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

Also, make sure you're running on AC power with the power options set to the highest performance.

 

New Score:

 

didnt i beat wu jen ?

 

Finally got around to WPrime'ing my machine(s)!

These are from a custom desktop, a Dell Inspiron 500m and a Dell Latitude D830, respectively:

 

With and without hotfix, give's me same result

Using Win XP Media Center SP2

 

[/IMG]

 

Another result, for single core and dual core:

One core of Intel Core2Duo T7500, 2.4 GHz*: 71.514 seconds.

Both cores of Intel Core 2 Duo T7500, 2.2 GHz: 38.184 seconds.

Notebook is in specs; running a nearly clean install of Vista Home Premium. Did forget to put power plan on Highest, but the scores are about what would be expected.

*If I understand correctly, the speed would be 2.4 GHz while running the single-threaded version because of Intel Dynamic Acceleration increasing the multiplier by 1x (to 12x). This also would explain why the single-thread result is several seconds less than 2x the dual-core result.

btw, there hasn't been an update in more than a month. I realize you're probably busy, but you have been posting in the thread. There's a few new processors in the mix, too - ex. exxer's Turion X2 TL-66. Perhaps a partial update would be possible if all the new ones can't be incorporated at once (ex. submissions through August)? Or maybe another mod could update it?

 

That clock rating is from speed stepping I guess, because I have my notebook on "High Performance" (with a few minor changes like when it turns off the screen) AC, and CPU-Z will show it running at 1795.5mhz the whole test. (Idle is always around 1185mhz.)

 

The results for my M100 running 32M:

Banias Pentium-M 1.2GHz LV, 1MB L2 cache, 400MHz FSB.

It's a Toshiba Portege M100

 

I get 48s in wPrime with a Clevo m570ru T7300.

The first thread finishes in like 42 seconds and the second takes 48 seconds!!

Why is that????

 

Because the first thread starts slightly sooner so it gets a higher priority. Another possibility is that the core that your second thread is running on has more background tasks assigned to it.

 

But still.... 48s is like much more than most T7300 listed there... even T7200... Why?

 

What OS do you have? Is it a clean install? Have you made sure all other apps and processes are shut down first? Are you plugged in and on the highest performance setting?

 

XP pro sp2, not 100% clean install, but I uninstalled AVG, shut down every other process. Plugged in... highest performance settings?? where is that? isnt it only when ure not plugged in?

 

does gophn still update this thread?

 

Just did the wprime test 32M: I got 41.198 seconds.

 

I have the same thing too. T7300, 1st thread runs at a normal speed like the other t7300, but 2nd thread takes almost another 10 seconds to complete, 47 secs! Also on XP, sp2. Do four threads and it cuts it down to 44 secs. I don't like this new benchmark very much... with super pi all systems with the same cpu tested about the same. This one is all over the place.

 

yes, i still update this thread... gimme a min.

I have so many threads to check and update.... and being busy all the time sucks.

 

Updated... again.

We got a new record for fastest recorded time for any notebook:

...with a freaking QUAD-CORE !!!!

(for notebook with desktop CPU)
kummy123 - Clevo D900C

1.)	kummy123	Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q6600@ 2.66GHz	PD: Clevo D900C	[COLOR="Blue"]Vista[/COLOR]	15.749s	n/a

I doubt any other notebooks can ever beat this score.... maybe until quad-cores hit the mobile market next year.

 

^impressive!

 

What I'm wondering is, does kummy's laptop start smoking and melting right at 15.750s.

 

the new Clevo D900C motherboard revision fully and safely support Intel quad-core CPUs (w/ G0 stepping).

It may be the fastest notebook.... but most do not realize that its one of the most well-designed for cooling (w/ a Fan Toggle and 4 large diameter fans)

 

I don't believe kummy123 has the new mobo revision though.

 

Here's my updated scores

 

I am pretty sure that kummy does not too.

That notebook might have a chance of failure in long-term usage.

Clevo has already denounced warranty for quad-core's before the new revision.... seems that some vendors did not care and sold them with it.

In the unfortunate event of a hardware failure.....
I guess its hard to even prove that the system was using a quad-core if its sent back to Clevo for RMA.

 

thats an amazing score.... can you submit that score please.

That would give you some props for a fast mobile CPU record.

 

Update from my inspiron

 

Clean Install
XP Pro
Dell M1710
4096MB DDR2-667
Intel Core 2 Duo CPU T7600G@ 2.33GHz

 

Thats an amazing score (too amazing some would say).

I will add you to the Hall of Fame if you can SUBMIT THE SCORE after your test again.

Thanks.

 

Specs in my signature. I'm running XP Home with a windowblinds vista theme. I forgot to unload it before I tested. Oops!

32M = 43.577

 

Running vista home premium. E6600, 2 gigs ram, 160 gb 5400 seagate.

New to this, I was trying to find our team when registering on hwbot but couln't find it. Help would be appreciated. Sorry first time doing this. Think my score is pretty good right?

Edit: Nevermind, got my score up! Heres a pic of the submission.
Only thing was I typed in .829 seconds but on the results it says only 29, I can't find a way to edit it. BAH!

Edit: Nevermind edited it fine. Third pic is edited one.

 

Aww. You beat me. but only by a ms

 

"Winning is winning whether you win by an inch or by a mile."

Thank you Vin Diesel.

 

Why's my T7200 so slow? I get 48,172 AFTER optimizing.

 

Not slow. Its around the ballpark of what it should be. The t7500s get around 38 and the faster t7200s get around 45 area.

 

I have the slowest T7200/T7300 on the list by 2 seconds.

 

i have the t2250 and the fastest 32M time ive got is about 98 sec. i set the cores to 2. when i open wprime it lists this

CPU Found: CPU0
Name: Genuine Intel(R) CPU T2250 @ 1.73GHz
Speed: 800 MHz
L2 Cache: 2048 KB

why is the speed only showing up as 800MHz? is this normal? i see other times with this processor that are much faster than mine. im running vista home prem and 2 gb ram. any ideas?

 

Speed is what it is currently clocked at. If you look at my score pic you will my speed is lower than my 2.4 ghz its at 1.6 ghz because the cpu clocks itself down when the higher clock isn't needed to save energy and produce less heat and such. Nothing to worry about it will clock itself to its max when it needs to.

 

hey, is something wrong. I did the 32m test and i got 48 seconds. I have a dual core 2.16 processor and the guys with a 2 ghz processor actually beat me. Is my cpu going slow for some reason? im scared and cold and lonely, lol

 

So, I am pretty new to all of this performance tuning/benchmarking....

Did anyone else only see a minor performance increase after the hotfix? My box:
Dell Dimension 8300 desktop
Pentium 4 w/ HT @ 2.6ghz
Win XP Pro SP2
1.5 gig RAM

I tested with the 32M test in wPrime and got back 111.187 sec. PRIOR to the hotfix and reg change. Rebooted and ran wPrime again AFTER hotfix + reg change and my new 32M test result was 110.483 sec. Not much of an increase...

It did appear though I got better results than Mr._Kubelwagen who is also running a Dimension 8300, although his p4 must not be HT'ed.

Any thoughts? I am sure the hotfix wasn't present prior to installing it and I am pretty sure I followed the tweaking post correctly.......

 

75.156 sec (32M)

CPU Found: CPU0
Name: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3000+
Speed: 2371 MHz (OC'd from 1800MHz)
L2 Cache: 512 KB

 

ok so did it again with everything closed and got 45 secs. Should i be happy with that or is having 89 processes running in the background using up too much cpu power?. I have a 2.16dual core T7400 btw
thanks

 

and another thing, why does the readout give my stuff like really slow readings? Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T7400 @ 2.16GHz
Core: Merom B2
Clock: 997.5 MHz
Vcore: 1.188 V
FSB: 665 MHz
L2 Cache: 4096 KB

Memory: 2048 MB DDR2
Frequency: 332.5 MHz @ 5-5-5-15

is that RAM and stuff like way too slow?

 

^ close some of those programs, you should be close to 40 sec flat.

 

Hey, glad to see there's an update! Only one slight problem:



The numbers aren't in quite the right order. The 33.485 should be much higher. exxer posted this score in thread #366, for reference.

My score was also a bit out of the correct order, but I've since re-done it. See the post two below for that one.

I'm still not entirely sure the notebook/desktop distinction for dual/multi core is the best distinction. Whether a computer is a notebook or a desktop does not in itself affect processor performance, apart for possibly slightly more idealized motherboard architecture in desktops for desktop processors. Perhaps a better differentiation would be notebook/desktop processors, based on TDP? So anything over, say, 60 W would be desktop? There could even be a low-voltage category. It's just hard to say a Q6600, E6700, or X6800 is fair competition for a notebook processor - although for the latter two of those this may change should someone decide to OC an X7800/7900.

And yes, this is slightly based on an attempt to get in the top 10, but I think it is noteworthy to mention that the notebook/desktop categories are, in terms of processors, superficial.

Also note my suggestion is only for dual/multi core - I'm aware some of the Pentium 4 Mobile processors had rather ridiculous TDPs, but AFAIK all the dual-core mobile processors are pretty reasonable there.

 

Actually they're not superficial at all. Desktop processors are engineered fundamentally differently than notebook processors, based on the need to withstand higher temps in a notebook chassis. You can't make the distinction based on TDP, it has to be based on the engineering of the processor.

And yes, some notebooks (like the Asus C90s and the Clevo D900c) use desktop processors, and those are noted in by the code PD instead of NB. However they're still different from true desktop systems as they're often limited by FSB and can't overclock as well due to the thermal properties of a notebook.

 

That's what I was trying to say, that because the engineering is different between notebook and desktop processors the comparison isn't comparing apples to apples. I don't mean there shouldn't be a disctinction between notebook and desktop at all - not at all do I mean that - but that whether the computer itself is portable isn't the correct quantifier, rather that whether the processor is designed for notebooks or desktops would be a preferable quantifier. And if the FSB limitation is significant in this benchmark, then a seperate category for notebook processors, desktop processors, and desktop processors in notebooks (rather than purely notebook and desktop computers). Apologies for the ambiguity.

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

Never mind part 2. Didn't realize Power Saver mode capped the CPU and was wondering why my wPrime times had tripled.

 

Optimized my system a bit, switching to Classic Mode and killing a bunch of processes and services, and got a slightly better score:



That replaces the 38.184 (#18) I had earlier. I also submitted my scores this time, with team NBR. Oddly enough the submission page said I had a Core 2 E2220, though the program itself correctly identified the T7500. Oh well. All in all 0.464 seconds shaved off - 1.22% savings, though I doubt I'll often/ever spend the time disabling all those processes for that little improvement in speed.

 

Install CPU-Z for it to recognize the correct processor model.

 

Time for some wPrime ownage.

This is my new desktop:
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 G0 @ 3.401GHz (1512MHz FSB)
2GB G.SKILL DDR2-800 @ 756MHz 4-3-4-5
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition w/ SP2

FSB: DRAM ratio 1:1