Measure your Dual/Multi Core Notebook CPU Speed - Bye Bye to SuperPI

Ok I tried again with ur suggestions and my scores got a little higher

 

heero, thats a much better score.

it boosted you up about 9 ranks in the Hall of Fame.

 

Hey Gophn, when are you gonna add your beast to the Hall Of Fame?

Lets see some more S939 lappy scores besides mine! lol

 

LOL, I try to stay out of it.... technically I have a Dual Core Opteron 175 (2.2GHz) in my notebook.

For 32M i got:
40.842s

(still in top 10 for a notebook over a year old)

As you have noticed, I haven't updated my Sig in a LONG TIME... I was planning to just do a late review for it this summer as the new Clevo beasts become available.

 

Yeah, definitely. You're hanging with the C2D T7400s. Nice!

 

AMD Turion64 X2 TL-50
OS: XPH SP2.

 

Turion64 X2 TL-50

XP32 52 sec.

XP64 57 sec.

overclocked by 200Mhz XP64: 50 sec.

 

Gophn i redid mine usng the ideas you mentioned like using classic desktop and such and managed to get a very slightly better score which puts me up 1 slot

so all those people that say turions suck i think should rethink cus judging from this thread mine whip the juicy bits from some c2d laptops

42.839sec

 

Thanks for the updates and posts.

Hall of fame is looking better and better.

This should definitely be a standard benchmark for future reviews.

 

Anyone else have time to run this on a 64bit version of Vista?

I got horrible times...or one of my cores decided to take a day off (it didn't, but Vista was downloading updates though):

 

With Vista you need to manually select 2 threads under the Advanced Settings. There is a glitch with the automatic detection of number of cores.

Check this and try again.

john

 

D'oh, thanks wizened ol' sage.

 

Alright, this was the best I could do with the Clevo D900C:
Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 (2.66GHz/ 4MB L2/ 1066MHz FSB)
2GB DDR2-800 RAM
Windows XP Professional w/SP2

 

Still an amazing score... fits in top 5

Look at all of those Clevo DTR's dominating the wPrime Hall of Fame.

 

I don't think it's fair they get lumped in with us regular laptop guys After all, they aren't mobile processors.

 

LOL, I guess that it does not seem fair.

But these people put out a lot of cash for the DTR beasts... I know I felt broke after spending the money on mine.

The DTR's do seem overkill for most people, but for gamers and enthusiasts... its as good as mobile gaming can get.

UPDATE:
I know.... how about I add another tag for DTR's (17"+ notebooks with desktop CPUs)

So we could have:
NB = Notebooks
DT = Desktop
DTR = Desktop Replacement

How does that sound?

 

Sounds good. You could also use "PD" - Portable Desktop - for the Clevo D900 notebooks. They take the term "desktop replacement" to the next level, really . . . I think of the Dell E1705 and other powerful 15.4"/17" notebooks as DTRs.

 

Sounds good. Will update.

 

Also, if and when the C90s benchmarks come in, they should be marked similarly as they should have the same processor performance as other Conroe laptops.

 

I am still thinking of making a distinction between:
NB = Notebook
DTR = Desktop Replacement (15.4-17" notebooks w/ power featues)
PD = Portable Desktop (17"+ notebook with desktop features)
DT = Desktop

What do you guys think?

 

I don't think there's any need for a distinction between NB and DTR. After all, this is a processor benchmark, and there's no difference between the C2D T7600 in a M1710 than the one in a Sony SZ. I do think a tag for a Conroe or other desktop chipset notebook is a good idea though.

 

ok, so I guess I'll note the CPU for distinction.
Mobile CPU = NB
Desktop CPU = PD

 

Awesome thread...I just posted this over at Techenclave.com (AN Indian technology site) with all due credit to Gophn

 

Sounds good, although it may be better to specify according to screen size or maybe the way you had it.

15.4", 17", and 19" are all generally DTR/PD, but clearly not the same thing. Besides, my Asus DTR is quite mobile

 

Gophn, have you ever thought about using Cinebench to measure performance? I used it when I evaluated the Core 2 Duo last year:
http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=3134&article=Core+2+Duo+Performance

http://www.cinebench.com/

 

I actually have thought about it.

I found wPrime to be more simpler of a test (both the program itself and the multi-threaded tests)

Cinebench is a good mainstream benchmark, but its a huge download (compared to the meager size of wPrime).

wPrime seems to have a larger following in the enthusiast sector at the moment.... similar to what SuperPi had when it was gaining ground.

I am up for adding any other Multi-Threaded tests.

 

Ran it again for both benchmarks this time:

CPU Found: CPU0 Name: Genuine Intel(R) [email protected] Speed:1995 MHz
L2 Cache: 2048 KB
CPU Found: CPU1 Name: Genuine Intel(R) [email protected] Speed:1995 MHz
L2 Cache: 2048 KB

32M Benchmark 43.797
1024M Benchmark 1391.718

 

Thanks for the 1024M test update.

I'll keep your first 32M score since it was slightly faster.

 

Here are the results on a U2500

 

thanks for the post.

Wow a dual core ULV CPU.

Is that the correct score, with both cores being used?
- Make sure that your Windows XP SP2 has been optimized for dual core use.
- and the Advanced Settings in the wPrime should have the threads set to 2.

Not saying that its a bad score, it still performed better than most single core's, but I would think it to do better than a Core Solo.

 

I managed to run the test on my office notebook yesterday...
after so long trying...
It is Dell Precision M70 with Pentium M 2.25Ghz | 1Gb RAM | Windows XP Profesional
so here is the result... (attachment)

 

thanks for that additional post..

we needed more single-core tests.

 

I just got a chance to run the test again setting the thread count to 2 in Vista Enterprise 64bit, the results are much better this time around

 

Thanks Gator, nice score... I think having a 64-bit OS gave you the edge on the Hall of Fame for the T7200's.

And I just added yet another amazing score by the Clevo D900C that was reviewed by Justin@XoticPC.

 

anyone know how come my AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-56 @ 1.80GHz is score wise ust as fast as a Intel Core 2 Duo CPU T7200 @ 2.00GHz when the intel has a lot more cache and supposedly more power?

just curious

cheers

 

rotflmao

I wasted 10 minutes of my time Gophn to get these results. Even if I'm not in any league table, I want special recognition Never gonna get those precious 10 min back! Home from uni for the weekend and trying the desktop. Intel P4 2ghz, 1gb ram and XP SP2. Comparisons with my laptop

Core Duo 1.66ghz superpi to 2M: 1m29s
Intel P4 2.00GHz superpi to 2M: 4m 23.953s
Core Duo 1.66ghz wPrime 32M: 51.687s
Intel P4 2.00GHz wPrime 32M: 218.513s

So 4x faster overall!

P.S. I had 2 cups of tea Touch of milk, 2 sugars - lovely

 

Well rhino..

I have been looking into the results and tests.

Seems that the bests scores using the similar/same CPUs are gained from users with:
(in this order)
- Vista (all versions) x64
- XP Pro x64
- Vista (all versions) 32-bit
- XP (all versions) 32-bit with Multi-Core hotfix
- XP (all versions) 32-bit not configured for multi-core utilization

It seems that Vista has optimized the multi-core CPUs... and 64-bit programming has shown some gain in performance.

 

I just wanna share some more result from my previous Pentium 4...

so after i overclocked my pc to 3.4Ghz... i got this result... (attachment)

 

I agree. Ran it again in Vista Business 32bit and the scores improved quite a bit...

 

LOL. Nice improvement from a Willamette P4 to a Core Duo.

Nice improvement, I updated it.

Wow. definitely a nice improvement... you just overran the rest of the competition in the hall of fame with the similar/same CPU... 8 whole spots up.

 

Gophn, have you thought about adding some sort of designation for the operating system? Perhaps another column? It is not really fair to compare benchmarks across operating systems.

 

I was just thinking that... either a new column, or color coordinating the OS's:
Like:
Red = XP SP2
Blue = Vista

 

It would probably be too much info, but you could also consider adding some sort of designation, maybe a star or something to indicate that the test was run on a 64-bit platform, as that seems to improve scores significantly.

 

Ok i did the update.

New key (for now):

Key:
NB = Notebook
PD = Portable Desktop (powerful notebook with desktop features)
DT = Desktop
Red = Windows XP
Blue = Windows Vista
= 64-bit OS

Tell me what you think... because I'll duplicate the template for the single core and multi-core charts.

 

Didn't see anything for the core 2 duo T5200, so...
I just re-formatted my laptop with the HP recovery and saw this thread, no tweaks, with the same software out of the box. Specs in sig.

 

I like the new template, it makes it easier to scan the chart and see where the performance gains are coming from.

 

you can add this to the list:

dell d531
turion x2 2.0 ghz
xp pro
43.468 sec 32 M

 

It looks great Gophn, I agree that the chart is easier to skim now.

 

OK done.

Updated all charts.

Thanks Logan and ejl for you posts.

 

Im gonna run this when I get off work on my single core opteron system, just for the records I am pretty sure there is a multi-core patch for super-pi out there.