# Multi-Threaded Super-Pi Contest



## Jet

Information about this Benchmark:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=221773

Download from here:
http://www.numberworld.org/y-cruncher/



> Warning:
> This program can be more intensive than prime95.
> Version 0.4.3 stress test runs hotter than both prime95 and Linpack on Core i7 with HT enabled.



Rules
-Post screenshot of your 32 million digit time and your 256 million digit time:

Instructions
Download file, unzip, and then open y-cruncher.exe. Enter the following:
Option 0: (Benchmark Pi)
Option 1: Multi-threaded
Option 0: Choose SuperPi Sizes
Then, choose 32M. Run that, take a screenshot, and then do the 256M and 512M after that! (Warning: you might find your overclock isn't as stable as you think it is!)

32M Standings:
1. 7.526 -- 87dtna (Xeon @ 3785)  
2. 8.146 -- Jet (i7 920 @ 4624)
3. 9.159 -- Jet (i7 860 @ 4017)
4. 9.472 -- THERMAL REACTOR (i7 920 @ 4397)
5. 9.638 -- Jet (i7 920 @ 4208)
6. 9.828 -- jasonn20 (Phenom II X6 @ 3800)
7. 10.462 -- Sam_VDC (i5 750 @ 4410)
8. 10.623 -- 87dtna -- (i5 750 @ 4300)
9. 12.507 -- The_Other_One (i7 920 @ 3320)
10. 13.394 -- linkin (Athlon II X4 635 @ 3625)
11. 13.449 -- jevery (Q9650 @ 4230)
12. 15.384 -- bigrich0086 (Q9450 @ 3600)
13. 15.544 -- 87dtna (Phenom II 550 (unlocked to X4) @ 3825)
14. 15.600 -- OMEGA (Q9550 @ 3825)
15. 16.701 -- G25r8cer (Phenom X4 920 @ 3616)
16. 17.283 -- Intel_man (i5 750 @ Stock)
17. 17.981 -- Nevakonaza (Q6600 @ 3717)
18. 23.319 -- 2048Megabytes (Phenom II X4 940 @ 3000)
19. 24.122 -- Glliw (Phenom II X4 940 @ 3000)
20. 24.756 -- Mark50 (E8400 @ 4203)
21. 33.707 -- Michael (E6600 @ 3285)
22. 43.372 -- Jet (P8700 @ 2520)
23. 43.835 -- Michael (P8600 @ 2400)
24. 47.640 -- mx344 (Phenom X3 8750 @ Stock)
25. 51.109 -- 2048Megabytes (Athlon II 245 @ 2907)
26. 59.084 -- 2048Megabytes (Athlon 7750 @ 2700)
27. 92.787 -- 2048Megabytes (Athlon X2 4600+ @ 2400)
28. 385.511 -- The_Other_One (Atom N280)
29. 570.421 -- Drenlin (Celeron @ 2791)

256M Standings:
1. 76.032 -- 87dtna (Xeon @ 3785)
2. 94.356 -- jasonn20 (Phenom II X6 @ 3800) 
3. 96.330 -- Jet (i7 860 @ 4017)
4. 98.593 -- THERMAL REACTOR (i7 920 @ 4397)
5. 103.614 -- Jet (i7 920 @ 4203)
6. 116.369 -- Sam_VDC (i5 750 @ 4200)
7. 117.153 -- 87dtna (i5 750 @ 4200)
8. 128.117 -- The_Other_One (i7 @ 3320)
9. 171.357 -- 87dtna (Phenom II 550 (unlocked to X4) @ 3825)
10. 177.891 -- Intel_man (i5 720 @ Stock)
11. 189.166 -- G25r8cer (Phenom X4 920 @ 3214)
12. 197.598 -- Nevakonaza (Q6600 @ 3717)
13. 280.233 -- Mark50 (E8400 @ 4104)
14. 382.398 -- Michael (E6600 @ 3285)
15. 475.326 -- Jet (P8700 @ 2520)
16. 480.453 -- Michael (P8600 @ 2400)

512M Standings:
1. 207.906 -- jasonn20 (Phenom II X6 @ 3799)
2. 222.382 -- Jet (i7 860 @ 4017)
3. 226.908 -- Jet (i7 [email protected] 4202)
4. 255.760 -- Sam_VDC (i5 750 @ 4200)
5. 257.275 -- 87dtna (i5 750 @ 4200)
6. 281.771 -- The_Other_One (i7 @ 3320)
7. 382.560 -- 87dtna (Phenom II 550 (unlocked to X4) @ 3624)
8. 425.686 -- Nevakonaza (Q6600 @ 3717)
9. 623.840 -- Mark50 (E8400 @ 4104)
10. 1045.970 -- Jet (P8700 @ 2520)
11. 1069.610 -- Michael (P8600 @ 2400)


----------



## 87dtna

Is this what you want?  Not sure if I did it right-







Test was done with my Phenom II 550 unlocked to an X4 at 3.8 ghz.


----------



## CdnAudiophile

I am confused, do you want the 25m times or the 1m?


----------



## linkin

I think it should be 1m times like the other non-multithreaded superpi. of course if it ends up being like a 256k test (short and not much difference) we can go higher.


----------



## 87dtna

THERMAL-REACTOR said:


> I am confused, do you want the 25m times or the 1m?



Yeah me too, first he said 25m now 1m???


----------



## 87dtna

ok, 1m test is this what you want?


----------



## poke349

*Slight hijack with a little insider info...* 

I'm in the process of putting together a specially tuned binary for my roommate's newly built Phenom II X3 rig.

Assuming it gives a worthwhile speedup for AMD, v0.4.4 will be out in a couple of days - which should make this benchmark a little bit more vendor-neutral. (It's very Intel favoring right now since there are tuned binaries for both Core 2 and Core i7, but none for AMD.)


Aside from that, everything else will be the same. (Speed-wise.)


As far as benchmark sizes go... I honestly think 1M is too small. It's too short, too inconsistent, and too small to benefit much from multi-threading.
I would suggest one small benchmark (25m or 32M), and a large one (1b or 1G). Which should be analogous to SuperPi 1M and 32M. (as far as run-times are concerned)


----------



## Jet

We'll do the 32M and then a larger one, which I'll choose in a minute!


----------



## 87dtna

edited


----------



## Jet

So, we're doing 32M and 256M






Here's my 256M:


----------



## Shane

I would contribute to the thread if i could find out how the hell to run the damn tests 

Why didnt they have make it simple like SuperPi?


----------



## Jet

Nevakonaza said:


> I would contribute to the thread if i could find out how the hell to run the damn tests
> 
> Why didnt they have make it simple like SuperPi?



Follow my instructions in the first post--it's quite simple!


----------



## poke349

I suggest you include version #s in the ranking list. Or you can request that only v0.4.3 or v0.4.4 be used. (v0.4.4 will be coming out in a couple of days)

This benchmark is an evolving program. It'll be updated over time to utilize new hardware features (such as SSE, AVX, etc...).

So speeds may or may not be consistent between versions. (AMD K10 is gonna get a boost with v0.4.4.)


Enjoy


----------



## 87dtna

Come on man how many times are you going to change it???  I just spent the last hour getting my system stable enough for 512m to test good.   Now I come back to the thread to post me results and you've changed it to 256.

Is it gonna freakin stay at 32m and 256m now???


----------



## bigrich0086

Heres my 32m


----------



## 87dtna

OK here's my 32m and then 256m-


----------



## Shane

Hope ive done them right 

32







256


----------



## 87dtna

Well, it looks like you are atleast doing it the same as me...


----------



## Jet

87dtna said:


> Come on man how many times are you going to change it???  I just spent the last hour getting my system stable enough for 512m to test good.   Now I come back to the thread to post me results and you've changed it to 256.
> 
> Is it gonna freakin stay at 32m and 256m now???



Hahaha!

I'm sorry--I was just getting the bugs worked out. I found out that the 512M requires 64 bit and over 2GB of ram, so I thought that would limit who could do it--so I went with the 256M. If I hadn't seen that, I would have kept it at 512M! I hope you understand...


----------



## Shane

Jet please update teh scoreboard....just wait until the i7 users come then it will get fun


----------



## 87dtna

Jet said:


> Hahaha!
> 
> I'm sorry--I was just getting the bugs worked out. I found out that the 512M requires 64 bit and over 2GB of ram, so I thought that would limit who could do it--so I went with the 256M. If I hadn't seen that, I would have kept it at 512M! I hope you understand...



Actually yeah once I did the 256mb I was surprised it wasn't nearly as stressful as the 512mb was.  I had to take my overclock down to 3.6ghz for the 512mb to get through the test all the way.



Nevakonaza said:


> Jet please update teh scoreboard....just wait until the i7 users come then it will get fun



Yeah I7's are gonna kill everybody in these kind of multithreaded benches.


----------



## Jet

Nevakonaza said:


> Jet please update teh scoreboard....just wait until the i7 users come then it will get fun



Done--enjoy your moment!


----------



## 87dtna

Jet said:


> Done--enjoy your moment!



Post 16 has my updated 32m.  I tweaked a little more and got 16.298.  You put me in first place anyway even with the times not correct LOL.


----------



## Jet

poke349 said:


> I suggest you include version #s in the ranking list. Or you can request that only v0.4.3 or v0.4.4 be used. (v0.4.4 will be coming out in a couple of days)
> 
> This benchmark is an evolving program. It'll be updated over time to utilize new hardware features (such as SSE, AVX, etc...).
> 
> So speeds may or may not be consistent between versions. (AMD K10 is gonna get a boost with v0.4.4.)
> 
> 
> Enjoy



Are you affiliated with the program at all? Both your posts have been really informed...



> Post 16 has my updated 32m. I tweaked a little more and got 16.482. You put me in first place anyway even with the times not correct LOL.



Do you want to include 512M as well? Since you mentioned it taxes your processor a whole lot more, it might be useful as another tier--though you still have the lower overclock for 256M. You decide.


----------



## Shane

Jet you do know my cpu is at 3.3Ghz...not 3.7 like it says?


----------



## 87dtna

Jet said:


> Do you want to include 512M as well? Since you mentioned it taxes your processor a whole lot more, it might be useful as another tier--though you still have the lower overclock for 256M. You decide.



Sure-


----------



## Jet

512M:


----------



## 87dtna

Jet said:


> 512M:



Ouch you were waiting for quite a while there!


I think I could get the higher overclock on the 512 if I had kept my geminII cooler on there.  But right now I'm only running a stock HSF from a 955, the one with copper base and 4 heat pipes.  It's not as good, testing the 512 even at 3.6ghz my temps did reach 70c for a few brief seconds on the CPU!  Toasty!

Edit- I don't want to cheat, so you can say my 256m test was 3.825 ghz because thats what it was.  I used a windows based overclocking tool so it didn't show up as being the 3.8ghz overclock because it was set to 3.6ghz in the bios.  After testing the 512m at 3.6, I was simply too lazy to reboot and change biose settings for the 256 test LOL.  Also in the 256 and 512 tests you have my CPU as a 520, it's a 550 as you have it correct in the 32m test.


----------



## Jet

87dtna said:


> Ouch you were waiting for quite a while there!
> 
> 
> I think I could get the higher overclock on the 256 and 512 if I had kept my geminII cooler on there.  But right now I'm only running a stock HSF from a 955, the one with copper base and 4 heat pipes.  It's not as good, testing the 512 even at 3.6ghz my temps did reach 70c for a few brief seconds on the CPU!  Toasty!



Yep--this test actually scales really well with quad cores--I have half the cores you do and 70% of the speed per core


----------



## 87dtna

See my edit?


----------



## 87dtna

no no the 512m was at 3.624ghz, I was just saying the 256 was with 3.8.


----------



## Jet

haha! There we go!


----------



## Shane

Heres my 512 Run


----------



## poke349

Jet said:


> Are you affiliated with the program at all? Both your posts have been really informed...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to include 512M as well? Since you mentioned it taxes your processor a whole lot more, it might be useful as another tier--though you still have the lower overclock for 256M. You decide.




lol... I was never trying to hide myself... 


EDIT:

And Yes... i7s will burn this bench...

Here's the current publicized world records: (*These are NOT mine. Don't add them to the list.*)










EDIT 2:

Since you're including the time needed to write the digits to disk... A ram drive might be able to shave off a few seconds.


----------



## Jet

poke349 said:


> lol... I was never trying to hide myself...



ha...I'm just dense sometimes, I guess . Nice to have you around!!


----------



## poke349

Jet said:


> ha...I'm just dense sometimes, I guess . Nice to have you around!!





ps... couple of edits to my previous post...


----------



## CdnAudiophile

32m -10.555







256m- 102.231


----------



## 87dtna

Hmm wow I don't really think thats a spanking for an I7 at 4.6ghz VS my $100 Phenom II at 3.8ghz


----------



## Shane

ohh here they come with their i7 goodness


----------



## CdnAudiophile

Well it said it was using 50% of my CPU? I am not sure if that my meter is incorrect or if it's not using HT.


----------



## CdnAudiophile

87dtna said:


> Hmm wow I don't really think thats a spanking for an I7 at 4.6ghz VS my $100 Phenom II at 3.8ghz



Yea it's really at 4.4. It would be 4.6 if it was single threaded. I am really surprised myself. I thought the scaling would be alot better. I should run a single thread and compare to 8 threads and see how much it actually scales to.


----------



## Jet

87dtna said:


> Hmm wow I don't really think thats a spanking for an I7 at 4.6ghz VS my $100 Phenom II at 3.8ghz



Yea, he _only_ shaved off 40% of your time 

@ Thermal Reactor--it did state that it was using 8 threads, so it should have been using HT.


----------



## poke349

THERMAL-REACTOR said:


> Well it said it was using 50% of my CPU? I am not sure if that my meter is incorrect or if it's not using HT.



+1

Something's wrong, I can almost beat your times at only 4.2 GHz...

I dunno if you changed some system setting or something, but you should be about 10% faster than that.


----------



## 87dtna

Jet said:


> Yea, he _only_ shaved off 40% of your time




Yeah at 300% the price of mine   With 600 mhz more speed.  Bring his down to 3.8ghz and will it only be like 20% less time?  pfft way not worth it.

And the motherboard was probably 3 times as much too, and ram twice as much.  ETC.


----------



## Jet

87dtna said:


> Yeah at 300% the price of mine   With 600 mhz more speed.  Bring his down to 3.8ghz and will it only be like 20% less time?  pfft way not worth it.
> 
> And the motherboard was probably 3 times as much too, and ram twice as much.  ETC.



There's certainly truth to the statement, but then there are situations where you'll need the power of an i7--ie, with the new EL WUs that [email protected] is offering, where you need all 8 virtual cores and the cache to get the WUs done .


----------



## The_Other_One

Following exactly what I saw in the first post...

*edit*
Wow...  The forum compression really killed the image


----------



## Jet

The_Other_One said:


> *edit*
> Wow...  The forum compression really killed the image




I still got it . Do you want to submit 256M/512M times while you're at it?


----------



## The_Other_One

Hmm...maybe a bit later if I think about it...  I have Premiere and Photoshop up so it might throw off the results.


----------



## mx344

i got, 83 :/ ill post pic later, but i have a 5200+, oddly enough when i counted it wasnt 83 it was around a minute, ill  redo later i guess haha


----------



## The_Other_One

256 and 512 on the i7.  I might try some other machiens later on.  Oh, and I did have trillian and some things downloading at the time of these benchmarks, so they aren't really "true" but should be accurate enough 

----

Stupid compression...

Total time for the 256 was 135.441 seconds and 512 was 296.167 seconds


----------



## The_Other_One

Ouch?


----------



## zer0_c00l

should have tried for higher but to be continued 3.8ghz (no voltage at all )


----------



## 87dtna

zero cool how did you get 3.8ghz stable with only 1.325 volts???  What CPU cooler do you have?  Very nice!  
Whats your CPU-NB speed?


----------



## zer0_c00l

87dtna said:


> zero cool how did you get 3.8ghz stable with only 1.325 volts???  What CPU cooler do you have?  Very nice!
> Whats your CPU-NB speed?


    didnt have to even try just turned multi up  and booted   ohh and i have a dark knight cooler and nb 2600/2600  my chip is one of the 1st batch of 720's i bought it the 1st week out. very good overclocker


----------



## G25r8cer

32mb   Stock clock so, nothing to brag about


----------



## 87dtna

zer0_c00l said:


> didnt have to even try just turned multi up  and booted   ohh and i have a dark knight cooler and  2600/2600  my chip is one of the 1st batch of 720's bought is the 1st week out. very good overclocker



Wow.  Want to trade?  haha.  Yeah the first batch was the best, if only I had known.  It takes 1.50 Vcore to get 3.8 stable on my chip.  runs hot.  With the 512 test I had to run 3.6ghz, and still hit 63c.

Have you ever tried to clock higher?  Whats it top out at?   Sounds like you got a 4ghz+ chip on your hands if you are running stock volts at 3.8.  Nice!

Yeah I was running 2600/2400 for the test.  Did you have to increase the CPU-NB voltage to run 2600?


----------



## 87dtna

G25r8cer said:


> 32mb   Stock clock so, nothing to brag about
> ]




Hey well atleast the guys that are overclocked have a baseline to go by though after finding what a stock 955 pulls.  I certainly don't consider your test a waste at all.  Thanks


----------



## zer0_c00l

87dtna said:


> Wow.  Want to trade?  haha.  Yeah the first batch was the best, if only I had known.  It takes 1.50 Vcore to get 3.8 stable on my chip.  runs hot.  With the 512 test I had to run 3.6ghz, and still hit 63c.
> 
> Have you ever tried to clock higher?  Whats it top out at?   Sounds like you got a 4ghz+ chip on your hands if you are running stock volts at 3.8.  Nice!
> 
> Yeah I was running 2600/2400 for the test.  Did you have to increase the CPU-NB voltage to run 2600?



look for 4ghz club thread ive had it to 4.3 on air with some voltage ofcourse  and no voltage bump on nb


----------



## 87dtna

zer0_c00l said:


> look for 4ghz club thread ive had it to 4.3 on air with some voltage ofcourse I( no voltage anywhere)



Dang, thats sweet.  Soooo you keep ignoring me, trade?  LOL 

Your CPU probably runs cool as a cucumber at 3.8ghz running stock voltage huh?


----------



## zer0_c00l

87dtna said:


> Dang, thats sweet.  Soooo you keep ignoring me, trade?  LOL
> 
> Your CPU probably runs cool as a cucumber at 3.8ghz running stock voltage huh?



well about 34c idle..


----------



## G25r8cer

I need to start OC'ing 

I think my CM V8 could handle quite a bit


----------



## zer0_c00l

yeah it could ...id like to see it at 3.8


----------



## G25r8cer

zer0_c00l said:


> yeah it could ...id like to see it at 3.8



Me too

Well im off to work now 

When I get back tonight I shall start OC'in


----------



## 87dtna

zer0_c00l said:


> well about 34c idle..



Load?


----------



## poke349

@zer0_c00l and G25r8cer

Those are 25m runs. Don't we want 32M?

Also, x64 is about 30-40% faster than x86.


----------



## 87dtna

poke349 said:


> @zer0_c00l and G25r8cer
> 
> Those are 25m runs. Don't we want 32M?
> 
> Also, x64 is about 30-40% faster than x86.




Ahh you are correct, I didn't even notice that.  I may still be the reigning non-I7 contender.


I thought it was the other way around?


----------



## poke349

87dtna said:


> Ahh you are correct, I didn't even notice that.  I may still be the reigning non-I7 contender.
> 
> 
> I thought it was the other way around?



x64 has double the registers and native 64-bit integer support.
x86 doesn't, so it needs to be emulated.


----------



## zer0_c00l

poke349 said:


> x64 has double the registers and native 64-bit integer support.
> x86 doesn't, so it needs to be emulated.



ok so what di i do to fix my problem? how do i emulate it?


----------



## Jet

zer0_c00l said:


> ok so what di i do to fix my problem? how do i emulate it?



Just follow the directions in the original post--instead of selecting 25M, select "Use SuperPi increments."


----------



## poke349

zer0_c00l said:


> ok so what di i do to fix my problem? how do i emulate it?



It's an OS thing. You need run use a 64-bit OS to enable the 64-bit versions.

It should've given you a red message saying that you're running a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit capable machine.




Basically, there's 6 versions of the program. (They're inside the "Binaries" folder.)
When you open "y-cruncher.exe", it examines your system to determine the best one to use.

For your particular case, it wants to run "x64 SSE3 ~ Kasumi". This binary is specially tuned for AMD Phenom.
But since you're running a 32-bit OS, it can't. So it must default the x86 SSE3 binary - which is a lot slower.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

Got the following scores with my Phenom 9550 (2.2 gigahertz) Quad-Core Processor:

32M:  Total Time: 69.16 seconds

256M:  Total Time: 863.35 seconds


----------



## G25r8cer

One sec rebooting to 64bit

Edit: Here we go. This should be right now


----------



## G25r8cer

Just bumped the multi up a bit 

32c idle


----------



## poke349

G25r8cer said:


> Just bumped the multi up a bit
> 
> 32c idle




You see the difference between x86 and x64?


----------



## G25r8cer

poke349 said:


> You see the difference between x86 and x64?



Yup but, i'll still be using 32bit 90% of the time


----------



## jevery




----------



## 87dtna

jevery said:


>





Damn you!!

J/K  lol

Nice score, and overclock!


----------



## jevery

87dtna said:


> Damn you!!



Yea, I know the feeling.  I just got knocked out of the top three on the 3DMark thread.  Sorry


----------



## 87dtna

jevery said:


> Yea, I know the feeling.  I just got knocked out of the top three on the 3DMark thread.  Sorry



LOL, no biggie.  I'm still third place in the 256m and second place in the 512m.  I'm sure some I7's and some high clocked C2Q's will put me down LOL.  I'm hoping to improve my scores some once I install my new motherboard and TRUE cpu cooler to try to hit 4.0ghz stable.  Even 3.9ghz gets toasty with the GeminII cooler, about 68c.


----------



## G25r8cer

Jet: Could you update the standings? You got jevery's score on my name too


----------



## poke349

87dtna said:


> LOL, no biggie.  I'm still third place in the 256m and second place in the 512m.  I'm sure some I7's and some high clocked C2Q's will put me down LOL.  I'm hoping to improve my scores some once I install my new motherboard and TRUE cpu cooler to try to hit 4.0ghz stable.  Even 3.9ghz gets toasty with the GeminII cooler, about 68c.



Any decent dual-socket board will also do... 
But it wouldn't be fair if I joined in. (since I know all the tweaks)

*I'll be glad to share them though. 


And if anyone can beat the times here:

http://www.numberworld.org/y-cruncher/#FastestTimes

Lemme know, I'll be glad to update it as a new world record.

The times I use there are the "computation times", *not* the "total time including writing digits".
I do it this way because it throws out the effect of disk speed. (since it's a CPU/ram benchmark)


----------



## G25r8cer

Srry but could you change my stats again? 

Im running a "*Phenom II 955be*" 

Not be picky or anything but, I dont want to give other people a different impression/thoughts


----------



## CdnAudiophile

poke349 said:


> Any decent dual-socket board will also do...
> But it wouldn't be fair if I joined in. (since I know all the tweaks)
> 
> *I'll be glad to share them though.
> 
> 
> And if anyone can beat the times here:
> 
> http://www.numberworld.org/y-cruncher/#FastestTimes
> 
> Lemme know, I'll be glad to update it as a new world record.
> 
> The times I use there are the "computation times", *not* the "total time including writing digits".
> I do it this way because it throws out the effect of disk speed. (since it's a CPU/ram benchmark)



Here's some new runs, earlier I was only running my ram at 1333 but now these runs are with the ram at 1790. 

2m- .598
http://i554.photobucket.com/albums/jj422/smercer1000/new2m598.jpg

4m- 1.193
http://i554.photobucket.com/albums/jj422/smercer1000/4m1193.jpg

8m- 2.352
http://i554.photobucket.com/albums/jj422/smercer1000/8m2352.jpg

16m- 4.611
http://i554.photobucket.com/albums/jj422/smercer1000/16m4611.jpg

32m- 9.472
http://i554.photobucket.com/albums/jj422/smercer1000/new32m9472.jpg

64m- 20.425
http://i554.photobucket.com/albums/jj422/smercer1000/64m20425.jpg

128m- 45.596
http://i554.photobucket.com/albums/jj422/smercer1000/128m-1.jpg

Btw Poke you wouldn't have any tips to give would you?


----------



## poke349

THERMAL-REACTOR said:


> Here's some new runs, earlier I was only running my ram at 1333 but now these runs are with the ram at 1790.
> 
> 2m- .598
> http://i554.photobucket.com/albums/jj422/smercer1000/new2m598.jpg
> 
> 4m- 1.193
> http://i554.photobucket.com/albums/jj422/smercer1000/4m1193.jpg
> 
> 8m- 2.352
> http://i554.photobucket.com/albums/jj422/smercer1000/8m2352.jpg
> 
> 16m- 4.611
> http://i554.photobucket.com/albums/jj422/smercer1000/16m4611.jpg
> 
> 32m- 9.472
> http://i554.photobucket.com/albums/jj422/smercer1000/new32m9472.jpg
> 
> 64m- 20.425
> http://i554.photobucket.com/albums/jj422/smercer1000/64m20425.jpg
> 
> 128m- 45.596
> http://i554.photobucket.com/albums/jj422/smercer1000/128m-1.jpg
> 
> Btw Poke you wouldn't have any tips to give would you?





Nice results!!! I'll update them later today. 

Hmm tweaks...

Hardware/Software Tweaking:

For anything less than 15 million or so... disable HT.
On Core 2, get your FSB as high as possible, period. This program needs a LOT of bandwidth. (*2x Xeon X5482 @ 3.2 GHz + 64GB DDR2 @ 800 MHz 1600 FSB* is faster than *2x Xeon X5470 @ 3.33 GHz + 128GB DDR2 @ 667 Mhz 1333 FSB* for computations over 50m.)*
Once your memory speed reaches a certain point (Core i7), it doesn't help much to go any higher. In that case, try lower frequency and tighter timings.
The program is quite sensitive to uncore frequency.
Windows Server HPC gives you control over a ton of thread and scheduling-related stuff. These can give a huge speedup on small computations where the programs spends a lot of time creating and destroying threads. (I think some of the other versions Windows may have it too.)
Try multiple runs. The smaller the computation, the more inconsistent the timings are (due to threading).
For this thread, write the digits to a ram disk. Since the times used for this thread include that final write to the disk which is disk-limiting.
For Core i7, keep your temps below 80C. That's about the point where turbo gets throttled. For my machine, for large computations (> 250m), 4.3 GHz runs slower than 4.2 GHz because 4.3 is just enough to push temps past 80C - which disables turbo and lowers the clock to 4.1 GHz.
For Core i7, use Windows 7 (or Server 2008). It knows how to deal with HT better than all previous versions of Windows.

*Sorry, I don't have any less extreme examples.
The only Core 2-based system I have is the dual X5482s with 64GB of ram. (in my sig)
The closest matching system I found benchmarks for is dual X5470s with 128GB of ram. (credit to Shigeru Kondo from Japan)

Program Tweaking:

Minimize the window.
Use the batch mode. It lets you loop benchmarks. It's complete with validation so results are just as valid as benchmark mode.
Batch mode gives you full control over the # of threads to run. This lets you override what the programs chooses. Sometimes it might be worth running more threads than cores. And for the really small runs, decreasing threads may help.
Try a different binary. The program chooses what it "thinks" is the fastest for your machine. But this isn't always true. For example: The "x64 SSE4.1 ~ Nagisa" binary runs faster than the "x64 SSE4.1 ~ Ushio" binary for anything less than ~16 million digits on Core i7.
Should memory be a tight squeeze, run the program a few times and kill it a few seconds after it sustains 100% cpu. This will force the OS to page out enough stuff to avoid thrashing. (This is crucial to getting 2.5b to run efficiently with 12GB of ram.)


----------



## CdnAudiophile

Thanks man for all the information, I really wasn't expecting that. I am going to play around with the uncore frequency as well as my ram some more. I am trying to find a sweet spot with the timing and speed but my ram is limiting me. I really need to get some Corsair 2000 mhz stuff.  I noticed that the top 1m was using a different binary and the best so far with the ushio for me is like .295 so I will also try re running all my sub 16m with the other binary.


----------



## G25r8cer

Got one for the 256m standings

High temp of only 42c


----------



## Jet

Hey all!

I updated the scores to not include the time to write to disk to mesh better with the official WR records that do not include that. The only change in placement is between bigrich0086 and 87dtna--87dtna got dropped to 5th in the 32M.


----------



## poke349

Jet said:


> Hey all!
> 
> I updated the scores to not include the time to write to disk to mesh better with the official WR records that do not include that. The only change in placement is between bigrich0086 and 87dtna--87dtna got dropped to 5th in the 32M.



Updated the WR list.  Sorry it took a while... was almost up the whole night in a Lan Party... 

Also, the frequency that the program gives is almost always wrong when the multiplier isn't stock. (So it also won't detect turbo boost increases.)
So CPUz screenshots will be helpful.

It's very hard to detect the right frequency... hence why CPUz exists. But I keep it there to aid with validations.



Alex


----------



## G25r8cer

Dont forget my 256m run


----------



## Intel_man

32M




256M




512M





Keep in mind, this is Core i5 750 at stock 2.66GHz speed.


----------



## 87dtna

Intel_man said:


> Keep in mind, this is Core i5 750 at stock 2.66GHz speed.




The power boost feature gives it 3.2ghz iirc.


----------



## Geoff

Frequency is correct.


----------



## G25r8cer

87dtna: Could you post a full cpu-z screenshot? I seem to have hit a brick wall with fsb and could use some help.


----------



## 87dtna

G25r8cer said:


> 87dtna: Could you post a full cpu-z screenshot? I seem to have hit a brick wall with fsb and could use some help.



I only used the multiplier to overclock.  Black edition!  Multiplier is simply at 19.

What ghz are you hitting a wall at?  And whats your CPU voltage at?  Whats your cpu NB and HT set at?


----------



## G25r8cer

87dtna said:


> I only used the multiplier to overclock.  Black edition!  Multiplier is simply at 19.
> 
> What ghz are you hitting a wall at?  And whats your CPU voltage at?  Whats your cpu NB and HT set at?



I get a bsod with 19x multi and everything else on auto. Vcore is running between 1.408-1.424 

Bsod is when running ycruncher


----------



## Jet

G25r8cer said:


> I get a bsod with 19x multi and everything else on auto. Vcore is running between 1.408-1.424
> 
> Bsod is when running ycruncher



When overclocking, Auto is your enemy. It changes stuff when you don't want it to be changed, and you can never track what adjustments actually work. Get everything off manual, and then work from there--and keep a log!


----------



## G25r8cer

Jet said:


> When overclocking, Auto is your enemy. It changes stuff when you don't want it to be changed, and you can never track what adjustments actually work. Get everything off manual, and then work from there--and keep a log!



Raised the HT and Vcore and coretemp wont give me temps

Edit: Got her stable at 3.8ghz now 

Just gave it somemore voltage and set the ht back to normal 

What next? Bump the multi or drop ram and raise fsb?


----------



## Jet

G25r8cer said:


> Raised the HT and Vcore and coretemp wont give me temps
> 
> Edit: Got her stable at 3.8ghz now
> 
> Just gave it somemore voltage and set the ht back to normal
> 
> What next? Bump the multi or drop ram and raise fsb?



As long as your ram is at/under stock, you're fine. 

Do you have an unlocked multi? It's really either way--keep raising the FSB until you run into motherboard issues. You'll know it when you need to start raising your NB voltage.


----------



## G25r8cer

Yes I have unlocked multi 

Just wanted to know which way is better


----------



## Jet

G25r8cer said:


> Yes I have unlocked multi
> 
> Just wanted to know which way is better



The higher the FSB, the higher the overall system performance, but it will raise temperatures more in general due to the Ram and NB being overclocked in addition to the CPU. Personally, I'd raise the FSB until you hit a wall, and then play around with the multi.


----------



## 87dtna

G25r8cer said:


> I get a bsod with 19x multi and everything else on auto. Vcore is running between 1.408-1.424
> 
> Bsod is when running ycruncher




Set cpu-NB at 2400mhz, HT at 2400.  Take cpu-NB voltage to 1.25v.

Mine takes 1.50 Vcore to get 3.8ghz stable, but yours may be different.


----------



## mx344

Mines 47.6397 with my new 8750 B.E. @ 2.7ghz  (32m)


----------



## G25r8cer

87dtna said:


> Set cpu-NB at 2400mhz, HT at 2400.  Take cpu-NB voltage to 1.25v.
> 
> Mine takes 1.50 Vcore to get 3.8ghz stable, but yours may be different.



What freq for nb?


----------



## poke349

I feel like giving this thread a slight bump. 

Here's my 24/7 OC.
All resource-intensive background programs paused/killed + Real Time priority. No other tweaks.

*3.5 GHz* - Always trust CPUz. 
y-cruncher can't detect Turbo Boost.

(For the screenshot, I had to restart my background crunching to force the CPU out of power-saving mode and show 3.5 GHz.)


----------



## Respital

*I think the warning should be bolded*, if it is that intense. However i haven't tried out this program, probably because of the warning.


----------



## Jet

Respital said:


> *I think the warning should be bolded*, if it is that intense. However i haven't tried out this program, probably because of the warning.



It's not that big of a deal--just letting you know that making a suicide run probably isn't the best idea .


----------



## poke349

Only on Core i7 with HT enabled is it more intensive than prime95 and Linpack.

And even then, it's not like one benchmark is gonna kill your system.

It took 7 months under near continuous load for it to burn out my mobo - and that was because I didn't have enough mosfet cooling . (now I do... )

I know of only one other person that has burned out a mobo with this program - and that was because his overclock was far from safe under prime95.


EDIT: As far as I can remember, that person was making a "near" suicide run. Suicide for something like SuperPi... But since y-cruncher is multi-threaded, it pushed his rig way beyond its limits... and after a few benchmarks, it finally blew out his mobo. Fortunately, his processor and everything else survived though.
Anyhow, it was still enough for me to put up the warning on my thread over at XS.

Basically, I don't think he would've dared to run prime with that fatal OC. But it was y-cruncher on Core i7 with HT...


----------



## Respital

Jet said:


> It's not that big of a deal--just letting you know that making a suicide run probably isn't the best idea .



Yeah i know, i guess I'll give it a try later and post my results...though they wont be any record breaking numbers.


----------



## Jet

Hey Poke!

Thanks for this program! I'm using the 1 billion digit (SuperPi) test to make sure my overclock is stable for folding the bigadv work units!


----------



## Mark50

I've attached screenshots of 32m 256m and 512m y-cruncher times.


----------



## 87dtna

Time to update!!!  Got the I5 up and running, running real good!

Both of these are at 4.2ghz, used ASRock OC tuner to take multiplier to turbo (21) with a BLCK of 200.


----------



## 87dtna

And here's my 512m, also at 4.2ghz


----------



## Jet

Rankings updated--I'll get screens of mine sometime in the next week or so after I run at 4.1Ghz (what I'm running stable right now).


----------



## 87dtna

Ohhhh you just couldn't let me have number 1 spot for a week in the 512m huh?


----------



## 2048Megabytes

I will post my marks on the 32M when I get home with an Athlon 7750+ Dual-Core.  The marks will put me way above the Intel Atom Processor, but I will have number 17 place.


----------



## 87dtna

2048Megabytes said:


> I will post my marks on the 32M when I get home with an Athlon 7750+ Dual-Core.  The marks will put me way above the Intel Atom Processor, but I will have number 17 place.



Oh I dunno, are you overclocked any?  Maybe at about 3.2ghz you may beat a stock 8750 X3.  I think you will be 14th place.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

I don't want to overclock my Athlon 7750+ Processor because I may sell it within a year and it lessens the resale value.

My Athlon 7750+ Dual-Core at stock 2.7 gigahertz speed.  32M marks:


----------



## 87dtna

2048Megabytes said:


> I don't want to overclock my Athlon 7750+ Processor because I may sell it within a year and it lessens the resale value.
> 
> My Athlon 7750+ Dual-Core at stock 2.7 gigahertz speed.  32M marks:
> ]




Dude even now that CPU is barely worth $50, doubt you would sell it for that because the Athlon II 240 is about that much with better performance.  In a year, it will probably only be worth it's weight in scrap metal.  Now pump the juice and see what it can do!

It should do 3.0ghz on stock voltage, just bump the multiplier to 15 and see if you get a BSOD.  When I had that chip, I believe I had around 1.425 Vcore to get 3.2ghz stable, and I hit a wall at 3.3ghz maxing out 1.55 Vcore.  But there are some batches I've seen overclock to 3.4ghz on that 1.425 Vcore.


----------



## mx344

Thats about right for the 7750, at stock. I bet if you can overclock to 3.0 to 3.1 you can get around the same timings as my 8750 at 2.7ghz.


----------



## 87dtna

mx344 said:


> Thats about right for the 7750, at stock. I bet if you can overclock to 3.0 to 3.1 you can get around the same timings as my 8750 at 2.7ghz.



Thats what I said basically, if he overclocks to 3.2 ghz he'd be around low 40's seconds and in 14th place


----------



## 87dtna

Well looks like I max out at 205 BCLK on this $115 asrock board LOL.  All voltages maxxed out pretty much but I got 4.3ghz stable enough to run super PI 32m( I know it says 4.1 but I changed multi to 21 with OC tuner)







Was hoping I could get 4.4ghz out of it to try and beat Jet's 10.4 seconds, but oh well I guess.  Vcore for 4.3ghz took a staggering 1.5875 to get stable!  My TRUE cpu cooler still keeping it cool as a cucumber around 70c core temps and under 50c actual CPU temp.  Max spec is 97c.  For that kind of voltage I'm impressed, TRUE ftw!


----------



## mx344

87dtna said:


> Thats what I said basically, if he overclocks to 3.2 ghz he'd be around low 40's seconds and in 14th place



I don't think he cares much about this contest


----------



## Jet

87dtna said:


> Well looks like I max out at 205 BCLK on this $115 asrock board LOL.  All voltages maxxed out pretty much but I got 4.3ghz stable enough to run super PI 32m( I know it says 4.1 but I changed multi to 21 with OC tuner)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was hoping I could get 4.4ghz out of it to try and beat Jet's 10.4 seconds, but oh well I guess.  Vcore for 4.3ghz took a staggering 1.5875 to get stable!  My TRUE cpu cooler still keeping it cool as a cucumber around 70c core temps and under 50c actual CPU temp.  Max spec is 97c.  For that kind of voltage I'm impressed, TRUE ftw!



Did you raise the other voltages? (I have a sub 10 second run, but using ASRock's tool made it not like it, so I'm trying to find a solution for that  )


----------



## 87dtna

Yeah, VTT seemed to help the most but it seemed to max out at 1.49v.  If I set it to 1.50 I get freeze ups.  I took PLL to 1.90, that seemed to help slightly too but more didn't make any difference so I took it back down to 1.90.  PCH didn't help anything.  It's only a $115 board, I was expecting to have to fight with it to get 200 BCLK stable but it did that on all stock settings!  Well except Vcore.  My cpu does stock voltage up to 3.6ghz, 1.35 at 3.8ghz, 1.40 at 4.0ghz, and 1.48 at 4.2ghz.

I'm guessing 4.4ghz would need at minimum water cooled if not No2 or dice.  4.2ghz is stable at 1.49 Vcore, but like I said it took 1.58 to get 4.3ghz stable.  Not going any higher than that because that was crazy already LOL.



Oh, and can you update my 32m time?  Thanks


----------



## 2048Megabytes

Ha! Ha! Ha!    I tried to overclock my Athlon 7750+ and I think I fried it.  After I attempted to overclock all I could get into was my BIOS and I ran Memtest86+ with the Athlon 7750+.  It worked for 7.5 hours with Memtest86+, no errors, but when I would try to start into any operating system I would just get black screen system hangs.

So I changed out my processor and now everything seems to be fine.  Guess I am with my good old Athlon 4600+ Dual-Core again.  I think I will do a Y-Cruncher test on the Athlon 4600+ processor and see what I get.


----------



## 87dtna

2048Megabytes said:


> Ha! Ha! Ha!    I tried to overclock my Athlon 7750+ and I think I fried it.  After I attempted to overclock all I could get into was my BIOS and I ran Memtest86+ with the Athlon 7750+.  It worked for 7.5 hours with Memtest86+, no errors, but when I would try to start into any operating system I would just get black screen system hangs.
> 
> So I changed out my processor and now everything seems to be fine.  Guess I am with my good old Athlon 4600+ Dual-Core again.  I think I will do a Y-Cruncher test on the Athlon 4600+ processor and see what I get.



What???  What settings did you try/change?!!!

Did you try resetting the bios first before the CPU change?  If you change the CPU the bios normally resets itself so thats why it worked again.  Sounds like the settings you tried were simply not stable.  Seriously doubt you fried the CPU, especially if you did not change any voltage settings.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

I reset the BIOS to the fail safe settings and it still wouldn't work correctly.  The Athlon 7750+ Dual-Core will go back in to see if it works.  I can't exactly remember what BIOS settings I tinkered with but I didn't bump the voltage up by very much.  I was mainly messing with the multiplier on the processor and the north bridge.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

I put the Athlon 7750+ back into my motherboard and got the same results. When I  try to start into any operating system I just get black screen system hangs.

Switched out my processor to the Athlon 4600+ and BAM, everything seems to work fine.  Guess I'm back to the old Athlon 4600+.  Bummer, since I only owned the Athlon 7750+ for about two days.  Oh well, better to laugh about it.    Life is too short to worry about one computer chip.


----------



## 87dtna

Wow umm that doesn't really make any sense.  What did you do to the north bridge?  Just change the multi or did you change the voltage?

What Vcore did you set it too?

If I had an AM2+ motherboard I would ask you to send it to me to test but I don't.


----------



## Jet

32M @ 4.3






256M @ 4.2






512M @ 4.2







Poke, I have some WRs for the non-SuperPi calculations of you want those--I'll post them later. That 512M time is a fastest time as well, looking at the charts.


----------



## poke349

Jet said:


> Poke, I have some WRs for the non-SuperPi calculations of you want those--I'll post them later. That 512M time is a fastest time as well, looking at the charts.




Yeah, let's see them. Be glad to update them. 



So I just finished running a whole set of benchmarks on my workstation using the latest version (with the efficiency %s)...

The larger the computation, the better the efficiency, so I was gonna see what 8 cores on 64GB of ram can do...
And it couldn't break 96%... (My i7 does it easily... even at much smaller sizes...)

Any ideas?

Same OS, same service pack, no background programs... 8 virtual cores each...
It should have nothing to do with memory bandwidth because the efficiency measures how much cpu time is spent (as visible to the OS) - which includes all the delays for waiting on ram...


Digits - Efficiency

150,000,000 - 88.3461 %
200,000,000 - 89.6781 %
250,000,000 - 90.3781 %
400,000,000 - 92.1596 %
500,000,000 - 92.8779 %
750,000,000 - 93.6555 %
1,000,000,000 - 93.9021 %
1,200,000,000 - 94.2294 %
1,500,000,000 - 94.6377 %
2,000,000,000 - 94.8800 %
2,500,000,000 - 94.9631 %
4,000,000,000 - 95.2968 %
5,000,000,000 - 95.2680 %
7,500,000,000 - 95.6914 %
10,000,000,000 - 95.9038 %
12,000,000,000 - 95.4064 %


----------



## Jet

just upgraded from a single pass 120mm radiator to a double pass 240mm--so I'll hopefully be getting some benching in when I get back from a trip in mid-January!


----------



## poke349

Just a little bump and a heads up on something...

I need some opinions on what I should do:

The next version (v0.5.x), is faster than the current release. (It's nowhere near ready yet, so don't get excited...)
I won't say how much faster, but it's enough to wreck havoc on competition threads like this if people started posting benchmarks using it.

What should I do?


Delay the release of v0.5.x for as long as possible.
Pros: Gives v0.4.4 a longer lifetime. Avoids wrecking havoc on competition threads for the meantime. 
Cons: Other improvements to the program won't get out. (The new validation scheme being the biggest of them all for now.)


Branch the program into two versions: "y-cruncher HPC" and "y-cruncher Benchmark". (Not necessarily those names, but something along those lines.)
Then require that "y-cruncher Benchmark" be used for competition threads.
Pros: Allows new improvements to be done without wrecking havoc on existing benchmarks.

Cons: I'm 90% sure this will confuse the hell out of people... This is also a little too much work for me since I'll have to maintain double the code.


Release it anyway and hope everything turns out okay.


Notify all threads like this and let them decide what to do.

Basically, there's a conflict of interest right now. "Make a benchmarking program." vs. "Make an HPC program."

Since "benchmarking" requires consistancy...
And "HPC" implies making it faster and better...


As of right now, I'm leaning towards option 1 since it gives me the most flexibility to do things.

And if we decide to go the consistency route, how will new tech like AVX be incorporated?


----------



## Sam_VDC

i5-750 @ 4.2GHz
32MB





256MB





512MB


----------



## Drenlin

32M





Do I win?  

(...do I win 18th place?)


----------



## 87dtna

Sam_VDC said:


> i5-750 @ 4.2GHz
> 32MB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 256MB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 512MB



Ah man now I gotta re-run my 256 and 512 at 4.3ghz LOL.

What Vcore are you running to get 4.2ghz stable?


----------



## Sam_VDC

87dtna said:


> Ah man now I gotta re-run my 256 and 512 at 4.3ghz LOL.
> 
> What Vcore are you running to get 4.2ghz stable?



Base on that setting, 1.39575 for manually.....and actually Auto Vcore rock solid as well.
With Auto Vcore, load P95 sFFT from CPU-Z is 1.376v


----------



## 87dtna

Sam_VDC said:


> Base on that setting, 1.39575 for manually.....and actually Auto Vcore rock solid as well.
> With Auto Vcore, load P95 sFFT from CPU-Z is 1.376v



You want to trade chips??? 

Mine takes 1.525 for 4.2ghz stable.


----------



## Drenlin

So it's just sinking in that I got my arse handed to me by a netbook. I thought it was funny at first, but now....I think I need to get my laptop running again!


----------



## 2048Megabytes

Drenlin said:


> So it's just sinking in that I got my arse handed to me by a netbook. I thought it was funny at first, but now....I think I need to get my laptop running again!



The Intel Atom processors don't have very much processing power.  The old Celeron processors are very slow.  If you have a Windows installation disk you could build yourself a decent desktop system with an Athlon II Dual-Core Processor for around $350.  That would be  a huge upgrade from your present technology.


----------



## 87dtna

Drenlin said:


> So it's just sinking in that I got my arse handed to me by a netbook. I thought it was funny at first, but now....I think I need to get my laptop running again!





2048Megabytes said:


> The Intel Atom processors don't have very much processing power.  The old Celeron processors are very slow.  If you have a Windows installation disk you could build yourself a decent desktop system with an Athlon II Dual-Core Processor for around $350.  That would be  a huge upgrade from your present technology.



Or if he wants to stay with intel the new wolfdale core celeron E3200 is excellent bang for the buck.  Even cheaper than the Athlon II's, overclocks better, and it's just faster in general clock for clock.
I got my E3200 to 4.2ghz.  My Athlon II 245 topped out at 3.8ghz, I might have gotten 3.9 I can't remember.  But I could not get 4ghz out of it no matter what...on air anyway.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

The Celeron E3200 Wolfdale Dual-Core is a good processor.  My biggest issue with Intel is their heatsinks.  If he were to buy the following wouldn't he have to also have to sink around $27 into a decent heatsink?  The heatsinks Intel provides with their processors are garbage.

Intel Celeron E3200 Wolfdale Dual-Core (2.4 gigahertz) Processor - $53
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...m_re=celeron_processor-_-19-116-265-_-Product


Dynatron P985 92 millimeter Ball CPU Cooler - $27 with shipping costs 
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835114073


----------



## 2048Megabytes

[/QUOTE]

Jet never posted the marks of my now fried Athlon 7750+ Dual-Core at stock 2.7 gigahertz speed on the 32M.


----------



## 87dtna

2048Megabytes said:


> The Celeron E3200 Wolfdale Dual-Core is a good processor.  My biggest issue with Intel is their heatsinks.  If he were to buy the following wouldn't he have to also have to sink around $27 into a decent heatsink?  The heatsinks Intel provides with their processors are garbage.
> 
> Intel Celeron E3200 Wolfdale Dual-Core (2.4 gigahertz) Processor - $53
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...m_re=celeron_processor-_-19-116-265-_-Product
> 
> 
> Dynatron P985 92 millimeter Ball CPU Cooler - $27 with shipping costs
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835114073




Nah the E3200 runs cool.  I got 3.4ghz on stock voltage stable, never cracked 60c core temp with the stock all aluminum garbage cooler.

And if I were to recommend a HSF for around $30 it would be the freezer pro.


----------



## Drenlin

I'm actually looking at a core i3 setup at the moment. All depends on funds though. My laptop is an xps m1210, so i'll be good for a while if i can get it working.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

Drenlin said:


> I'm actually looking at a core i3 setup at the moment. All depends on funds though.



You may also want to compare these high performance AMD processors against the $125 Intel Core i3 530 Dual-Core.

Phenom II 550 Dual-Core (3.1 gigahertz) Processor - $99

Phenom II 720 Tri-Core (2.8 gigahertz) Processor - $129 

Phenom II 925 Quad-Core (2.8 gigahertz) Processor - $141


----------



## linkin

I just got 16.479 seconds with superpi (1M), let's see what my overclock can do for 32m on this


----------



## linkin

I take 14th place.


----------



## Sam_VDC

@linkin93
You could probably be stable with 1.392v underload shown in CPU-Z. So, you could try to lower it a notch or two in bios.


----------



## linkin

it's not prime95 stable, and sometimes 1.4v drops to 1.33v! damn this vdroop. probably why i can't hit 4ghz. CPU-Z report a wrong voltage anyway. it's 1.4v exaclt in the bios, not 1.408v.


----------



## Sam_VDC

linkin93 said:


> it's not prime95 stable, and sometimes 1.4v drops to 1.33v! damn this vdroop. probably why i can't hit 4ghz. CPU-Z report a wrong voltage anyway. it's 1.4v exaclt in the bios, not 1.408v.



What you need is a Vdroop MOD reduction....see image below.
http://i47.tinypic.com/oqxcnn.jpg


----------



## linkin

wow, that's it? what does it mean by #2 pencil? i have a graphite drawing pencil here if that will work.


----------



## 87dtna

Any local convience store should have a #2 pencil for less than a dollar, probably a pack of 5 or something.


----------



## Sam_VDC

linkin93 said:


> wow, that's it? what does it mean by #2 pencil? i have a graphite drawing pencil here if that will work.



I suppose that will do. BUT, #2 pencils are abundant. Looking on the pencil...most has an indication of #2......#2 pencil has lead...try to use that.


----------



## 87dtna

Yes it's the lead that makes the difference, graphite won't do anything!


----------



## Sam_VDC

Sorry 87dtna, my new speed 32M = 10.462s

i5-750 21*210 BCLK = 4410MHz


----------



## 87dtna

Sam_VDC said:


> Sorry 87dtna, my new speed 32M = 10.462s
> 
> i5-750 21*210 BCLK = 4410MHz



Haha, thats ok.  I think it's my motherboard thats holding me back most.  It will not go above 206 BCLK no matter what pretty much.

What voltages are you running for that overclock?


----------



## Sam_VDC

1.55625v...along with 1.37v QPI/VTT...timing was loosen on the rams as well.

It could use less Vcore...but I didn't try since it is just for a suicide run.


----------



## poke349

I'm just wondering if anyone has been playing around enough to know.

How well does the program respond to different memory timings?

I know that memory timings are a huge factor for SuperPi. So I'm just wondering if that's also the case for y-cruncher.


----------



## 87dtna

Sam_VDC said:


> 1.55625v...along with 1.37v QPI/VTT...timing was loosen on the rams as well.
> 
> It could use less Vcore...but I didn't try since it is just for a suicide run.



Cool.  What motherboard do you have?


----------



## Sam_VDC

87dtna said:


> Cool.  What motherboard do you have?



I have a Gigabyte P55-UD3R paired with CM V8


----------



## 87dtna

Sam_VDC said:


> I have a Gigabyte P55-UD3R paired with CM V8



What kind of temps do you see at 4.4ghz if you prime95 it small FFT?  Do yo use real temp?


----------



## Sam_VDC

87dtna said:


> What kind of temps do you see at 4.4ghz if you prime95 it small FFT?  Do yo use real temp?



It was just a suicidal run so I didn't fool around much.
I mostly lock it in 185blck with Turboboost kich in around 4.4GHz with less voltage, heat and be efficient at the same time...not to mention stable as well.
I only use & trust Realtemp.

CPU-Z LOAD: 1.376v, 21x, 3885MHz Temp: 69-66-63-66 MAX
http://i47.tinypic.com/2z8sylf.jpg

CPU-Z IDLE: 1.360v, 9x, 1665MHz
http://i46.tinypic.com/23pv2a.jpg

TURBO kicks in: 24x @ 4439MHz, 1.360v
http://i47.tinypic.com/f3t72w.jpg

IBT 5 loops HIGH, Temp: 74-71-68-72 MAX
http://i48.tinypic.com/2s0d4ck.jpg


----------



## 2048Megabytes

I think this thread has gotten buried too far and has been forgotten.  A new processor will be coming in the mail soon for a system I am building and I will have to post marks on that from Y-Cruncher.  

Let's please see some more marks from the Y-Cruncher program people!

(Woo hoo!  2,500 posts now!)


----------



## 2048Megabytes

Here are marks on 32M for an Athlon II 245 Dual-Core Processor:

http://s87.photobucket.com/albums/k133/Stopping_Power/?action=view&current=AthlonII245.jpg

51.109 seconds


----------



## 2048Megabytes

Here are the marks for 32M with the Athlon 4600+ Dual-Core with 65 nanometer technology:

http://s87.photobucket.com/albums/k133/Stopping_Power/?action=view&current=4600Marks.jpg&newest=1

92.78 seconds


----------



## poke349

Thought I'd give this thread a little bump... 

For small benchmarks:
There's been some pretty devastating results on a pair of overclocked Xeon X5680s...  (the new 6-core dual-socket Xeons)

For large benchmarks:
Someone with a pair of Xeon W5590s, 144GB of ram, and 16 x 2TB hard drives was able to chew out 500 billion digits in just over one week.


----------



## linkin

I think i submitted it before, bot oh well, here it is again


----------



## 2048Megabytes

Here are the marks for 32M with the Phenom II 940 Quad-Core running at 3 gigahertz:

http://s87.photobucket.com/albums/k133/Stopping_Power/?action=view&current=PhenomIIY-Cruncher.jpg

23.319 seconds


----------



## Glliw

Hard to see the time on there, but its 24.122

Phenom II X4 940 at 3.0ghz


----------



## poke349

Thought I'd give this thread a slight bump.

Shigeru Kondo has used y-cruncher to set a new world record for the most digits of Pi at 5 trillion digits.

Official Announcement:
http://www.numberworld.org/misc_runs/pi-5t/announce_en.html

XtremeSystems News:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=256647


----------



## Jet

updated.Obviously this has been optimized....time for you all to rerun the program


----------



## linkin

Here's mine:


----------



## jasonn20

Here is 512m ... 256.. 32... 

[URL=http://img684.imageshack.us/i/ycruncher512m.png/]
	
[/URL]

[URL=http://img25.imageshack.us/i/32256m.png/]
	
[/URL]


----------



## 87dtna

12 threads FTW.











Will run 512m in a sec


----------



## jasonn20

Very nice 87dtna that xeon is a beast..... :good:


----------



## Jet




----------



## 87dtna

Couldn't you get 4.5ghz with HT on?  Probably better score...

BTW, sweet clocking chip you got there


----------



## Jet

87dtna said:


> Couldn't you get 4.5ghz with HT on?  Probably better score...
> 
> BTW, sweet clocking chip you got there



I think I tried it and it wasn't as fast, or crashed, or something of that nature. Either way, I didn't have the time to mess with it for too long.


----------



## memory

This is on my i7 [email protected]

Here is my 32M:




Here is my 256M:




Here is my 512M:


----------



## jasonn20

i7 2600k @ 5ghz with AVX 

[URL=http://img9.imageshack.us/i/ycruncher.png/]
	
[/URL]


----------



## ScottALot

Wait, what? I thought we were doing SuperPi... that doesn't look anything like SuperPi!







??!!??

http://www.hwbot.org/community/submission/2147352_scottalot_superpi_32m_core_i7_930_8min_4sec_131ms


----------



## 87dtna

No, Y-Cruncher is a multithreaded app like Wprime.

Read the OP.


----------



## ScottALot

So why is the thread called SuperPi? Why not just multi-thread overclocking application?


----------



## bgotov

*multi-thread superpi*



ScottALot said:


> So why is the thread called SuperPi? Why not just multi-thread overclocking application?



This is not application for overclocking, this is program for cpu benchmark.
But I recomend You "montecarlo superpi". It is also support multi-thread and test overal system performance like CPU and RAM in the same time, like real applications.


----------



## GreyWilk

*i7-3930K @ ~4290Mhz*

i7-3930K @ ~4290Mhz


----------



## GreyWilk

*i7-3930K @ ~4420Mhz*

i7-3930K @ ~4420Mhz






Link to same pic but mot squished.


----------



## GreyWilk

*i7-3930K @ ~4420Mhz*

i7-3930K @ ~4420Mhz

256M




Link

512M




Link


----------



## mx344

Quite a bit faster than my 8750, my 960T is at 4.1, idk if i should push it more on air..


----------

