Here is mine:
Windows XP MCE x32 of course
Just warm-up with funky new Phenom 9950 (20 minutes in my comp)!
More to come (I hope)!
Here is mine:
Windows XP MCE x32 of course
Just warm-up with funky new Phenom 9950 (20 minutes in my comp
More to come (I hope)!
RiG1: Ryzen 7 1700 @4.0GHz 1.39V, Asus X370 Prime, G.Skill RipJaws 2x8GB 3200MHz CL14 Samsung B-die, TuL Vega 56 Stock, Samsung SS805 100GB SLC SDD (OS Drive) + 512GB Evo 850 SSD (2nd OS Drive) + 3TB Seagate + 1TB Seagate, BeQuiet PowerZone 1000W
RiG2: HTPC AMD A10-7850K APU, 2x8GB Kingstone HyperX 2400C12, AsRock FM2A88M Extreme4+, 128GB SSD + 640GB Samsung 7200, LG Blu-ray Recorder, Thermaltake BACH, Hiper 4M880 880W PSU
SmartPhone Samsung Galaxy S7 EDGE
XBONE paired with 55''Samsung LED 3D TV
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:
Particle's First Rule of Online Technical Discussion:
As a thread about any computer related subject has its length approach infinity, the likelihood and inevitability of a poorly constructed AMD vs. Intel fight also exponentially increases.
Likewise, the frequency of a car pseudoanalogy to explain a technical concept increases with thread length. This will make many people chuckle, as computer people are rarely knowledgeable about vehicular mechanics.
Rule 2:
When confronted with a post that is contrary to what a poster likes, believes, or most often wants to be correct, the poster will pick out only minor details that are largely irrelevant in an attempt to shut out the conflicting idea. The core of the post will be left alone since it isn't easy to contradict what the person is actually saying.
Rule 2A:
When a poster cannot properly refute a post they do not like (as described above), the poster will most likely invent fictitious counter-points and/or begin to attack the other's credibility in feeble ways that are dramatic but irrelevant. Do not underestimate this tactic, as in the online world this will sway many observers. Do not forget: Correctness is decided only by what is said last, the most loudly, or with greatest repetition.
Rule 3:
When it comes to computer news, 70% of Internet rumors are outright fabricated, 20% are inaccurate enough to simply be discarded, and about 10% are based in reality. Grains of salt--become familiar with them.
Remember: When debating online, everyone else is ALWAYS wrong if they do not agree with you!
Random Tip o' the Whatever
You just can't win. If your product offers feature A instead of B, people will moan how A is stupid and it didn't offer B. If your product offers B instead of A, they'll likewise complain and rant about how anyone's retarded cousin could figure out A is what the market wants.
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
E7300 at 4GHz, 6GB DDR2-1000, Biostar TPower I45, Velociraptor 150GB.
Here's my result. It's a killer.
EDIT: 8308 KCUs
T2350 @ 1862mhz
1gb DDR2 @ 266mhz 4-3-3-6 with tweaked subtimings
Last edited by theclash; 10-13-2008 at 05:49 PM.
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
The Cardboard Master Crunch with us, the XS WCG team
Intel Core i7 2600k @ 4.5GHz, 16GB DDR3-1600, Radeon 7950 @ 1000/1250, Win 10 Pro x64
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
www.teampclab.pl
MOA 2009 Poland #2, AMD Black Ops 2010, MOA 2011 Poland #1, MOA 2011 EMEA #12
Test bench: empty
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.
Last edited by VenXS; 10-16-2008 at 01:16 AM.
Kind of a fun little thing. I like it
dx58so
w3520@4100
4x1gb corsair ddr3-1333
gtx 295
TR ultra-x, 2 scythe ultrakaze push/pull
xclio stablepower 1000
vista ultimate
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
-------------------------------
would you crunch if you thought it would save her life?
maybe it will!
Originally Posted by xoqolatl
I thought I had it on my laptop but I don't
The Cardboard Master Crunch with us, the XS WCG team
Intel Core i7 2600k @ 4.5GHz, 16GB DDR3-1600, Radeon 7950 @ 1000/1250, Win 10 Pro x64
well dual qauds intel's and no 4x4 testers that's ashamed....
HAVE NO FEAR!
"AMD fallen angel"
You didn't get the memo? 1 hour 'Fugger time' is equal to 12 hours of regular time.
I did post my Dual Quad...
I seen it but that's two INTEL quad
I did post my Dual Quad...
I don't see two AMD quad's on board posted
Last edited by demonkevy666; 10-18-2008 at 04:23 PM.
HAVE NO FEAR!
"AMD fallen angel"
You didn't get the memo? 1 hour 'Fugger time' is equal to 12 hours of regular time.
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?
Rig specs
CPU: i7 5960X Mobo: Asus X99 Deluxe RAM: 4x4GB G.Skill DDR4-2400 CAS-15 VGA: 2x eVGA GTX680 Superclock PSU: Corsair AX1200
Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
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
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 machineAnd from the program creator:It looks like whichever compiler did this job it wasn't very good at compiling for AMD64
Rig specs
CPU: i7 5960X Mobo: Asus X99 Deluxe RAM: 4x4GB G.Skill DDR4-2400 CAS-15 VGA: 2x eVGA GTX680 Superclock PSU: Corsair AX1200
Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
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
Rig specs
CPU: i7 5960X Mobo: Asus X99 Deluxe RAM: 4x4GB G.Skill DDR4-2400 CAS-15 VGA: 2x eVGA GTX680 Superclock PSU: Corsair AX1200
Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
Yeah if he says so... just don't think multicore optimization works as well in x86.
Who still runs x86 anyways?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks