Ok guys, I'm not doing this for the love of starting a new discussion. I'm interested to see how different processors behave in such a test(and to compare it to mine, I have a Netburst technology dual core I'd like to change).
The benchmark consists of calculating the value of pi with 1 million digits.
You can download the software here: Download Link
Instructions:
1.Download, Extract and Run the program.
2.Click "Calculate", and select from the dropdown list "1M".
3.Look at your result and post it here, together with the type of processor you have and specifications of it( you may round the result, because almost certainly +-(2-3 seconds) will be influenced by other system processes.
Keep in mind that more cores will not really influence the calculation of pi in this program. For that, there is another, Wprime, but it's a bit more complex and we want simple results here.
I will start.
Processor: an Intel Pentium D P935, running at 3,2 Ghz
PI calculation time: ~42 seconds
Just remember to calculate 1M !
TWHL Grand Benchmark Showoff
Created 14 years ago2010-11-12 08:23:13 UTC by
Striker
Created 14 years ago2010-11-12 08:23:13 UTC by
Striker
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-12 08:24:46 UTC
Post #287002
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-12 13:54:14 UTC
Post #287005
I've got something on now, so I'll have to do it later, but it sounds like a good idea.
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-12 14:10:53 UTC
Post #287007
That's crap, it only utilizes 1 core. And if it's a multithreaded core, it only uses part of the pseudo second core.
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-12 14:10:57 UTC
Post #287008
15.6 seconds. Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 running at a default speed of 3.00GHz.
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-12 14:12:42 UTC
Post #287009
Yah, this program is awful.
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-12 14:13:08 UTC
Post #287010
For that, there is another, Wprime, but it's a bit more complex and we want simple results here.But these results aren't necessarily accurate
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-12 17:24:32 UTC
Post #287017
This program uses only one core...
CPU Intel i5 750 @ 2.8GHz
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-12 17:32:41 UTC
Post #287018
Soup Miner, I'm strictly interested in the speed of one core. Get it? The program is not awful at all Luke, you PC is.
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-12 17:38:22 UTC
Post #287019
You're right, because getting 22 seconds faster than yours is just awful.
It's awful in that it doesn't really show anything.
It's awful in that it doesn't really show anything.
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-12 17:51:31 UTC
Post #287021
You're not a computer scientist. And it shows the speed of a core Luke, which is important. You can't get a more pure benchmark than calculating pi.
Luke, your PC is awful. My PC is even more.
Luke, your PC is awful. My PC is even more.
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-12 18:11:19 UTC
Post #287022
And it shows the speed of a core Luke, which is important.But it's not as important as showing the speed of 2 or more, and that's the real problem.
In this age, single-core CPUs are mostly artifacts from the stone age among anyone who even knows what a CPU does.
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-12 18:18:18 UTC
Post #287023
But these results aren't necessarily accurateThey are not accurate, but they make the difference. Do you expect everybody to install 3Dmark vantage? Or synthetic testers?
The test does work and does make the difference between old and new CPUs.
In this age, single-core CPUs are mostly artifacts from the stone age among anyone who even knows what a CPU does.Not quite, and you're wrong about the last one. But I'm sure it depends to the environment you're exposed.
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-12 18:21:05 UTC
Post #287024
But it's not as important as showing the speed of 2 or more, and that's the real problem.Unless (a) core(s) is/are malfunctioning, the speed of the cores in almost all multi-core processors are the same...
In this age, single-core CPUs are mostly artifacts from the stone age among anyone who even knows what a CPU does.
With that said, I like turtles.
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-13 04:24:29 UTC
Post #287032
The test does work and does make the difference between old and new CPUs.ITT we talk out of our assholes.
The speed at which calculating pi means nothing in terms of PC performance. CPUs calculate things in very specific ways, and just because your PC can calculate pi very quickly doesn't mean it's better or worse then any other CPU.
Case in point: Intel CPUs are better at rendering video over AMD. Tests prove this. Doesn't make Intel CPUs better, however.
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-13 04:26:42 UTC
Post #287033
Can't we just use 3D Mark? It seems to do a good all-rounder benchmark.
Either way, I'd smoke you all. 2x Quad Core Intel Xeon processors.
Either way, I'd smoke you all. 2x Quad Core Intel Xeon processors.
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-13 04:37:35 UTC
Post #287034
Doesn't make Intel CPUs better, however.Umm... Intel >> AMD
_>
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-13 06:25:00 UTC
Post #287035
Either way, I'd smoke you all. 2x Quad Core Intel Xeon processors.And how was it?
Unless (a) core(s) is/are malfunctioning, the speed of the cores in almost all multi-core processors are the same...All righty, maybe I didn't really think that post all the way through. Something just doesn't sit well with not using both cores when both are readily available, but then I guess calculating pi is a really simple process at the same time.
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-13 06:36:02 UTC
Post #287037
Yeah, you know it, Soup Miner.
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-13 07:45:47 UTC
Post #287038
AMD Athlon II X2 245
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-13 10:35:25 UTC
Post #287039
AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 955 Processor 3.6 GHz:
19.5 seconds.
19.5 seconds.
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-24 15:42:16 UTC
Post #287248
Update: new CPU(Intel Pentium E6500).
19,51 seconds.
19,51 seconds.
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-24 17:20:49 UTC
Post #287249
One thousand nine hundred fifty one seconds!?
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-24 17:48:47 UTC
Post #287252
No, nineteen point fifty one seconds. I'm used to using ',' instead of '.' because in mathematics at school that's what we use to define that point.
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-24 19:09:03 UTC
Post #287257
17.6 seconds
Don't wish to partake in the discussion, but if you click about, this program's from 1995....
Don't wish to partake in the discussion, but if you click about, this program's from 1995....
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-24 22:38:51 UTC
Post #287269
Yeah i know i was just pulling your leg. ;O
I suppose i should join in and post my results... My laptop is terrible so...
I suppose i should join in and post my results... My laptop is terrible so...
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-25 09:16:10 UTC
Post #287279
So far i5 pwned you all 
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-26 20:35:37 UTC
Post #287346
Sorry to do this to ya, Stojke...
11.903s
Intel Core i7 870 @ 2.93GHz (8 CPUs)
11.903s
Intel Core i7 870 @ 2.93GHz (8 CPUs)
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-26 23:17:55 UTC
Post #287350
I believe you mean 8 cores?
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-27 00:55:50 UTC
Post #287355
Each "core" is a seperate CPU. So he said what he meant.
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-27 00:57:43 UTC
Post #287356
Never mind, Saw beat me to it.
Also it's 4am. nanight.
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-27 01:20:13 UTC
Post #287362
Ah i see.
Processor: AMD Mobile Sempron 3000+ Running at 1800 MHZ
PI calculation time: ~32 Seconds
Processor: AMD Mobile Sempron 3000+ Running at 1800 MHZ
PI calculation time: ~32 Seconds
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-27 07:05:49 UTC
Post #287368
Sorry to do this to ya, Stojke...haha by 0.7 xD
11.903s
Intel Core i7 870 @ 2.93GHz (8 CPUs)
Cool stuff dude
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-27 07:35:12 UTC
Post #287369
Processor: AMD Mobile Sempron 3000+ Running at 1800 MHZAre you shitting me? A mobile sempron runs smoother than my old CPU? wtf!
PI calculation time: ~32 Seconds
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-27 09:23:33 UTC
Post #287372
Hahaha xD
Well you did have Pentium D, which is sucky xD
Well you did have Pentium D, which is sucky xD
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-27 10:46:48 UTC
Post #287376
3DMark Score: 21746.11 3DMarks
Graphics Score: 18137.49
CPU Score: 53944.06
Jane Nash: 55.11 FPS
New Calico: 51.08 FPS
AI Test: 2741.93 operations/s
Physics Test: 190.08 operations/s
Default settings used: Yes
Preset: Performance
Graphics Score: 18137.49
CPU Score: 53944.06
Jane Nash: 55.11 FPS
New Calico: 51.08 FPS
AI Test: 2741.93 operations/s
Physics Test: 190.08 operations/s
Default settings used: Yes
Preset: Performance
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-27 11:12:56 UTC
Post #287378
Pentium 4 @ 2.5GHz
33.016s
33.016s
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-27 11:19:16 UTC
Post #287379
Ugh, my GPU could not score over 10 000 lol
I have Nvidia GSO 9600 1024DDR2
I still need to boost my PC, the config is only 1/2 finished >_<
I have Nvidia GSO 9600 1024DDR2
I still need to boost my PC, the config is only 1/2 finished >_<
- Lack of money ;_;
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-27 11:50:07 UTC
Post #287381
My AMD Athlon 3200 came in with a dismal 33 seconds PI time...
Time to upgrade the board and chip again....lol
Time to upgrade the board and chip again....lol
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-27 13:24:39 UTC
Post #287382
Huntey, I'm sorry to inform you but you do not have 8 physical cores. Your CPU is a quadcore and has 8 threads. But not 8 cores.
[EDIT] Also, I posted on my blog about my upgrade. Some info, benchmarks ( from ~5000 to ~10000 in 3dmark06!!) and pictures:
http://sjackm.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/pc-upgrade/
[EDIT] Also, I posted on my blog about my upgrade. Some info, benchmarks ( from ~5000 to ~10000 in 3dmark06!!) and pictures:
http://sjackm.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/pc-upgrade/
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-27 15:16:46 UTC
Post #287389
What 3dmark are we using Archie?
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-27 15:55:33 UTC
Post #287390
Posted 14 years ago2010-11-27 16:06:59 UTC
Post #287391
3dmark06 is still a viable option.
You must be logged in to post a response.