stephenbrooks.orgForumMuon1GeneralBenchmarking with Mpts thread
Username: Password:
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Search site:
Subscribe to thread via RSS
[XS]riptide
2008-06-05 19:51:02
Assimilator.  Yes I had a scan through and I rememeber this.  But it goes against my nature to have 95% CPU usage.  IN fact 95% CPU usage is for Pussies . 100% or GTFO.  lol
Silverthorne
2008-06-06 22:48:46
Here's some new results for the Q9300. This time the FSB was at 450mhz putting the processor at 3352 but the memory was running at a 5:6 divider which put it at 536mhz.  I'm still tweaking the bios to see what I can get out of this Q9300. The first two results kinda throw things off and put me at 1469 kpts/sec but if I throw those two out I'm hitting 1476 kpts/sec.

Uptime (secs),Mpts in file,Estimate kpts/sec
10446,424547.6,0.00
11346,425647.1,1221.46
12246,426864.3,1286.83
12846,428077.2,1470.38
13446,428877.5,1443.03
14347,430103.5,1424.32
15247,431308.5,1408.25
19147,437350.2,1471.29
19748,438387.0,1487.83
20648,439596.9,1475.15
21548,440736.8,1458.22
22148,441952.1,1487.29
23048,443154.6,1476.48
23948,444397.9,1470.12
24248,445131.8,1491.33
25149,446407.2,1486.77
25449,446511.0,1463.96
26049,447634.1,1479.63
26949,448850.2,1472.61
27849,450065.8,1466.29
31750,456212.0,1486.31
32050,456469.3,1477.58
32650,457539.7,1485.85
33550,458691.8,1477.82
34450,459902.7,1472.84
34751,460657.7,1485.73
35051,460686.5,1468.78
35651,461905.8,1482.18
36551,463112.7,1477.31
37151,464230.5,1485.96
38051,465438.7,1481.27
38951,466675.9,1477.89
39852,467785.7,1470.39
40452,468999.6,1481.44
41352,470284.0,1479.85
42252,471498.4,1476.15
43152,472716.0,1472.75
43752,473929.5,1482.64
47953,479973.6,1477.73
48553,481202.6,1486.71
48853,481458.7,1481.77
49754,482664.2,1478.50
50354,483878.2,1486.69
51254,485089.3,1483.57
51854,486082.9,1486.07
52454,486637.0,1478.03
53054,487845.6,1485.58
53954,489077.9,1483.16
54855,490219.4,1478.80
55455,491468.7,1486.84
56355,492680.9,1484.09
57255,493894.3,1481.47
58155,495110.4,1479.01
59055,496354.7,1477.22
59656,497592.3,1484.35
60256,498451.1,1483.71
61456,500023.5,1479.63
62356,501273.3,1478.04
62956,502488.6,1484.30
63856,503711.9,1482.19
64757,504933.8,1480.12
65357,505715.8,1478.18
69257,511757.5,1482.87
70158,512978.4,1480.96
71058,514122.0,1477.83
Silverthorne
2008-06-06 23:34:32
The above FSB should have been 447 not 450.
Silverthorne
2008-06-09 02:14:29
Here's the results for the Q9300 running at a FSB of 450. I tossed out the first result because it was so high and thought it would really throw things off.  This time I'm hitting 1503 kpts/sec.

Uptime (secs),Mpts in file,Estimate kpts/sec
18216,546401.5,0.00
18816,547614.5,2021.27
19717,548836.1,1622.75
20317,549876.8,1654.60
21217,551089.5,1562.38
22117,552365.9,1529.05
23017,553561.0,1491.28
23617,554768.9,1549.22
24518,555981.9,1520.41
28418,562051.5,1534.01
29319,563290.4,1521.22
30219,564382.9,1498.16
30819,565598.1,1523.24
31119,565641.9,1491.22
31719,566864.6,1515.49
32619,568088.4,1505.74
33519,569317.7,1497.50
34119,570384.1,1508.05
35020,571604.7,1499.90
38920,577646.4,1509.12
39821,578862.6,1502.53
40721,579973.8,1491.81
41321,581189.5,1505.68
42221,582402.6,1499.75
43121,583626.8,1494.70
43721,584804.0,1505.69
44321,585612.5,1502.05
45222,586831.5,1497.12
46122,587972.7,1489.72
46722,589174.0,1500.50
47022,589338.3,1490.57
47922,590550.4,1486.21
51823,596592.1,1493.48
52723,598005.3,1495.47
53623,599223.8,1491.87
53923,599920.0,1498.83
54823,601070.6,1493.40
55724,602293.1,1490.15
56324,603509.7,1498.61
57224,604729.4,1495.30
58124,605946.7,1492.07
59024,607161.7,1488.93
59624,608378.2,1496.73
60525,609581.4,1493.32
61425,610761.7,1489.53
62025,611777.7,1492.32
65926,617819.4,1496.94
66826,619040.2,1494.33
67726,620278.1,1492.16
68326,621079.8,1490.29
68926,622284.1,1496.40
69527,623258.7,1497.89
70427,624251.6,1491.09
71027,625455.8,1496.94
71927,626670.8,1494.48
72827,627918.0,1492.68
73727,629222.5,1491.97
77628,635264.2,1495.70
78529,636425.6,1492.63
79129,637627.1,1497.65
80029,638846.7,1495.57
80329,639076.4,1492.05
81229,640294.7,1490.06
81829,641510.0,1495.11
85730,647551.7,1498.21
86030,647659.1,1493.17
86631,648536.4,1492.89
87531,649714.9,1490.51
91432,655771.9,1493.82
Stephen Brooks
2008-06-19 11:49:06
Do we need a new graph now?
[TA]JonB
2008-06-27 14:06:26
I'll add some numbers for my new Quad Core AMD Phenom 9550. I ran it with stock settings until adding a new Scythe Infinity cooler, but now I'm bummping up the clock. 

Stock, the processor has a 200/800 FSB with an 11x multiplier. 
32580,1392989.8,0.00
34081,1394208.8,812.36
40983,1400340.8,874.82
42183,1401553.7,891.77
49086,1407680.7,890.03
49986,1408551.6,894.03
50887,1409110.4,880.59
52087,1410333.3,889.09
53588,1411529.2,882.51
54788,1412478.7,877.56
55989,1413700.6,884.76
57489,1414936.3,881.07
58990,1416159.6,877.33
65592,1422280.4,887.28
66792,1423507.5,892.02
68293,1424728.7,888.73
69793,1425949.2,885.69
70994,1427170.3,889.81
72494,1428356.0,886.06
79097,1434483.0,892.01
80297,1435696.1,894.99
81798,1436918.9,892.55
82998,1437861.3,889.99
84498,1439083.1,887.81
84798,1439369.6,888.19
85999,1440547.4,890.28
87499,1441780.0,888.40
88700,1443001.7,891.17
90200,1444215.5,889.03
91401,1445321.4,889.68
92601,1446396.1,889.80
93801,1447600.9,892.03
95002,1448813.9,894.31
96502,1450043.6,892.55
97703,1451251.3,894.65
98303,1451682.6,893.04
99503,1452889.5,895.05
100704,1453938.0,894.67
101904,1455162.9,896.85
102204,1455304.3,895.01
103105,1456006.3,893.54
104305,1457238.4,895.76
105505,1458461.3,897.79
105805,1458501.0,894.65
107006,1459724.4,896.66
108506,1460956.2,895.16
109707,1462174.0,897.02
110007,1462370.3,896.08
111207,1463592.3,897.94
112708,1464824.8,896.51
113608,1465798.5,898.57
113908,1465832.6,895.67


Then I bumped it a conservative 5% to 210/840 FSB.  Temperatures didn't change much.
Uptime (secs),Mpts in file,Estimate kpts/sec
13407,1810440.3,0.00
14608,1811674.7,1028.12
15809,1812909.3,1028.13
17310,1814141.1,948.40
18510,1815370.0,966.08
24813,1821495.6,969.25
26314,1822737.5,952.77
27515,1823990.0,960.47
29015,1825209.1,946.23
30216,1826440.5,951.90
31417,1827664.6,956.41
32617,1828842.5,957.95
34118,1830093.4,948.94
34418,1830465.0,953.07
35619,1831696.1,956.97
37120,1832920.1,948.02
38020,1834063.3,959.79
39521,1835271.0,950.87
40722,1836494.6,953.87
41922,1837699.8,955.97
48226,1843856.4,959.73


I didn't run it very long because I'm going to bump the FSB some more.  I'll see if I can break the 1000 mark.  Another 5% on the FSB should do it.
I bought the 9550 Phenom because it was listed as 95watts. 
[TA]JonB
2008-06-29 12:09:16
A little longer run with about the same results
AMD Phenom Quad Core 9550, the FSB is at 218, putting CPU at 2.4Ghz
Memory is 4GB of DDR2800 running at 872Ghz, 5-5-5-15 timings
all voltages in Auto

Uptime (secs),Mpts in file,Estimate kpts/sec
2085,1923750.6,0.00
3286,1924983.7,1027.06
4487,1926205.4,1022.32
5687,1927298.6,985.07
6888,1928517.3,992.56
8088,1929612.9,976.56
8689,1929960.0,940.35
9889,1931097.1,941.39
11090,1932417.8,962.56
12290,1933457.2,951.16
12591,1933726.2,949.60
13791,1934952.0,956.91
14992,1936144.8,960.32
16192,1937316.9,961.68
16492,1937433.7,949.76
17693,1938655.1,954.95
18894,1939872.6,959.17
20094,1941105.0,963.66
21295,1942353.5,968.42
22195,1942910.1,952.74
28499,1949042.5,957.54
29699,1950265.6,960.20
30000,1950645.8,963.50
30300,1950831.3,959.83
31800,1952054.1,952.50
33001,1953264.4,954.66
39604,1959404.5,950.29
45908,1965471.6,952.05
47108,1966693.2,953.79
48309,1967730.3,951.46
48609,1967963.0,950.32
49810,1969061.8,949.44
51010,1970309.7,951.65
52511,1971545.8,947.84
53411,1972629.0,952.31
54312,1973331.5,949.35
55512,1974524.8,950.35
56713,1975723.1,951.40
57613,1976678.9,953.18
58514,1977592.6,954.17
59714,1978517.9,950.34
60915,1979748.4,951.86
62116,1980982.0,953.38
63316,1982180.1,954.25
63917,1982876.0,956.24
70220,1989011.5,957.83
71421,1990235.0,958.89
72321,1991144.7,959.55
73521,1992236.1,958.70
74422,1992940.9,956.51
75622,1994094.3,956.58
76823,1995352.8,958.05
78024,1996620.0,959.59
[TA]JonB
2008-07-04 14:04:59
Same processor, now Overclocked to 2.53ghz (13% OC)
FSB is 230 using the 11.0 multiplier.  I did raise the CPU voltage by 0.10v.
Memory is DDR2-800 running at 920 because of the FSB increase.  5-5-5-15 timings unchanged.
This did bring my CPU temps up near 50°C. Since my goal was to break 1000 kpts/sec on this processor, I think I'll stop.
My new motherboard and the CPU only cost $285 from NewEgg.  (with onboard 780G graphics, so I didn't need to buy a PCI-E graphics card)
Pretty cheap upgrade for some serious production.

Uptime (secs),Mpts in file,Estimate kpts/sec
1143,2394434.7,0.00
2343,2395651.5,1013.45
3544,2396847.0,1004.57
4745,2397844.0,946.49
5946,2399039.0,958.67
7146,2400264.8,971.11
12849,2406397.2,1021.86
14050,2407617.5,1021.35
14650,2408397.5,1033.71
16151,2409669.8,1015.11
17052,2410648.9,1019.20
17352,2410949.9,1018.90
18552,2412174.8,1018.99
19753,2413405.2,1019.36
20954,2414535.7,1014.65
21254,2414974.3,1021.32
22454,2416250.9,1023.68
22755,2416425.4,1017.53
23955,2417656.9,1017.96
25156,2418929.1,1020.04
25756,2419447.4,1016.22
26957,2420725.4,1018.46
27257,2420888.3,1013.00
28157,2422114.6,1024.63
28758,2422638.9,1021.34
29958,2423957.5,1024.54
30559,2424398.0,1018.60
31459,2425171.7,1013.87
32660,2426610.7,1020.90
34161,2427885.0,1013.09
35362,2429178.8,1015.35
36562,2430363.4,1014.37
37763,2431589.1,1014.59
38663,2432622.9,1017.79
Nekto
2008-07-07 09:28:37
windows xp x64, Q6600 9x375(3375) MHz, DDR2-999 MHz, 6-6-6-18, FSBRAM 3:4
after night muon1bench shows around 970 kpts\s
Stephen Brooks
2008-07-08 12:21:36
A bigger graph this time:

[TA]Assimilator1
2008-07-11 19:24:58
Yey I'm 4th on the graph , long way from 3rd though!, time to get the new mbrd!

Hey JonB, you just ~40Kpts/s off from me

Stephen
You've got results in their from the 443 client.  Isn't 444 slower than the previous client?
[TA]Assimilator1
2008-07-11 19:29:22
(damn no edit function)

Nekto
That's a bit slow, you'd probably be better off with the RAM speed slower & tighter RAM timings.
Btw when you post scores you're supposed to post the whole log so they're confirmed (though I see you've been added to the graph anyway).
Nekto
2008-07-11 21:09:03
[TA]Assimilator1, I've got win x64, which is slower... on x32 I have smth around 1.28 mpts/s
Stephen Brooks
2008-07-15 12:31:35
8 sockets Opteron 875 (dual-core, 16 cores total), running 8 instances of Muon1 with 2 threads each.  Highest scoring instance was this:

Uptime (secs),Mpts in file,Estimate kpts/sec
105095,106912.1,0.00
121601,113295.7,386.75
136306,119402.7,400.20
136906,119557.5,397.51
138107,120032.2,397.44
140808,121158.3,398.91
157313,127579.7,395.79
159414,128420.1,395.95
159714,128477.5,394.83
162415,129485.1,393.80
165416,130759.3,395.33
168417,131882.5,394.34
171118,133068.8,396.17
174119,134248.7,396.04
177121,135412.5,395.70
177421,135462.7,394.75
192126,141530.4,397.77
192426,141549.9,396.63
194827,142585.5,397.55
195127,142694.8,397.44
198128,143873.7,397.29
201129,145132.4,397.99
204430,146351.7,397.03
205331,146720.7,397.15
208032,147822.7,397.43
223037,153951.0,398.83
224838,154586.7,398.14
239843,160721.1,399.33
243144,162025.7,399.23
258149,168175.1,400.27
273455,174324.7,400.41
274655,174878.3,400.84
277656,176133.4,401.14
277957,176155.5,400.57
280958,177357.4,400.57
283959,178597.2,400.78
287260,179877.3,400.54
290561,181166.1,400.36
293862,182443.1,400.13
296863,183635.2,400.08
300165,184934.3,399.97
302865,186015.4,399.97
317871,192134.3,400.53
320872,193285.4,400.29
323873,194432.2,400.04
327174,195710.5,399.85
328675,196277.4,399.70
343680,202433.6,400.37
346081,203354.4,400.20
348782,204475.1,400.36
349382,204665.9,400.16
352083,205692.7,399.94
354784,206828.3,400.16
358085,208089.2,399.92
361086,209190.1,399.54
363187,210056.9,399.64
366488,211331.4,399.47
368289,212017.6,399.35
383294,218167.4,399.91
386295,219402.5,400.04
388996,220497.6,400.09
392298,221689.6,399.64
394698,222732.5,399.93
398000,224011.6,399.79
401001,225189.2,399.71
404002,226419.4,399.81
407303,227771.5,399.92
409104,228367.4,399.51
411805,229502.9,399.70
415106,230763.5,399.51
418107,231996.4,399.61
418407,232154.8,399.74

I'm not going to write out all the others, but the scores at the end for 7 of the instances were:
2 396.56
3 396.78
4 399.74
5 392.94
6 394.55
7 395.67
8 396.47

For some reason instance 1's bench program didn't record any scores.  But the sum of those seven is 2772.71 kpts/s and extrapolating that to all 8 would be about 3168 kpts/s.

The individual processors are AthlonX2-generation Opterons at 2.2GHz.  Compare Pascal's 2.2GHz X2 4200+ at 387.46 kpts/s in the graph above, so the scores seem to make sense, though they seem low compared to the new Core 2 chips!
Stephen Brooks
2008-07-15 12:34:17
(This was running Windows Server 2003 Enterprise, 64-bit)
Stephen Brooks
2008-07-15 17:43:57
A quick update to show that instance 1 was also running fairly nominally.

Uptime (secs),Mpts in file,Estimate kpts/sec
431872,235998.8,0.00
435174,237278.2,387.54
438175,238526.9,401.12

Now I'm going to switch it to running as 4 instances x 4 threads.
Stephen Brooks
2008-07-16 15:33:18
Running it at 4x4 looks initially about 725-730 kpts/instance so 2900-2920 total, not quite as good.  I think it starts to have problems as the traffic between sockets increases.
tomaz
2008-07-17 21:27:15
Stephen, please bench 1x8(16 actualy) too (for the sake of science .
Hm, what about 16x1 (runing 16 instances)?
[TA]Assimilator1
2008-08-12 19:29:43
My CPU is currently still at 3GHz so no change their, when I get around to swapping mbrds & lapping my CPU & HSF then maybe I can raise clock speeds & I'll re-bench.

[XS]riptide
I wouldn't worry about getting 100% CPU useage, 1 client on auto threading IS the fastest (at least upto 4 cores anyway).

Stephen
You've got results in their from the 443 client.  Isn't 444 slower than the previous client?
[TA]Assimilator1
2008-11-15 11:28:38
I've replaced my MSI mbrd (Nvidia 650) over a month back with an Asus Intel P45 mbrd, overclocking is so much easier & more successful with this mbrd .

Anyway my Q6600 is now at 3.35 GHz , I am now limited by temperatures, though I could probably go higher as it is, I'm going to wait until I've lapped the CPU & HSF, which atm is an abysmal fit!  (2 cores are running 6-7C hotter than the other 2!).
I'll probably re-bench at this speed before hand though.

Stephen
Unanswered questions above
tomaz
2008-12-19 08:28:27
i7 920, turbo on (cpu runs on 2.8 GHz instead of 2.667), HT off, 1 instance on 4 cores.

Average of flat part is 1430. They made excellent CPU !  On my calculation we have 127.6 pts/Mclock/core !

And they say it can be easily OC on 4 GHz.  I play with it later.

Uptime (secs),Mpts in file,Estimate kpts/sec
2387,283.0,0.00
Uptime (secs),Mpts in file,Estimate kpts/sec
703,854.5,0.00
1003,1634.9,2601.32
1303,1857.9,1672.32
1603,2401.8,1719.18
1903,2822.8,1640.21
2203,3057.8,1468.84
2503,3462.5,1448.86
2803,4046.3,1519.87
3103,4460.9,1502.62
3403,4793.4,1458.81
3703,5120.2,1421.87
4003,5606.8,1440.06
4303,5817.4,1378.55
4603,6490.1,1445.00
4903,6665.0,1383.43
5203,7339.4,1441.06
5803,7967.0,1394.58
6103,8450.2,1406.59
6403,8934.1,1417.45
6703,9496.4,1440.29
7003,9548.8,1380.03
7303,10057.4,1394.36
7603,10802.1,1441.66
8203,11312.2,1394.34
8503,11801.6,1403.45
8803,12455.2,1432.16
9103,12633.0,1402.18
9403,13119.5,1409.75
9703,13746.9,1432.47
10303,14233.5,1393.62
10603,14896.9,1418.40
10903,15480.7,1433.92
11203,15949.7,1437.61
11503,16091.6,1410.82
11803,16614.1,1419.76
12103,17221.7,1435.69
12403,17314.9,1406.84
12703,17919.7,1422.07
13003,18520.3,1436.22
13303,18564.2,1405.51
13603,19194.0,1421.64
13903,19749.7,1431.43
14203,20215.5,1434.12
14503,20317.3,1410.32
14803,21013.6,1429.70
15103,21481.9,1432.43
15403,21977.4,1436.90
16003,22588.6,1420.50
16303,23269.1,1436.80
16603,23589.3,1429.83
16903,23806.4,1416.76
17203,24508.3,1433.53
17503,24916.0,1432.20
17803,25384.6,1434.48
18403,26043.1,1423.05
18703,26705.3,1436.12
19003,26801.5,1417.83
19303,27363.2,1425.16
19603,27929.3,1432.49
19903,28355.4,1432.30
20203,28856.4,1435.96
20503,29148.1,1428.93
20803,29709.3,1435.52
21103,29802.9,1419.00
21403,30556.2,1434.82
21703,31043.0,1437.50
22004,31394.8,1433.77
22304,31560.0,1421.51
22604,32318.9,1436.68
22904,32412.9,1421.50
23204,33185.5,1436.89
23504,33612.7,1436.72
23804,33678.0,1420.88
24104,34298.7,1429.19
24404,34863.6,1434.93
24704,35262.7,1433.62
25004,35447.2,1423.52
25304,35926.0,1425.62
25604,36497.3,1431.38
25904,37069.6,1437.05
26204,37499.7,1437.01
26504,37795.1,1431.75
26804,38369.7,1437.31
27104,38494.2,1425.69
27404,38970.8,1427.52
27704,39515.0,1431.79
28005,39986.6,1433.31
[TA]Assimilator1
2008-12-19 17:49:24
Nice rig! 

Btw have you confirmed that Turbo is actually kicking in with CPU-Z or something?
DPAD by default will use all cores, I thought turbo only worked when less than 4 cores were loaded?
[TA]Assimilator1
2008-12-19 17:52:47
My god that score even beats riptides Core2 quad @3.69 GHz!  :Q :B, you'd be top of the chart! 
[TA]Assimilator1
2008-12-19 17:55:04
Damn, messed up smilie, supposed to be 'cool' face, maybe this? 
[TA]Assimilator1
2008-12-19 18:12:14
Bloody hell I wish this forum had an edit function

Looked at the wrong chart earlier, wouldn't be top but No 3, & that's without overclocking!
tomaz
2008-12-19 20:07:14
Yes, i7 seems to be a realy good CPU.  It is first Intel's CPU I bought after PII 500 and it rocks.  920 has locked multiplyer at 20. Turbo mode just set it to 21 when there is load... (default bus speed is 133.6).  It can be seen in CPU-z, yes.
People got 4 GHz (20x200+voltage adustment).  I must learn some more about OC it, when I have time.  Usualy I don't mess around with OC, but must try that-it's fun to be on top of the chart At 4 GHz breaking 2000 kpts/s seems realystic.
Stephen Brooks
2008-12-20 02:06:53
Since when is :B or even :Q a smiley for anything? 

The i7 is something I've been watching with some interest.  The integrating memory controller is probably making the RAM-intensive stuff like Muon1 much faster, similar to AMD.  Though AMD still have slightly faster floating point I seem to recall.
[TA]Assimilator1
2008-12-20 07:16:58
Actually :Q is , it means a shocked face, most forums do that one, including Anandtech.  I couldn't remember how to do shades smilie but I knew it had a B in it . Btw you need a smilie key chart.

Tomaz
PIII 500 , my C2D E6420 (1 1/2 yrs ago) was my 1st Intel CPU since I bought a PIII 650 8yrs ago, but you've got me beaten there .
[XS]riptide
2008-12-25 03:12:39
Great result for that i7. Very high pts/Mclock/core!  A Phenom II would be also very interesting. 

Tomaz... please reply with Operating System aswell.

[XS]riptide
2008-12-25 03:19:52
Also Tomaz, maybe try with HT on!  Maybe just quick bench if it is lower.  And Stephen, why don't you add that 8 way Opty to the chart. 
tomaz
2008-12-25 23:49:51
OS is win XP.  Yes pts/Mclock/core is cool - it means that they finaly did a good CPU Interesting, Intel claims on their web page that i7 is 25% faster CPU than others.  It fits in Stephen's graph regarding pts/Mclock/core, 127 to 100+. I must admit it's damn good, best thing since Athlon for crunching.
I put HT off because I was sure it doesn't do any good for computation, just more communication.  It should be few % slower.  I have already shut the machine down, disconected it and move to other room.  But I will try HT on when I get my hands on it again.
[XS]riptide
2008-12-26 02:11:43
Great.  Yes, alhough some web server type software does good with HT, games and other stuff does not do so good. 
Universal Creations
2008-12-26 14:19:31
I've got some results from an AMD Phenom 9950 Black Edition (125W) @ 3090 (15x206).  Higher speeds are possible, but the machine is for a family member, so I didn't push it too far (just raising the multiplier and FS.

Uptime (secs),Mpts in file,Estimate kpts/sec
979,56884.7,0.00
1279,57207.5,1076.05
1579,57606.6,1203.22
2179,58389.5,1254.06
2779,59366.9,1379.06
3079,59760.9,1369.68
3679,60479.6,1331.50
4279,61235.3,1318.42
4579,61506.7,1283.95
5179,62424.1,1318.96
5479,62802.7,1315.17
6379,64027.7,1322.84
6679,64149.2,1274.53
7279,65080.3,1300.95
7579,65320.7,1278.24
8179,66260.5,1302.25
8779,67223.8,1325.58
9679,68191.5,1299.69
9979,68462.5,1286.48
10579,69258.6,1289.01
11179,70179.1,1303.43
11479,70817.7,1327.01
11779,70837.8,1292.01
12379,71752.6,1304.26
12979,72665.9,1315.16
16578,77320.5,1310.05
16878,77966.9,1325.98
17478,78747.1,1325.05
17778,79018.0,1317.52
21378,83737.7,1316.38
21678,84278.2,1323.42
21978,84552.1,1317.55
22278,84943.3,1317.36
25578,89597.9,1329.86
25878,89871.5,1324.83
26178,90354.8,1328.24
27078,91538.2,1327.78
27978,92372.5,1314.42
28578,93441.8,1324.59
29178,94345.2,1328.45
30078,95501.2,1327.09
30378,95800.6,1323.73
31278,96739.4,1315.40
31578,97442.6,1325.48
31878,97745.7,1322.42
32778,98990.9,1324.15
33078,99262.1,1320.23
36678,103922.1,1317.63
36978,104312.9,1317.51
37877,105645.7,1321.49
38477,106545.7,1324.35
38777,106910.9,1323.50
39077,107277.8,1322.71
39377,107622.7,1321.36
39677,107886.2,1317.93
40277,108892.7,1323.42
40577,109173.9,1320.49
41177,109993.7,1321.18

So, a 1320 score isn't really bad for a 4x 3.09GHz cpu. 
tomaz
2008-12-30 22:36:45
I am a bit confused but here are results for same i7 rig and setings as above but HT on !  Average of flat part is 1960, pts/Mclock/core is 175 !  (if physical core is meant.  Any ideas why HT has such positive influence ?  Now imagine it OC on 4 GHz !

Uptime (secs),Mpts in file,Estimate kpts/sec
1835,23992.5,0.00
2135,24469.3,1589.34
2435,24969.2,1627.84
2735,25798.1,2006.20
3035,26197.2,1837.23
3335,27042.1,2033.05
3635,27446.8,1919.05
3935,27739.6,1784.33
4835,29910.0,1972.50
5135,30275.2,1903.85
5435,31211.4,2005.25
5735,31644.5,1962.04
6035,32077.7,1925.04
6335,32881.2,1975.26
6635,33311.7,1941.50
6935,34177.4,1997.04
7235,34595.6,1963.53
7535,35029.2,1936.26
7835,35922.2,1988.28
8135,36381.7,1966.54
8435,36813.9,1942.64
8735,37301.5,1928.84
9035,38232.3,1977.75
9335,38669.8,1956.97
9635,39100.3,1936.89
9935,40001.5,1976.42
10235,40435.1,1957.45
10535,40878.7,1940.94
11735,43359.2,1956.23
12035,44183.6,1979.52
12335,44616.4,1964.18
12635,45049.8,1949.75
12935,45902.0,1973.83
13235,46235.5,1951.14
13535,46679.7,1939.08
14735,49215.8,1955.29
15035,50083.0,1976.55
15335,50460.5,1960.59
15635,50924.7,1951.60
15935,51990.2,1985.65
16235,52265.9,1963.42
tomaz
2008-12-30 22:39:49
And yes !  Time for a new scale on the graph
Happy New year to everybody.
[TA]Assimilator1
2008-12-31 00:52:17
tomaz
The Core2 CPU was/is a good Intel CPU too (way ahead of Ath64 & too a slightly lesser degree the Phenom*), but I guess you missed that generation .

*DPAD excluded, AMD seem to hold onto their lead their clock for clock.  Though of course the C2s could overclock more .

Re your HT scores that's staggering!  , I had a feeling it might help, btw i7 makes far better use of HT partly due to more memory bandwidth but also due to other CPU enhancements which I don't remember off hand.  Check out Anandtechs review here for more info http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3382&p=8 .

I can't wait to see your CPU o/ced! 
[TA]Assimilator1
2008-12-31 01:09:16
Universal Creations
That's a very respectable score for a 3GHz CPU , certainly put my Q6600 to shame when it was at 3GHz.  Your score is ~25% faster!
I doubt I'll be able to close that score even though my Q6600 is at 3.35 GHz now & on a better mbrd!, though the game is on! 
tomaz
2008-12-31 01:36:54
hmm, i'd say 1960 is respectable for 2.8 GHz...actually it's amazing first i tought there is a mistake, i expected few percent less than previous score but not 37% more.
Are u sure about clock to clock?  with i7 it is past and it is really new thing, first time since k6.

I didn't miss the generation, i just waited to be sure ! 
[TA]Assimilator1
2008-12-31 01:37:33
[edit] I meant 3.1 GHz for the Phenom.
[TA]Assimilator1
2008-12-31 01:43:43
tomaz
You've mis-read my earlier post, I said your i7 score was staggering , the clock for clock of Ath64 & Phenom was vs C2D not i7, your i7 destroys everything! 

I don't get the K6 reference as that was AMD & that CPU really sucked for FPU performance , Ath64 mostly wiped the floor vs P4 & P4D but Core2 turned the tide (except in DPAD).

You missed a generation to your benefit .
Universal Creations
2008-12-31 01:51:07
Wow, i7.... can't find words for those scores.
[TA]Assimilator1
2008-12-31 02:03:45
[edit] I meant 3.1 GHz for the Phenom.
tomaz
2008-12-31 02:11:21
i wanted to say that last time intel was faster clock to clock was back in K6 times. 
And now, sadly to say, i7 is almost for TWO phenoms ( Hard to belive.
[TA]Assimilator1
2008-12-31 02:34:53
Ah I see, no that's not correct then (re Intel speed), when Intel released the Core 2s (7/06) they clearly beat Ath 64 X2s in nearly all benchmarks, see here http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=2795 , that's what I meant by you missed a (Intel) generation.
tomaz
2009-01-03 00:17:57
same i7 rig, OC to 3.55 GHz (177x20).  HT ON.  It's my first OC by the way.  It was easy when I realised what I am doing Since I have 1066 MHz RAM it can't go much higher without OC RAM too.  But with 1600 Mhz RAM reaching 4 GHz should be very easy (200x20, 200x8).

Average of flat part is 2544, pts/Mclock/core is 179.

Stephen, time for a new graph I think max value on kpts/s scale should not be less than 3000 because it will be reached soon by some i7 on 4.2 GHz....

Uptime (secs),Mpts in file,Estimate kpts/sec
1489,85334.0,0.00
1789,86387.7,3512.18
2089,86899.4,2608.89
2389,87871.8,2819.70
2689,88727.0,2827.41
2989,89503.3,2779.44
3289,90046.1,2617.74
3589,91046.8,2720.28
3889,91593.2,2607.90
4189,92193.9,2540.61
4489,93095.1,2586.93
4789,93650.5,2520.05
5089,94667.4,2592.51
6289,97877.3,2613.08
6589,98417.0,2565.19
6889,98950.1,2521.39
7789,101670.2,2592.93
8089,102129.6,2544.68
8389,103099.6,2574.61
8689,103690.7,2549.43
9889,106924.7,2570.20
10189,107585.8,2557.56
10489,108145.2,2534.46
10789,108624.3,2504.22
11689,111340.4,2549.53
11989,112214.9,2559.97
13189,114928.9,2529.37
14089,117647.9,2564.48
15289,120383.7,2539.72
16489,123525.0,2545.95
16789,124034.0,2529.30
17689,126752.3,2556.57
17989,127310.7,2543.93
18289,127850.3,2530.62
18589,128968.7,2551.62
Stephen Brooks
2009-01-03 20:15:01
I got an Atom laptop for Christmas and was rather surprised to see it registered as two logical cores.  Those things have hyperthreading!  I might muon1bench it for amusement value.
Haiya-Dragon
2009-01-04 03:18:45
Tomaz, I'll try that once my new memory arrives
[TA]Assimilator1
2009-01-04 12:30:12
tomaz

*jaw drops to the floor*
OMG that's an absolutely amazing score!!!  incredible! 

O/ced i7s are going to be untouchable for along time to come I think!  (in DPAD anyway).

Not unless a GPU client is done .

Stephen
Yea definitly want to see what that scores ,what are Intel Atom CPUs anyway?

Btw I'm running DPAD again on my quad so I'll be benchmarking & tweaking it over the coming days
[TA]Assimilator1
2009-01-05 20:11:24
New benchmark for my rig, Q6600 @3.35 GHz, 372 MHz FSB & RAM ,4-4-4-15 timings, TRD 11. Intel P45 chipset.

1160.6 (averaged)

I won't bother to post the benchmark list as I don't want this score added to the chart, it's mainly for information sake.

Next I gotta do some tweaking
Stephen Brooks
2009-01-06 17:17:01
Problem is, I've got to remember to start the muon1bench when the netbook is going to be on for a contiguous period of time (if I shut it and re-open at work, time will have passed so that will affect the score, likewise for unplugging the power).  Maybe I'll do it overnight.
: contact : - - -
E-mail: sbstrudel characterstephenbrooks.orgTwitter: stephenjbrooksMastodon: strudel charactersjbstrudel charactermstdn.io

Site has had 17293011 accesses.