Help me with some benchmarks please! Q9xx, Pxxxx, Txxx, i7, etc..

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over your whining and excuses.. What did you say?

 

yea...highest single core score so far =p til someone OCs an X9300 =p

 

There you go.. Now you have the fastest C2D score on the list.

 

if I wanted to flash my ram to 667Mhz I could easily get 3.3-3.4GHz+ out of my P8700. my temps don't pass 62-63C in OCCT or Orthos

 

Here you go for the P9700 @ 2.8 Ghz:


No OC.

 

Ok here I go:

P9500 @ stock 2.53ghz
Win Vista 64 bits
8gb ram

 

T5800 @ stock 2.00Ghz (undervolted but that doesn't affect speed)
4GB RAM
Windows 7 RC x64

 

Highest Dual core score?

X9000 @3.5GHz

 

Sure is! Pretty impressive!

 

*grumbles* need to flash my ram. I really think I could beat that =p

 

HP HDX18t BIOS Locked

Q-9000

8GB DDR3 Ram

(I dont know how to do a screen shot, yes I pressed prt sc)

Relative speed 10.96

Kilo nodes per second 5261

I will work on the screen shot.. I am trying to get into my BIOS to turn on my Virtual Machien as well..

Sorry for the limtied info.

Be well, JW

 

10.88

5222

with a window open in notebookreview.com

I hope the virtual machine will help my time some..

Be well, JW

 

to take the screenshot press prnt scrn, open paint and press ctrl+v then save it as a jpeg. alternatively if on winvista you can go to start->accessories->snipping tool, and highlight the desired area, then save it.

 

Amd athlon 5200+ x2. 2.6ghz Windsor core 2mb

 

T7500 @ 2.2GHz
Win Vista 32 bit
2GB RAM



Edit: Seems we have the same CPU. Post Fail :/

 

Checkmate!

 

Kamoulox !!

 

Thanks all! Don't worry about it Chin.. since my T7500 was higher anyway, I forgive you..

I knew with enough data things would start to smooth out, but I did not think I'd see this...

Code:

JWnFL - 10.96 / 5261 - Q9000

theriko - 9.82 / 4713 - X9000 3.5GHz

Can we say tick-tock? That is impressive work on the C2D there. I wonder if a fully OC'ed X9100 could actually beat the Q9000 (Not OC'd, of course).

 

You have rep coming.. I have given away to much which sounds crazy but when I read something that helps me.. I pass out rep.. you will be getting it.. You dont care I am sure.. but I care that you took the time to help. Thank You!

and so that you may know your efforts were not in vain.

Once again.. Thanks.. I turned on the virtual machine for this run.. I am going to shut down and re-start and test without it on..

Once again you dont care I am sure.. but thanks any way..

Be well, JW


P.S. For some reason my core is at 1596 mhz and not 2 ghz... sorry but I will try to figure it out with some help and re-bench at the full speed of the processor.

P.S. P.S. I added temps for you.. the Q-9000 even under clocked by HP still eats a lot of power and throws a lot of heat.. just an FYI.. I hope the real numbers help you finding your way through the corporate cloud of swill.

 

So can we make thelogical leap that natural clock rate and / or clock rate multiplied by the number of cores equals a result? or more accurately a level of performance. 3.5 GHz X's 2 cores ='s 7Ghz.. thus the performance numbers produced? or am I a crazy noob again.

Ruffy of course.. Hyper threading being that magical 10% 15% land of magic?

I wonder as more performance numbers get posted how true or false that lil logical leap of mine will be?

Be well, JW

 

Not a bad theory, and we discussed that originally. I think as far as dual core vs quad core is concerned, you're on the right track. I'm more interested in the Qxxx quads vs the i7's though. Don't have enough data to speculate, but it looks like an i7 with lower clocks might beat a higher clocked Qxxx quad. For example an 720QM vs Q9000.. Don't have enough data yet!

 

Bro.. it has been said before... but everytime I see your avatar I laugh.. great and thanks for the laugh and thinking enough of other people to try to bring some laughter into the world..

On topic.. the i7-720xm -qm... has a 6mb cache.. and would be apples for apples..

The i7-820 has 8mb cache....

The i7-920qm - xm... is the $1,000 dollar option.. I would rather have the qx-9650 / qx-9300 and / or if we could get it the qx-9700.. if my numbers are a little off ot the qm verse xm is a little off forgive me..

Core i7-720QM Core i7-820QM Core i7-920XM
Frequency 1.60GHz 1.73GHz 2.0GHz
Smart Cache 6MB 8MB 8MB
Turbo Boost 2.80GHz 3.06GHz 3.2GHz
Cores/Threads 4/8 4/8 4/8

http://tech.tbreak.com/2009/10/intel-corei7-820qm-mobile-cpu-benchmarks/

http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=43126,40480,43122,33921,

I like the top of the tock swing as opposed to the bottom of the tick swing.. the natural clock rates.. and the larger chips are all power hungery.. but a larger chip will get rid of more heat more quickly than a smaller chip.. or maybe not.. I could be wrong but the physics of it all would make it more likely the larger the surface area the more heat would disapate quickly..

Be well and thanks for the cool bench tool / toy, JW

 

Specs in sig:

4 threads Q9000

Relative speed: 11.47

Kilo nodes per second: 5507

---------------------------------

2 Threads Q9000

Relative speed: 6.17

Kilo nodes per second: 2959

 

Looks like the extra 2 cores make a difference after all, huh?

 

Intel T6600 , 6.31 - 3028

 

Q9650 @ 3.3ghz in my Asus C90P laptop ; 18.89/9065

Top spot?

 

Not for a desktop processor, even if it is in your laptop

 

Lol there are a number of decent laptops that use desktop processors. They should count

 

I managed to push it to 3.33ghz. Will post the chess result tomorrow, will try and close in on the 2.66ghz i7

 

Yes, and I'd merge all the results together if I was concerned about max performance, and not max mobile CPU performance.

I would do the same to the D900F people too.. Don't worry, I still fear your laptop.

 

Fair enough. I thought you were looking for a powerful new lappie. The sager np 9262 would be perfect for your needs if you also need CPU power as it also uses the Q9650 along with a couple of 9800M GTX's I think. Remember a desktop quad is alot cheaper than a mobile one so you could also save some bux

 

That would indeed be a beast! I'm pretty set on the power/performance balance the i7 820QM on the W870CU offers, but I'll read through some 9262 reviews as well. Thanks!

 

To be honest the i7 820QM will be better than the Q9650 stock for stock. The Q9650 could be faster OCed but still not much and use alot more power. I guess it is the better choice depending on how much it costs. I got my Q9650 for 125quid while a qx9300 goes for 300quid. I would think the 820QM must be close to that price?
Basically it is power/performance (820QM) vs price/performance (Q9650)
edit: just ran the chess test at stock 3ghz and it gave 17.05/8188

 

Since you don't need the portability of a 15'', I also recommend the NP9262 because you will get the raw CPU power for your number crunching along with the power of SLI for much better gaming performance than the W870CU will ever get, even after a GPU upgrade.

The only reason I would buy the mobile i7 over the NP9262 would be if I needed a 15''.

 

Thanks.. looks like the current replacement is the D900F? I don't see the NP9262 for sale..

Now I'm intrigued, as the base config for the D900F is similar to the W870CU with 820QM in price.

Just when I had a decision made.. thanks you guys

Now I have to go read the whole darn D900F thread...

 

Lol. Happy reading mate..hope you get the best machine for your money

 

Hah.. Thanks, 1100 more posts to go

After careful review, I've decided to count you as a laptop.. but I did put a * next to your score.. You now have the top mobile spot.

 

Please don't make me benchmark my 440Mhz Pentium III...

 

That would be interesting, as the "relative speed" figure is computed by comparing performance relative to the initial Fritz benchmark system, which was a P3 1GHz.. So I would bet your relative speed would be less than 1.0.

But other than it being an interesting/funny test, no need to do it if you've got other things to do.

 

4.65 / 2231 - L7500 1.6ghz

 

I would do it, but there is no way I can connect it to the internet without dial up, unless I download the installer and put it on a flash drive. Hell, it would probably unresponsive for an hour after I run the test anyway...

 

Hehehehe.. I think I'm exactly on your situation.. One day I'm ready to buy a W870CU, the next I change my mind and would like the D900F... damn.. now i'm changing my mind every 4 hours... I need a psychiatrist... Let us know your findings so you can help all of us undecided...

 

I decided to stick with the W870CU. After looking at photos, especially in Gohpn's review (great review, it's in the Sager forum last page or so of the D900F thread) I couldn't live what that beastly of a laptop. I'm not that hung up on looks, but that thing looks like a laptop that ate another laptop.

 

Edit: Uploaded a .zip file that includes screenshots of the benchmark and information about my system.
Hope its useful.

Il be happy to help.
Will run the program and post result and my notebooks system specs.

 

I've got a 486 DX2 50MHz laptop running Windows 95, unfortunately the floppy drive is busted, the network adaptor is dead and the hard drive won't connect into my external enclosure, but I've got Everest 1.51.195 on there from before.

Memory Read: 37MB/s
Memory Write: 24MB/s
Memory Latency: "This program has performed an illegal operation."

That's all I could get out of it.

 

Have you tried a null-modem cable?!

I kid, I kid.. Not even sure if the benchmark would run under 95. I assume it would, but I've never seen it done before!

I had a 486 SX50.. Was the first PC I ever mail ordered, rather than bought from a local store. Good times..

 

Didn't see any (stock @ 12M Cache, 2.26 GHz, 1066 MHz FSB) Q9100's yet, so I'll post up mine.

 

Nice score! Glad to get a new CPU on the list!!

 

Just wish OC'ing on a Dell was easier. I'd like to see what I could get this CPU up to...

 

Not sure if anybody has posted for T9900. (I did not have time to read the whole thread)

Core 2 Duo T9900 (3.06GHz, 6MB L2, 1066 MHz FSB)




--