*
I demand superpi times! lol
3200+ (looking for nice opty or 4400+) stock clocks :: Ocz gold 2x1GB ddr500 @ 250mhz
BFG 7900gtx OC stock (saving for another):: dfi lanparty ultra-d modded to SLI
OCZ modstream 520W :: 160gb WD IDE
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...
AMD X2 3800+ 2.5ghz 1.36vcore
Big Typhoon (19 Idle/ 38 Load)
DFI NF4 Ultra-D
1 Gig OCZ PC3200 Gold
BFG 7900GS (675,880)
OCZ Powerstream 520w
You realize that you are calculating that 54% performance increase between chips with two different clock speeds?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?
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.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
DFI P965-S/core 2 quad q6600@3.2ghz/4gb gskill ddr2 @ 800mhz cas 4/xfx gtx 260/ silverstone op650/thermaltake xaser 3 case/razer lachesis
stock vcore limit
Originally Posted by coolaler
AMD X2 3800+ 2.5ghz 1.36vcore
Big Typhoon (19 Idle/ 38 Load)
DFI NF4 Ultra-D
1 Gig OCZ PC3200 Gold
BFG 7900GS (675,880)
OCZ Powerstream 520w
oh myOriginally Posted by coolaler
what are the temps like compared to Conroe
Someone at AMD passed out?someone at amd just passed out lol
Fugger and I just hit the floor stone cold!
If you have a cooling question or concern feel free to contact me.
CPU queen
CPU z
Bookmarks