The CDT and copywaza lab

[KTE]

give them a try, it's worth

OK mate. Just keep in mind that I know the code of the files already so I'm aware of what they do. Crap Cleaner works wonders too. In fact, there's another software called "cleaner" which totally erases empty marked spaces on the HDD that seems to help benches a little which I normally would use. I try to keep things simple so they are reproducible. I don't have hours to do this, I bet I have less than half the free time than most XS visitors, daily and I'm quite phobic to staying indoors much.

But if we are trying to test CDT (the point of the thread) then we should at least be following what we are told is the procedure.

I already have. As a volunteer tester since the beginning of this thread due to seeing the reluctance of most others from doing so, one who normally doesn't even run Super Pi, ever, travelling 2x 1000 miles to build a system just for that testing; don't you reckon I would've tried what was said out word for word many times until I become a fly? Just because I didn't write out 512-512 doesn't mean I didn't test it on every testing to know there is no difference in 32M for me. It's not like I haven't tested 512-512 to not know. However, if it makes you happy that I only keep 512-512 from now on on every single test, then fair enough.

Notice that 512 is a close number to what cache ends up?

Yep, but it makes zero difference in my case since around 50x 32M tries now and the cache ends up >515 with me regardless of what pagefile I set, even if I set it to no pagefile. 1M is definitely slower with 512-512 PF for me, repeatedly.

I'm going to be changing to the Abit board in ~2 hours so if you want me to run any other tests on DS4, then please mention it now. Won't be building it back again.

1M slows down with this CDT method quite considerably (for me now) and it slows down with CW too (slows with anything that increases cache including extracting a big RAR file). Same CDT/CW that gave gains before. I had a feeling since the start that the slowing down is caused by one typical service being disabled but I haven't ran many tests to confirm this yet I have experienced it before. Which service? Plug and Play and yes that's odd. Another one I already know about is the Themes services. If disabled on this build it will slow the time down very much yet not on another XP install I have.

Join us in part two when we unravel the mysteries of Super Pi after it sleeps with CDT...

[dinos22]

it would be really nice to see someone show results similar to OPB particularly in 1M

[kiwi]

Here is the link but I don't understand their language, sorry

http://forum.coolaler.com/showthread.php?t=158520

[CapFTP]

Here is the link but I don't understand their language, sorry

http://forum.coolaler.com/showthread.php?t=158520

neither I...but basically seems to tell always the same things:
the .reg file, the net stop which kills the services

yes, there are a couple of processes that I don't recognize...I tested same batch file and reg yesterday evening.

I 'm testin on my system exactly as reported by massman (i had these pics from kind courtesy of OBP).
On my system i have clearly some problem to run as it (probably) should....even with this method i always have the available mem = system cache-25/30 MB and I don't succeed in balancing...

i'll go on testing again, hope I can understand the point.....

[KTE]

it would be really nice to see someone show results similar to OPB particularly in 1M

Before I could even begin to test that, I need high FSB which I can't get. I'm also not sure of what other tweaks he tried because I've not spoken to him. Is that the only tweak which made him get that v.fast time? Everything could make a difference and I know many of the "Super Pi" guys believe they should never give their secret away to anyone else which gives them an edge over another. If that's the case, then no one has any room to know everything of what OPB did unfortuantely, thus no replication.

On my system i have clearly some problem to run as it (probably) should....even with this method i always have the available mem = system cache-25/30 MB and I don't succeed in balancing...

Make sure to recheck the LSC value right before the run. When I was experiencing this, it was being reset to 0 automatically and causing low numbers.

Also try two different drives rather than two different partitions. It may help, it did with me.

I'm going to mess about more tonight to see what it can do.

[Supertim0r]

I already posted this somewhere (don't remember where)

***please keep in mind i'm really BAD at tweaking for spi. I don't know anything about CW or CDT (and I don't want to )***

this was a brief test with the 4 files/tweaks shown in my last post.

stock, fresh install daily os = 13m21.547s

stock, fresh install daily os BUT with ONLY those 4 tweaks applied = 13m04.562s

[mrlobber]

this was a brief test with the 4 files/tweaks shown in my last post.

stock, fresh install daily os = 13m21.547s

stock, fresh install daily os BUT with ONLY those 4 tweaks applied = 13m04.562s

The gain you're seeing is mostly from LargeSystemCache=1 tweak which is by default disabled in WinXP

[dinos22]

Before I could even begin to test that, I need high FSB which I can't get. I'm also not sure of what other tweaks he tried because I've not spoken to him. Is that the only tweak which made him get that v.fast time? Everything could make a difference and I know many of the "Super Pi" guys believe they should never give their secret away to anyone else which gives them an edge over another. If that's the case, then no one has any room to know everything of what OPB did unfortuantely, thus no replication.
Make sure to recheck the LSC value right before the run. When I was experiencing this, it was being reset to 0 automatically and causing low numbers.

Also try two different drives rather than two different partitions. It may help, it did with me.

I'm going to mess about more tonight to see what it can do.

superpi is not that mysterious and the best superpi benchers traditionally have always been Japanese (no pun intended to anyone else) and we all know how open Japanese benchers were and share absolutely everything and people match/beat them in efficiency now.

OPB has put up a CDT thread with those benches as examples of how much it impacts performance hence why i believe that is what was used but no matter how much i try i just cannot seem to do better than norm (best tweaks possible aside from those runs)

we've all been hammering it all hard and getting the times on the board with 32M challenge thread for example and no bencher has even done remotely close to 32M efficiency shown there....12m 39s 32M with cas5 and ~55x on RAM which absolutely amazing to say the least.

i've done some testing and it isn't making much difference. I am not saying it isn't possible but since it was shared one would assume that it would be possible to replicate or beat those times if you have 600MHz CAS4 on RAM compared to those runs right......i have CPUs capable of doing 600MHz FSB as well no worries but those times i am just scratching my head and wondering what's up.....it's a monster tweak and so far no one has replicated it. relative difference means nothing to me. I am interested in seeing those times or better times with same or better system configuration. I know that you and a couple of others have done a great job testing so far but it is hard to conclude a tweak works when you are producing numbers i can get without any tweaks

i don't have exact same system but that should not matter....if it did the runs could be bugged as you should be able to replicate it on any half decent system and i've got one i think