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

Sorry there is NO multithreaded patch/mod/update for SuperPI.

Trust me, I talked to the original programmers.

The only thing that is near it is Multi-PI, which is still in beta testing... it looks promising since its Java-based and can be ran on Mac OS X as well.

wPrime is a very accurate and simple program like SuperPI was.... and its fully multithreaded (up to a whopping 64 threads).

Its seems that SuperPI has gone as far as it can.

 

Yeah looks that way, its in the works tho.
http://www.xtremesystems.com/pi/

The XS guys will make it multi threaded most probably sometime down the road.

 

Ok ran the test as promised:

I got 2nd place on HWbot.org with the speed test:

http://www.hwbot.org/showPersonalResults.do?userId=9359&filter=false

55.28 seconds

(desktop, single core, windows vista ultimate x64)

I only ran the stress test one time and got 32m 55s (1806.251 seconds)

 

nice score Vicious, you just got #1 in NBR hall of fame.

 

I was able to get higher scores with a better overclock, but I have my system setup to run 2.8ghz with it on 24/7. Pushing it to 3ghz caused it to crash on me.

I boosted cpu voltage to see if it would hold, but its the ram, I have my timings too tight and it already runs DDR500. For 3ghz+ id need to loosen the timings or put a ram divider on. I just didnt feel like going thru all the trouble. So those scores are a true representation of my systems every day performance and not a max.

Thanks tho!

Now lets see what I can do with a dual core and a c90.

 

Here's a full Lenovo N200 one I did with wPrime

32M http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=614705
1024M http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=614706

 

Thanks for the update.

Hall of fame is updated.

 

Speaking of which I am running Windows XP Pro w/ SP2

Also, I was wondering why there isn't a NBR team for hwbot.org

 

Yea I was thinking of making an NBR team.

Anyone else interested??

 

Here's a T7300 result (in Samsung Q70).

32M = 42.218s

1024M = 1338.538s

It's identical to the T7200 results, which suggests that wPrime sits in the CPU and doesn't test the FSB performance.

John

 

Of course

It's only 1.4MB or so, and easily fits in cache. We should see a bit of a difference between the Pentium Dual Cores with 1MB L2 Cache and the Core Duo's with 2MB though.

 

I'm back with a second result, and this one blows away John Ratsey's for the slowest single-core processor. The best time of three runs is included.

IBM ThinkPad 760XL
Windows 98 SE
166 MHz Pentium Processor
104 MB RAM

32M: 1255.54 seconds (20 minutes, 55.54 seconds)
1024M: failed to finish - out of resources

 

now I'm tempted to pull out my old notebook to try and ace that...

 

I could just underclock my cpu to like 1mhz and get back to you next week when vista boots up lol.

 

Heres my desktop, running XP Pro (Tiny-XP Vista Edition)

E4300 @1.38v, 3ghz (stock) - 47 degrees load
32m - 29.782
1024 - 950.531

@.95v -stock (1.8ghz) - 27 degrees load
32 - 50.14
1024 - 1560.84

I shoudl try to push this thing farther...but na. I'll get my notebook up when I get it in a week or two.

 

Here is my new notebook:

HP dv6400
Turion X2 TL-58
3GB Ram
Vista Home Premium X86

32M: 40.652 sec
1024M: 1301.588 sec

 

Here's a special edition one for you Gophn.

Intel Core 2 Duo L7500 Low Voltage (1.6GHz/800MHz FSB/4MB L2)
Vista 32-bit
4GB DDR2-667 (5-5-5-15)

32M: 54.601s

I'll run the 1024M when I have some time. I can't help but wonder that my CPU should be able to get a better score.

 

seems right its 1.6ghz so its right on track with the others.

4gb of high latency ram hurts bad too. These kind of test will give better scores with a smaller amount of ram with a lower latency.

When all the c90 peeps start benching I'll suffer the same fate as I also have 2x2gb of 5-5-5-15

 

Okay I ran the 1024M test.

It looks like my L7500 is about as fast as a T5500 give or take, at least in this benchmark. That's pretty good considering that the L7500 uses considerably less power than the standard Core 2 Duo.

 

54.938 on the 32Mb

Edit: I forgot to mention that I'm running 32 bit Ultimate

 

Well my score on vista ultimate(x86) 32M for my turion 64 x2 TL-50 is 50.328s
That is a great improvement on XP MCE score of 56.434s

 

Here's a couple of benchmarks from my various computers:

Sony tz90 ultraportable

vista ultimate
u7600 ULV core 2 @ 1.2 ghz
2gig

32m: 72.338 sec
1024m: 2304.419 sec

ibm thinkpad t43

xp prof
pentium M @ 2.0 ghz
1gig

32m: 92.906 sec

desktop

xp prof
dual pentium 4 cpu @ 3.0 ghz
512 meg

32m: 94.594 sec



cc

 

Interesting that you're finding XP to be slower than vista... Vista blows in every other benchmark. If I ever find the time maybe I'll compare. Not sure how vista could be faster than tweaked xp though...



Is that considered cheating for being fastest by ~10 seconds? CPU is at 4140mhz but EIST or whatever causes it to show 6x multi, but it's really 9. Desktop obviously.

 

Ok folks, I greatly appreciate all of the participation.

With that.... I had to split up the Dual/Multi Core tables into 2 separate ones (one for Notebooks, the other for Desktops).

Amazing scores.
... especially the OC'ed budget Core 2 Duo E4300 (is that with stock cooling?!?)

 

4.1ghz there

It's a xeon 3060 if you were talking to me about the 4300. Basically an E6600 but server binned. It's on watercooling. I'm not quite sure what a stock cooler is

 

thanks for the update afireinside.

nice scores for a dual core.... major overclocks on these Conroe CPUs

 

Meh, my TL-60 doesn't match up, but I had some programs running and its undervolted to .95v @2ghz.
Dell D531
Vista Ultimate 32 Bit
2gb RAM

41.06 for 32M
1207.494 for 1024

 

hi gophn i redid my test as i upgraded from tl56 to tl60

still under vista premium not gone onto vista 64 yet.

fuji laptop ...last position rank 17 so should be around 10 now

...38.973


cheers.

 

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=623393

29.8 with the c90s

 

29.8

and i thought my jump was impressive going from 42 to 38

well i better get the nitro out and backup nuclear generator if im gonna beat 29

 

u put a quad core in ur laptop? i thought that wasnt supposed to work well

 

Amazing score... not surprised though for a Quad-Core.

Which OS did you use?

EDIT: i guess it was not a quad-core, just a mistake on wPrime snapshot

 

Did you have to under volt the CPU at all, or is the Quad core stable in the C90 with stock cooling?

 

the e6700 is a dual core guys

im sure the quad core will work tho, just it is probably way too hot without undervolting

edit hmm yeah its says q6700 in the test... dunno why maybe because i didnt install cpuz, but its the dual core e6700 (i think lol)

 

double checked and re ran the test after installing cpuz, yes its the e6700. I need to see why my temps are so high and get vista ultimate x64 installed and you can expect even better scores!

 

Updated.

The new king.... for now:

ViciousXUSMC - ASUS C90S

	Processor (CPU)	System Type/Model	Operating System	Score (32M) - Default Test	Score (1024M) - Stress Test
1.) ViciousXUSMC	Intel Core 2 Duo CPU E6700 @ 2.66GHz	PD: ASUS C90S	[COLOR="Red"]XP SP2[/COLOR]	29.810s	n/a

 

hehe thats on xp gophin , i hope to do beter when i get vista installed just got done with the other test... stragne threaed 1 finished at 920 seconds but thread 2 didnt untill 949... so thats the score I get...

949.86 seconds for the 1024m


windows xp
http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=623500

 

oh ok, XP.... got it

 

not much faster when I ran it in vista ult x64 (and what a pain trying to find how to get the .ocx files registered, you should add this process to the front page)

but an improvement none the less.

29.51

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=623852

 

Specs @ sig

 

Yay another Santa Rosa score

... from a scarce notebook at that.

Thanks, updated.

P.S. I hope your nick has to do with one of my all-time favorite game series.

 

could someone explain how my tl60 cpu has beaten most of the intl c2d cpu in wprime when everyone keep stating intels are better with their larger amounts of cache (4mb) aiding them in larger scores???, while slating amds as slow???

or is it that wprime is more biased towards amd chips

 

Well, you have a newer 65nm Tyler processor, and those appear to be extremely competitive with the Napa Merom processors. They're not slow by any means, though the high end Santa Rosa Merom's (T7500 and T7700) still appear to be faster clock for clock than the AMD offerings. Also, you were running Vista which helps in the Wprime benchmark.

 

running Vista seems to utilize the multi-core CPUs better than XP... which does NOT do it for you automatically (you need to installed the MS hotfix for it, and config the registry).

 

i dont have the 65mn i have the older taylor 90mn model..so the 65mn would be even faster if i had it

 

Maybe. My 65nm Tyler was faster in wPrime than I thought it would be (TL-58), but then I was used to an Albany Sempron.

 

If I can get into the hall of fame I got 29.455 on an E6700 (C90)
Lemme find a screen shot

Here it is:

 

Grr vs my 29.51... guess im going to have to find a way to top you Alex to keep my top spot.

The 500' bios should give me the boost I need with the faster memory speed, but I wont go so far as a bios flash to beat you

 

I find it surprising that the T7300 (santa rosa) are slower than the T7200s (napa) I wonder why that is. As far as I know they're both 2.0 Ghz and have a 4mb cache.

 

Looks like we Alex just squeezed out a better score... probably with Vista.

Updated.

The new king.... for now:

AlexOnFyre - ASUS C90S

		Processor (CPU)	System Type/Model	Operating System	Score (32M) - Default Test	Score (1024M) - Stress Test
1.)	AlexOnFyre	Intel Core 2 Duo CPU E6700@ 2.66GHz	PD: ASUS C90S	[COLOR="Blue"]Vista Business[/COLOR]	29.460s	n/a