How fast is i7 940XM Mobile CPU in CoresMark 2010 benchmark

Hello good day!

I test Intel new i7 940XM Mobile CPU end with this scores in M15X
24~25seconds completed the CoresMark 2010 Multi-Cores mode testing


anyone could also help me test this?

Thanks very much

also if you could show the result better

Have a good day

Jason

 

Oh forget to say

CoresMark 2010 could download here
CoresMark 2010 Standard

official site is
CPU Benchmark CoresMark 2010 ALL NEW CPU Benchmark for Multi Cores now a day CPU Testing Charts

Trial version is Free

Thanks

Have a good day

 

I bought a T9500 from this guy. Weird.

 

Oh Thanks for your purchased about the past T9500
do you want test it with CoresMark 2010?

Thanks

 

I have an i7-940XM . . . results attached. Just a few seconds behind yours. The results from CoresMark seem to vary too much in my opinion.

I like wPrime for a CPU benchmark:
Measure Computer Performance | wPrime Multithreaded Benchmark
Use v 1.55.

I also like Cinebench:
MAXON: CINEBENCH 11.5

 

The biggest problem is you can easily cheat with CoresMark 2010. Once Task manager is launched go to Proccesses and right click CoresMark and make its priority high or real time, optionally close taskmanager, and run the benchmark................

 

Thanks Man

I found this bug and try to fixed
could you please help me try again and see still has this bug?

also welcome find more bugs for me

I will try to fix them

Have a good day

 

Froze on Auto Test after the single core benchmark. And I scored higher with firefox open, than with everything closed

 

Hi

Charles, what laptop you test with i7 940XM?

also Thanks for your test
Have a good day

Jason

 

I also did this
with the SONY E Series upgrade to i7 620M Mobile CPU
Let's see the performance chart




share this

Thanks

 

Hi Jason - it is a Sager NP8850 (Clevo W880CU). Other specs: 17.3" display, Windows 7 x64, 8GB DDR3-1333, Nvidia GTX 480M.
I just finished my review - it will be posted soon.

 

i am looking for real world comparisons between a non o/c ed 920xm vs 940xm vs 720qm but i cant seem to find any.
anyone here care to share a link?

 

Looks like you have a 720 - start a thread with that topic and we should be able to find someone with the 920XM. I have the 940XM and can provide benches for that, just make a list of benchmarks you want to compare.

 

Hi

I think you could reference this
http://cpubenchmark.info/worldrank.aspx

you could see the left side and right side to make sure user didn't overclock

it could use Ctrl+F to search string

Thanks

 

How is this cheating? Running high priority just makes background tasks wait, which is what you want.

 

Hi JohnnyFlash

the new version of CoresMark fixed this cheating bug
now if user want change the CoresMark 2010's process priority
the CoresMark will stop continue testing performance

btw if you find any other bug just let me know

Thanks

any guys could test the
Intel® Xeon® Processor X5680
(12M Cache, 3.33 GHz, 6.40 GT/s Intel® QPI)

and show the clear photo in this thread

I will give a Free Standard license(Value 15USD) to him

Have a good day

 

Sorry to ruin the party but the problem with this was that the results become skewed. I would get 104 seconds or so at normal but at realtime I'd get under 70 seconds on my P7805 with P9600.

Where the results could vary do much you can't rely then on the cpu charts for the real power of the CPU in a heavy multithread usage. You wouln't normally take your tasks and modify them in this way. So in the end it does not simulate real world advantages.

Glad to be of service to the OP, and appologise for putting it out in the public domain like this but figured it needs to be known by all. If you truly got the bug, great. You can delete my results from there with the P8400 and P9600 as I did it with the cheat and my U81a..............

 

Ok tested the new version, sorry it took so long but I am trial only and had to try a few fresh launches to test this out and there is that delay.........

1.) once you update reboot or performance does not seem to be proper. My C2D was running at 0.78% running right from the update and totalled 120 seconds or so. Reboot it runs at 1.08% or so and under 100 seconds.

2.) The fix seems to be not alowing "Real Time" but now launches and runs at "High" priority. People should know by default if you were not using the cheat before this should somewhat improve your times and make future results more consistent cross hardware platform and more CPU/RAM dependent.

If you would like testing of this for the future though I would like to get rid of the time to wait thing, kind of a pain in the neck to test with multiple launches and or reboots.............

 

Thanks for your suggestion, I wil think and did some more changes

 

Hi

I did some modified
and test the E5462 SLANTx2 Physical CPU

with new 1.0.0.208 Version CoresMark 2010

result is 14.2~15 seconds to completed

show the image now
http://attach.mobile01.com/attach/201008/mobile01-062d3276e89b9ed3fe3d380d2c809ba0.png