The Notebook Review forums were hosted by TechTarget, who shut down them down on January 31, 2022. This static read-only archive was pulled by NBR forum users between January 20 and January 31, 2022, in an effort to make sure that the valuable technical information that had been posted on the forums is preserved. For current discussions, many NBR forum users moved over to NotebookTalk.net after the shutdown.
Problems? See this thread at archive.org.

    Multi-Threaded Benchmark

    Discussion in 'Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades' started by dudesdudets, May 5, 2006.

  1. dudesdudets

    dudesdudets Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    61
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    I found this; http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA026611/index_win_e.html
    It might be nice for those who are interested in how good a dual-core cpu performs.

    Mine;23.352s
    Dell E1505-1.66GHZ Core Duo, 512mbx2 533MHZ RAM, WinXP Pro.

    If you're interested in measuring your cpu performance, download this software, double click the application(no installation), and click benchmark test under Gallery menu.
     
    dudesdudets, May 5, 2006
    #1
  2. Charles P. Jefferies

    Charles P. Jefferies Lead Moderator Super Moderator

    Reputations:
    22,339
    Messages:
    36,639
    Likes Received:
    5,080
    Trophy Points:
    931
    Pentium 4 3.2GHz w/HT Northwood 512k, 2GB Corsair XMS DDR-400, XPP:
    54.175 s

    Pentium M 1.86GHz, 2GB OCZ DDR2-533, XPH:
    42.17 s

    Looks like my Pentium M beat out my Pentium 4 - interesting, considering the Pentium 4 has HT.

    Chaz

    Edit - I ran the tests twice, got the same result.
     
    Charles P. Jefferies, May 5, 2006
    #2
  3. Arla

    Arla Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    35
    Messages:
    1,073
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    Compaq NC6000 Pentium M 1.4 Ghz 768MB RAM
    56.834 seconds
    Acer 8204 Core Duo 2Ghz 2GB RAM
    20.038 seconds
     
    Arla, May 5, 2006
    #3
  4. qwester

    qwester Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    366
    Messages:
    2,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    I have to question the reliability of these tests. Compare my result with Chaz's desktop

    38.679 sec.

    P4-M 3.2GHz - HT - 533 FSB - 1MB Cache (Prescott)
    1GB DDR 400MHz - Dual Channel

    Power setting: Performance on demand

    And that's with some applications running, consuming 5-10% resources
     
    qwester, May 5, 2006
    #4
  5. Fiery Winds

    Fiery Winds Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    15
    Either there is something wrong with my comp, or that test isn't very accurate. I have the same setup as the original poster, and I get a time of 39 seconds. On AC power, fresh install of XP MCE, 1-3% CPU Idle before test.
     
    Fiery Winds, May 5, 2006
    #5
  6. Charles P. Jefferies

    Charles P. Jefferies Lead Moderator Super Moderator

    Reputations:
    22,339
    Messages:
    36,639
    Likes Received:
    5,080
    Trophy Points:
    931
    Very interesting . . there wouldn't be a gap between my computer and yours of nearly 20 seconds because of the difference between a Prescott and a Northwood. Yours has a 533 bus too, mine is an 800. I did mine twice, and I still got that. Perhaps this isn't such a great test, since it isn't appearing to be accurate.
     
    Charles P. Jefferies, May 5, 2006
    #6
  7. dudesdudets

    dudesdudets Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    61
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    your score looks like the HT is turned off...
     
    dudesdudets, May 5, 2006
    #7
  8. kegobeer

    kegobeer 1 hr late but moving fast

    Reputations:
    836
    Messages:
    3,682
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    @Chaz - Do you have two sticks of 1GB or 4 sticks of 512MB in your desktop?
     
    kegobeer, May 5, 2006
    #8
  9. Charles P. Jefferies

    Charles P. Jefferies Lead Moderator Super Moderator

    Reputations:
    22,339
    Messages:
    36,639
    Likes Received:
    5,080
    Trophy Points:
    931
    I have 4 x 512MB modules in there. I checked the BIOS and HT is enabled.

    I'm going to give it another run after a restart, see how it goes then . .

    EDIT: 54.187 seconds, didn't change. . I'm going to fool with some settings, see what I can do.
     
    Charles P. Jefferies, May 5, 2006
    #9
  10. dudesdudets

    dudesdudets Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    61
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    The result of your pen m, qwester's pen 4, Arla's computers, and mine looks reasonable.
     
    dudesdudets, May 5, 2006
    #10
  11. qwester

    qwester Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    366
    Messages:
    2,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    Unless this benchmark relies highly on cache. It would be interesting to see a benchmark for an old P-M, back when the cache was 1MB. (a banias core) Anyone got one of those??? Or maybe different versions of AMDs with different cache

    BTW this was the slower time for me. A second run was just fractions of a second faster
     
    qwester, May 5, 2006
    #11