# |Official| Smiles Benchmark 2.0 Ranking Thread! (new version :P)



## Virssagòn

*Smiles Benchmark 2.1*


*By SmileMan and Vistakid10*

Version 2.0
Sunday, July 1st 2012

*New Features!*
- 64-bit ONLY!
- System Information Displayed
- Better support for multi-cores and threads
- new (heavy) calculations and longer lasting benchmark
- Option to save final score as a text file
- short 8threaded bench
- heavy 4threaded bench

-----
*Instructions*

*PLEASE NOTE THIS IS 64-BIT ONLY!

1. Download the exe from *here*

2. Extract the files to the folder you want

3. Run Smiles App.exe 

4. Press Benchmark

5. Submit your scores!

6. You can save your final result now! (it will be saved in the same folder you extracted the exe file.

----
*After you press the Benchmark button, the application may freeze for a few seconds. This is a normal occurance, please leave the application running!*
*make sure you closed all other processes!*

*SAVING YOUR SCORE!*

- Press the Save button and a text document will appear in the same folder as the Smiles App.exe is located.

*Preview (from vistakid):*











*Information*

The benchmark is messured in ticks, the total result will be calculated to seconds. *Lower is better!!*

*It can take a minute*, if you got a really bad pc 2 minutes. Sometimes it freezes, just wait for 2 minutes. 
If it don't get back to life, contact me!

This is my first app in the benchmarking section, so there is place for comments on my work!


*Known Bugs*

- there occurs a minus sometimes, just start the benchmark over again and it will dissapear.
- others... long load time,...

*The Results!*

*Place your own results in a comment! Only x64biy plz*
Like this "yourforumname"(cpu, ram, time in seconds)
_*+ post an image with the result in the app!*_


_*Times are in seconds. Lower is better! 

*All CPU clockspeeds are stock unless otherwise stated._

*Top 15 Heavy 4-Threaded:*

1. Laquer Head - i7 3770K 5.0 - 16G RipJaws-X 1866 - 89.2945568
2. wolfeking - i7 2600K 4.5 - 8G DDR3 - 93.8184
3. tech savvy - i5 2550K 4.2 - 8G Vengeance - 98.4546284
4. vistakid10 - i5 2500K 4.3 - 16G RipJaws-X 1648 - 98.4861003
5. salvage-this - i7 930 4.0 - 12G Dominator 1600 - 106.1212076
6. KasperL - i7 3930K - 16G DDR3 - 109.4273062
7. SmileMan - i7 2600K - 16G Hyper-X 1600 - 111.4573749
8. wolfeking - i7 2600K - 8G DDR3 - 118.0815084
10. Jamebonds1 - i3 540 4.6 - 4G Patriot 1230 - 119.7926104
11. jimkonow - i7 3770S - 16G RipJaws-X - 120.9002124
12. Linkin - i5 2500K  - 8G RipJaws-X 1600 - 122.7400203
13. Laquer Head - i7 3610QM - 16G Vengeance 1866 - 129.368
14. jonnyp11 - X4 960T 3.8 (Unlocked to X6) - 8G Kingston 1333 - 151.3961111
15. Hyper-Threaded - X4 855 - 4G RipJaws-X 1333 - 154.7522698


*Top 15 Light 8-Threaded:*

1. Laquer Head - i7 3770K 5.0 - 16G RipJaws-X 1866 - 16.7232294
2. jimkonow - i7 3770S - 16G RipJaws-X - 18.153434
3. salvage-this - i7 930 4.0 - 12G Dominator 1600 - 18.1645896
4. SmileMan - i7 2600K - 16G Hyper-X 1600 - 18.8240766
5. wolfeking - i7 2600K - 8G DDR3 - 20.3892358
6. Laquer Head - i7 3610QM - 16G Vengeance 1866 - 20.5764361
7. Jamebonds1 - i3 540 4.72 - 4G Patriot 1230 - 20.6700364
8. Claptonman - FX-6100 4.3 - 8G RipJaws-X 1600	 - 21.4390775
9. vistakid10 - i5 2500K 4.3 - 16G RipJaws-X 1648 - 27.6008391
10. Hyper-Threaded - X4 855 - 4G RipJaws-X 1333 - 30.1080525
11. tech savvy - i5 2550K 4.2 - 8G Vengeance - 33.9348349
13. FuryRosewood - X4 955	 - 16G Crucial 1333 - 34.6200479
14. johnb35 - X4 965 - 8G Vengeance 1600 - 34.8505607
15. vistakid10 - Q8300 - 4G DDR2 667 - 48.701


*virusscans:*

virustotal



contact me or Vistakid on the forum with a pm!


*SmileMan & Vistakid*

K guys, here is a snapshot release from the next version 2.2!
Not all the problems are fixed, but thats why we release only a snapshot.

The benchmark will now have 1 Test in case of 2, the passes are built in different ways and different quantities of threads.

Cpu Breaker: 16threaded with 1 very heavy calculation
8-threaded: 8threaded with much easy calculations
4-threaded: 4threaded with 4 big calculations
Xtreme Pass: 32threaded with 1 heavy and 3 other easy calculations (PC crashed when I did 46threaded,  so I don't know that it works on dual core cpu's or 1core )

The times are measured in seconds.
Your points are Visible in the right corner under in the app. (higher the better)
Under the 4 passes an average from the 4 is shown.

The benchmark last longer and is a bit more stable. The 4threaded is not yet fully fixed, but that doesn't matter much in the points.

You can download the app here:
http://www.2shared.com/file/L07kppJZ/Smiles_App.html

Preview (me):






The scores will be an appart subject in the scoreboard.



SmileMan & Vistakid10


----------



## Virssagòn

K here's mine!!

SmileMan (i7 2600K @ 4.635GHz, 16 Gb 1600MHz Kingston HyperX, *44.8485651*)






multithreading!


----------



## M1kkelZR

Heres mine Stock speeds on a 2500k


----------



## spirit

Core 2 QUUAAADDD Q8300 @ 2.5GHz (stock), 4GB DDR2 667MHz RAM, 9800 GT, Vista Ultimate SP2 x64.

Quite a big difference between the Q8300 and my oc'd 2500K (see screenshot in first post for my 2500K's score).


----------



## johnb35

Program won't open for me.


----------



## Virssagòn

my dads cpu 
SmileMan (AMD Athlon 64 X2Dual Core 5000+, 4GB DDR3, 169.4750375)






best amd!!


----------



## spirit

johnb35 said:


> Program won't open for me.



Hmmm... are you using 64-bit Windows and do you have at least .NET Framework 2.0 installed, John?

Smiles App is now x64 only, no x86 version is available.


----------



## johnb35

It finally opened and but froze up.  Kept opening it and it finally ran.   I have framework 1.1 and 4.0 client profile.  I will download 2.0.  Here are my results.


----------



## spirit

Yeah I forgot to mention that it will freeze after you press the benchmark button and then it will remain frozen/not responding until the benchmark is complete. I'll add some sort of message box or something warning the user about this sometime soon.

Might be worth getting a later .NET Framework and seeing if the results are any better. Seems odd an X4 965 is slower than a Q8300.


----------



## Laquer Head

G75 laptop


----------



## spirit

Good score there!


----------



## Laquer Head

Just did the IvyBridge @ 5GHZ


----------



## Ankur

The app shows different results for me, sometimes 80 seconds, sometimes 90, sometimes 100.

I suggest working on the freezing issue, the app works but freezes for a minute.


----------



## spirit

Ankur said:


> The app shows different results for me, sometimes 80 seconds, sometimes 90, sometimes 100.
> 
> I suggest working on the freezing issue, the app works but freezes for a minute.



It freezes whilst benchmarking and calculating. I've added a warning about this in the newer version which I have sent SmileMan, just gotta wait for him to update the first post with a download link to the version with the warning. 

Seems odd it's always different for you. It's always 48.1 seconds for me. Try running with minimal processes and applications running, then see how it goes.


----------



## johnb35

I just installed net framework 4 and still have the same result 102.98.  Seems there is an issue somewhere.


----------



## spirit

We'll have to see if anybody else who has a Phenom II X4 gets the same sort of score. An X4 965 should be faster than a Q8300.


----------



## StrangleHold

Seems to be a issue with AMD processors. Got 93.35. Ran at the same speed as the first one. My score vs. Intels from the first one vs. this one, looks kinda off.


----------



## spirit

Yeah something's definitely up with the AMD chips if you got 93 on an FX-8120 @ 4.5 :/


----------



## StrangleHold

At 4.2 same as the other. This one is only using 4 cores. Noticed everytime I ran it, would use different cores. Dont know if its a windows thing or the program. But saying that, it didnt make any difference in the score


----------



## ScottALot

StrangleHold said:


> Seems to be a issue with AMD processors. Got 93.35. Ran at the same speed as the first one. My score vs. Intels from the first one vs. this one, looks kinda off.





vistakid10 said:


> Yeah something's definitely up with the AMD chips if you got 93 on an FX-8120 @ 4.5 :/



Probably an issue with optimization in the benchmark for AMD. Of course, they have a reputation for some bad eggs, but not that kind of flop.


----------



## claptonman

StrangleHold said:


> Seems to be a issue with AMD processors. Got 93.35. Ran at the same speed as the first one. My score vs. Intels from the first one vs. this one, looks kinda off.



I got 91.36 with my 6100.


----------



## spirit

Yeah something is seriously up with the AMD chips. I'll look into this and see what's up. You should be getting closer to 60-50 seconds with a 6100.

Tried installing the Bulldozer patch for Windows 7? It *may* make a difference, I'm not sure though.


----------



## claptonman

Done already.


----------



## spirit

I'm really not sure what the issue is then. I will have a look into it and see what is up and post back. Give me a couple of days though. :/


----------



## Virssagòn

the only thing added is multithreading...
weird that amd's have issues with that?


----------



## spirit

That's what I thought too... hmmm...


----------



## Jamebonds1

Hmm... Sometime AMD CPU series can be slow but not always.


----------



## claptonman

Jamebonds1 said:


> Plus sometime if overclock too high can cause to slow down.



...What?!


----------



## Jamebonds1

claptonman said:


> ...What?!



Okay. I made misunderstand.  Sorry guy but there have been rumor that first time the Bulldozer CPU come out that it is little slowest but improve over a years.  I was member of other forum that they talk about it.  The best way to solution problem is try installing AMD driver, I'm not sure.


----------



## MyCattMaxx

I got a 101.74 on my FX-4100 @ stock clock 3.6Ghz.
A reboot would have helped considering everthing I have loaded up, but something is definitely not right with the test for AMD. 
This particular chip tested above the average Passmark rating when I tested it after I got it and it's rating is higher than the Q8300.


----------



## linkin

Bulldozer was rushed out the door. Good design, poor execution. The next generation of Bulldozer, or even just Piledriver, should alleviate those issues. It will remain to be seen if they live up to Intel's offerings.

Here's my new run:







Same specs as before.  I should tighten up my RAM timings.


----------



## spirit

MyCattMaxx said:
			
		

> This particular chip tested above the average Passmark rating when I tested it after I got it and it's rating is higher than the Q8300.


Yes all the AMD chips here should be much faster than the Q8300. It's odd that now our app is playing up on the AMD chips, and annoying too. :/ We are working on it and trying to correct it, give us a couple of days!


----------



## Jamebonds1

MyCattMaxx said:


> I got a 101.74 on my FX-4100 @ stock clock 3.6Ghz.
> A reboot would have helped considering everthing I have loaded up, but something is definitely not right with the test for AMD.
> This particular chip tested above the average Passmark rating when I tested it after I got it and it's rating is higher than the Q8300.



Passmark might not be stable benchmark but it is odd.  For one thing i can tell is Windows 7 does not recognizes that well.  Here is link that might will be helpful.  

http://www.techpowerup.com/158534/New-Windows-7-Bulldozer-Patches-Available..html

One question, how many thread in task manager on your computer?


----------



## spirit

Jamebonds1 said:


> Passmark might not be stable benchmark but it is odd.  For one thing i can tell is Windows 7 does not recognizes that well.  Here is link that might will be helpful.
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/158534/New-Windows-7-Bulldozer-Patches-Available..html
> 
> One question, how many thread in task manager on your computer?



Well he has an FX-4100 so I assume 4 cores w/ 4 threads?


----------



## Jamebonds1

vistakid10 said:


> Well he has an FX-4100 so I assume 4 cores w/ 4 threads?



Maybe, that's why i ask him a question.  It should have 4 core.


----------



## Darren

My results. Phenom II X4 955 at 3.2gHZ (stock)


----------



## spirit

I think I know what's up with the AMD chips. There's a bit of code which we added which I bet if we remove will give the AMD chips better scores. I'll remove it tomorrow and update.


----------



## Jamebonds1

vistakid10 said:


> I think I know what's up with the AMD chips. There's a bit of code which we added which I bet if we remove will give the AMD chips better scores. I'll remove it tomorrow and update.



Maybe make it Intel and AMD verison?  Like if game is made for intel, not AMD.  It would be slow on AMD.


----------



## jonnyp11

i unlocked my 960t and at 3.4 or so ghz it pulled a 103, and when it was locked at 3.4 it was a 105, wtf?


----------



## spirit

Jamebonds1 said:


> Maybe make it Intel and AMD verison?  Like if game is made for intel, not AMD.  It would be slow on AMD.


It'd be better to have one version which works equally on both platforms because then we can compare the performance of various chips more fairly.



jonnyp11 said:


> i unlocked my 960t and at 3.4 or so ghz it pulled a 103, and when it was locked at 3.4 it was a 105, wtf?


Unlocking two extra cores isn't going to do a lot of difference as this is only really threaded for 4 cores. :/ Sorry.


----------



## MyCattMaxx

Jamebonds1 said:


> Passmark might not be stable benchmark but it is odd.  For one thing i can tell is Windows 7 does not recognizes that well.  Here is link that might will be helpful.
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/158534/New-Windows-7-Bulldozer-Patches-Available..html
> 
> One question, how many thread in task manager on your computer?


Passmark is a stable benchmark.
Millions of people use it as a comparison site.
There is nothing wrong with my system or any of the other non Bulldozer AMD's that are having the same issue with this test.


----------



## Jamebonds1

vistakid10 said:


> It'd be better to have one version which works equally on both platforms because then we can compare the performance of various chips more fairly.



Or try to remove system information.


----------



## MyCattMaxx

Jamebonds1 said:


> Or try to remove system information.


How would that help?


----------



## Jamebonds1

MyCattMaxx said:


> How would that help?



Just to test it.


----------



## spirit

Jamebonds1 said:


> Or try to remove system information.



Nah I know what is preventing this from working correctly. I'll fix it.


----------



## jonnyp11

vistakid10 said:


> Nah I know what is preventing this from working correctly. I'll fix it.



what is it? the special pass? you could just take the original program's passes and duplicate the coding a few times to make them longer.


----------



## Virssagòn

jonnyp11 said:


> what is it? the special pass? you could just take the original program's passes and duplicate the coding a few times to make them longer.



I know the problem, gonna correct it tomorrow. All ranks will be resetted!
sry for my off time, was busy today

smile


----------



## jonnyp11

SmileMan said:


> I know the problem, gonna correct it tomorrow. All ranks will be resetted!
> sry for my off time, was busy today
> 
> smile



vista seems to be working on it, asked me to try the new version with a fix, but unless it slowed the intels i got the same score as before.


----------



## spirit

Didn't slow the Intels, I got the same result with my 2500K.


----------



## jonnyp11

i compared my numbers to the 2500k @ 3.3GHz, and i really think the culprit is the special pass, 20 sec difference compared to 10 on the heavy pass, which that seems a little over but not too much.


----------



## linkin

I noticed that while running it didn't seem to be multi-threaded properly, or something. It would max one core out and then the usage would hop cores, they didn't load up all at once.


----------



## Hyper-Threaded

When I hit benchmark and freezes and says not responding, haft to close it.  

Nevermind mine does it in 



> 109.0441901



In CPU-Z, its shows my core speed and multiplier, its every 5-10 seconds it changes from 800mhz 4.0x to 3300mhz 16.50x, and its was a 3 core athlon, and after it unlocked to a quad everything reads it as a phenom X4 b55 processor. Funky.


----------



## ScottALot




----------



## Jamebonds1

I know it is going to be reset but here it is.   






i3-540 @ 4.99 GHz, 4 GB 1302 MHz Patriot, 43.89847771


----------



## Jamebonds1

Hyper-Threaded said:


> When I hit benchmark and freezes and says not responding, haft to close it.
> 
> Nevermind mine does it in
> 
> 
> 
> In CPU-Z, its shows my core speed and multiplier, its every 5-10 seconds it changes from 800mhz 4.0x to 3300mhz 16.50x, and its was a 3 core athlon, and after it unlocked to a quad everything reads it as a phenom X4 b55 processor. Funky.



Wait a minute.  What is title of your CPU package?  Athlon or Phenom?


----------



## Hyper-Threaded

Jamebonds1 said:


> Wait a minute.  What is title of your CPU package?  Athlon or Phenom?



Well first I overclocked alittle to 3.71 ghz and got 



> 103.9585813



I bought this cpu, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103911 And Unlocked it to a quad core, to witch it now reads as a phenom x4.


----------



## ScottALot

Jamebonds1 said:


> I know it is going to be reset but here it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i3-540 @ 4.99 GHz, 4 GB 1302 MHz Patriot, 43.89847771



Omigod EasyTune... I remember that. I used to have this rainbow board from gigabyte. http://www.gigabyte.us/products/product-page.aspx?pid=3038#ov


----------



## jonnyp11

I can't overclock anything near that, past 4GHz it wants wayy too much voltage, i had to use more than i wanted to get it to stably hit 3.8, every time i put it on 4 it bsod's when i use intel burn test.


----------



## MyCattMaxx

There is a reason why they lock out the 4th core.
That's because it doesn't match the other 3.
Sometimes you get lucky and get one you can live with the difference and other ones you can't.


----------



## Hyper-Threaded

MyCattMaxx said:


> There is a reason why they lock out the 4th core.
> That's because it doesn't match the other 3.
> Sometimes you get lucky and get one you can live with the difference and other ones you can't.



I pretty much figured that. So I got 3 athlon cores and 1 phenom core. Its runs stable so who cares?


----------



## MyCattMaxx

Hyper-Threaded said:


> I pretty much figured that. So I got 3 athlon cores and 1 phenom core. Its runs stable so who cares?


My bad.
I was responding to johnny and misinterpreted the part where he said every time he puts it on 4 he bsod's.
I thought he was referring to the 4th core not Ghz. 
Now I see he has a 960, so I was in error. 

But like I said, some get lucky and get a good one.


----------



## spirit

jonnyp11 said:


> i compared my numbers to the 2500k @ 3.3GHz, and i really think the culprit is the special pass, 20 sec difference compared to 10 on the heavy pass, which that seems a little over but not too much.



Yeah that's what I'm trying to remove.


----------



## jonnyp11

Hyper-Threaded said:


> I pretty much figured that. So I got 3 athlon cores and 1 phenom core. Its runs stable so who cares?



Actually you have 4 athlon cores, a phenom has more cache i believe and is more stable or better fro overclocking, basically the only difference. Then they just lock one core off and charge a little less, no point in paying to build an entire other machine and having an excess of processors when they can use the same chip, costs them the same amount, and they already have a ton of chips laying around with a single defective core.


----------



## spirit

Yeah I thought the difference between the Athlon II and the Phenom II was that the Phenom II had more L3 cache? I may be wrong though.


----------



## jonnyp11

vistakid10 said:


> Yeah I thought the difference between the Athlon II and the Phenom II was that the Phenom II had more L3 cache? I may be wrong though.



yup, you're right, and really the performance difference isn't hardly anything, and idk if athlons are unlocked, if they are then there's no real advantage to a phenom other than the name compared to a athlon x3 when you save 30-40 bucks and get the same power.


----------



## spirit

I have a feeling you can overclock the Athlons, but not as well as the Phenoms. May be wrong though. I've seen people round here getting their Athlon IIs overclocked. I'm not sure how stable they are once they're overclocked though.


----------



## FuryRosewood

Updated, seems to be much more expected per clock of what I expect of AMD vs Intel.


----------



## Virssagòn

FuryRosewood said:


> Updated, seems to be much more expected per clock of what I expect of AMD vs Intel.



we gonna reset scores for AMD chips, so it doesn't matter if you post now. Everyone has to run the newer version.


----------



## Virssagòn

linkin said:


> I noticed that while running it didn't seem to be multi-threaded properly, or something. It would max one core out and then the usage would hop cores, they didn't load up all at once.



Weird, mine is stable between all cores...
You running on an AMD?


----------



## jonnyp11

SmileMan said:


> Weird, mine is stable between all cores...
> You running on an AMD?



Made me think and after testing thought you might find this interesting, seems to mainly run on second core and barely on the others


----------



## Virssagòn

jonnyp11 said:


> Made me think and after testing thought you might find this interesting, seems to mainly run on second core and barely on the others



hmm, It can be something in the code I added which is bottering the AMD's. Did you receive the fixed version from vistakid?


----------



## jonnyp11

yeah, forgot and deleted the old one, that is vista's patched version


----------



## Virssagòn

jonnyp11 said:


> yeah, forgot and deleted the old one, that is vista's patched version



and whats that "parked", it can be that it will disable the performance of that cores...
so the benchmark above is the fix^^?


----------



## Virssagòn

found this to disable it:
- Go to Regedit 

- Find this key:-  " 0cc5b647-c1df-4637-891a-dec35c318583 " 

- Within this key, there is a value called:  " ValueMax " 

- This value represents the % number of cores the system will park - the default 100%  ie:  all Cores are potentially park-able 

- Change the value from 64 to 0 so the " ValueMin "  and  " ValueMax " are both zero 

- You will have to find the key a few times and repeat the process for each time it is found - the number of instances will depend on the number of power profiles in your system  [  in my DAW it was only found twice ] 

- Do a full shutdown and power-off and cold-re-start


----------



## Virssagòn

Here is the fix I already made, there is a bit place for improvement though.
But you can see the difference, I made it (more) multithreaded (so it fits automatically over the cores). Also fixed Amd issue, with the fix the benchmark gonna last longer and be more intensive!

FIX--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------OLD





some cores are likely more active then others, but I got multithreaded on... for 4 cores it will be divided properly!


----------



## Jamebonds1

Hyper-Threaded said:


> Well first I overclocked alittle to 3.71 ghz and got
> 
> 
> 
> I bought this cpu, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103911 And Unlocked it to a quad core, to witch it now reads as a phenom x4.



Okay... Every if you unlock 4th core, it didn't mean it is real Phenom X4 which is why it is highest time.


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> hmm, It can be something in the code I added which is bottering the AMD's. Did you receive the fixed version from vistakid?



Where is fixed benchmark from vistakid?


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> Where is fixed benchmark from vistakid?



that was been sent to john to test it. But his fix didn't work. So I created a new one what seems to be working.


----------



## johnb35

SmileMan said:


> found this to disable it:
> - Go to Regedit
> 
> - Find this key:-  " 0cc5b647-c1df-4637-891a-dec35c318583 "
> 
> - Within this key, there is a value called:  " ValueMax "
> 
> - This value represents the % number of cores the system will park - the default 100%  ie:  all Cores are potentially park-able
> 
> - Change the value from 64 to 0 so the " ValueMin "  and  " ValueMax " are both zero
> 
> - You will have to find the key a few times and repeat the process for each time it is found - the number of instances will depend on the number of power profiles in your system  [  in my DAW it was only found twice ]
> 
> - Do a full shutdown and power-off and cold-re-start




That key is not on my system.


----------



## Virssagòn

johnb35 said:


> That key is not on my system.



weird, it worked for me


----------



## spirit

Jamebonds1 said:


> Where is fixed benchmark from vistakid?


Yeah I only sent the fixed one to Jonnyp11 and Denther to try out for me with their AMDs and they both reported back saying that it didn't work.



SmileMan said:


> that was been sent to john to test it. But his fix didn't work. So I created a new one what seems to be working.


Yep it didn't work.


----------



## Jamebonds1

vistakid10 said:


> Yeah I only sent the fixed one to Jonnyp11 and Denther to try out for me with their AMDs and they both reported back saying that it didn't work.



Maybe try with different complied program?  Or we just can have one top Intel and one top AMD without have all intel and amd in one top?

Just little advice.


----------



## Virssagòn

Got penta-threaded working now!! 
i5's got 100% (all quaaads and lower core cpu's) and on an i7 63% load! 
Now making a second benchmark test, a short one with 8 threads working on same moment. This would be a cpu killer for quads if we made them as long as other one.

grtz
smile


----------



## jonnyp11

we all know the amd aren't going to beat the intel, with whoever at almost 5Ghz, unless strangle comes in here with some liquid nitrogen at 8GHz, which of course doesn't scale so he might just get close.


----------



## spirit

This afternoon, Smile and I have been working on a new version which makes the CPU run at 100% on all cores (on 4 threads, around 60% if you have 8 threads) and we think we may have fixed the issues with AMD chips.

Here are some benchmarks I ran on my old Q8300. I've added a "Restart Benchmark" button which will clear all the scores and restart the benchmark if you wish, and I've added warning dialogues about the crashing as well as a dialogue/message box which shows up once the bench has completed. SmileMan has been working on another set of new instructions and sorting out the issues with AMD CPUs.

As the Q8300 is an old chip (and I'm using Vista on a dying 5400 RPM HDD), you should be able to expect your scores to be much LOWER/better than what I achieved.







Temps wise, you need to be careful about running this benchmark now if you have an overclocked CPU but with stock or poor cooling. I was getting around 70C with the stock cooler on my Q8300 at full load. The benchmark runs for around 3-5 minutes now on slower CPUs (around 1-2 on faster ones) so make sure your chip can withstand fairly high temps for short periods of time before running the new bench. I would not recommend running this benchmark if you have an unstable or untested overclock.






The new version will be available to download and run shortly. I see SmileMan has already cleared all of the scores.

I'll let you know how my 2500K does too.


----------



## jonnyp11

dang you, i can run this at 3.9 for a while before it will overheat and it's stable too (burn tested on standard and didn't pass 60, maximum burn prob would'a hit 70) but i cant unlock now


----------



## spirit

We can thread the app up to only 4 or 6 cores and then the usage and temps on the CPU should drop a bit if heat is an issue.


----------



## Virssagòn

jonnyp11 said:


> dang you, i can run this at 3.9 for a while before it will overheat and it's stable too (burn tested on standard and didn't pass 60, maximum burn prob would'a hit 70) but i cant unlock now



I'm also making short one, which is 8-threaded. It will last 5-10 seconds, so no damage can be dealed by temps.


----------



## MyCattMaxx

jonnyp11 said:


> dang you, i can run this at 3.9 for a while before it will overheat and it's stable too (burn tested on standard and didn't pass 60, maximum burn prob would'a hit 70) but i cant unlock now


Couldn't have been stable if it over heats under load.


----------



## jonnyp11

MyCattMaxx said:


> Couldn't have been stable if it over heats under load.



get too hot, not overheat to where it shuts itself off or anything, just past where i want it.


----------



## Jamebonds1

jonnyp11 said:


> get too hot, not overheat to where it shuts itself off or anything, just past where i want it.



I had overclocked to almost 5 GHz on my i3.  It is 71 C at full load with prime95


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> I had overclocked to almost 5 GHz on my i3.  It is 71 C at full load with prime95



sry, but our app is heavyer then prime torture max heat...


----------



## spirit

Jamebonds1 said:


> I had overclocked to almost 5 GHz on my i3.  It is 71 C at full load with prime95



You can try running it at 5GHz on an i3 at 71C but it may end up in your system crashing.


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> sry, but our app is heavyer then prime torture max heat...



Lol.  I let it running like 6 test still stable



vistakid10 said:


> You can try running it at 5GHz on an i3 at 71C but it may end up in your system crashing.



Before i turn BCLK up i test it with Prime95, still stable.


----------



## spirit

Jamebonds1 said:


> Lol.  I let it running like 6 test still stable
> 
> 
> 
> Before i turn BCLK up i test it with Prime95, still stable.


If you think it's going to be OK then by all means feel free to run our benchmark and let us know the score once we upload it. I'd be interested to see them!


----------



## Jamebonds1

vistakid10 said:


> If you think it's going to be OK then by all means feel free to run our benchmark and let us know the score once we upload it. I'd be interested to see them!



Plus. I have turn some voltage to 2 volt


----------



## spirit

Jamebonds1 said:


> Plus. I have turn some voltage to 2 volt



You're just crazy.  3 volts??!! for a CPU??!!


----------



## Jamebonds1

vistakid10 said:


> You're just crazy.  3 volts??!! for a CPU??!!



Nah. Just kidding   I would never turn it over 1.65 volt for safe of my cpu.


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> Nah. Just kidding   I would never turn it over 1.65 volt for safe of my cpu.



1.65v is already a damaging voltage xD


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> 1.65v is already a damaging voltage xD



Yeah. It is marked as red volt on my BIOS gigabyte.


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> Yeah. It is marked as red volt on my BIOS gigabyte.



everything above 1.3v is red marked on my BIOS ;P


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> everything above 1.3v is red marked on my BIOS ;P



Really?  It is different.


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> Really?  It is different.



yeah, got an asus ;P


----------



## jonnyp11

Yeah mine mark 1.3 and up red too saying they are overvolted and can shorten it's life, I haven't used them other than to run the six cores at 3.8, and I can't get past 3.8 without more voltage.


----------



## Jamebonds1

jonnyp11 said:


> Yeah mine mark 1.3 and up red too saying they are overvolted and can shorten it's life, I haven't used them other than to run the six cores at 3.8, and I can't get past 3.8 without more voltage.



Don't you mean a Intel 6 core? or AMD 6 core?


----------



## jimkonow




----------



## Virssagòn

it's not updated yet
we'll release tonight!


----------



## jonnyp11

jamebonds1 said:


> don't you mean a intel 6 core? Or amd 6 core?



amd


----------



## Virssagòn

*Smile Benchmark 2.1!!*

*It's finally released! The new version 2.1!*

*We fixed the AMD problems and made the benchmark multithreaded and stable!!*

you can download it from *here*

*some new features:*

- The heavy 4-threaded Benchmark (stable for quad and higher cpu's)
- The Short 8-threaded Benchmark (stable for 8cores, here 8cores gonna have a great advantage!)
- Multithreaded
- Stability
- heavyer calculations (hotter cpu)


*Info:*

the heavy benchmark is lasting between 70-200 seconds
the short benchmark is lasting between 10-60 seconds

*you cpu will run hotter then ever and sometimes run on full load!*


*Previews:*










Rankings are reset!


PS: I'll be on holliday for 2 weeks, Vistakid is gonna give sub ranks in these weeks each 2 days. Hope you'll enjoy!!


*SmileMan & Vistakid10*


----------



## spirit

Hopefully all the AMD issues have been resolved now. :/ The scores above are what I got on my overclocked 2500K btw.


----------



## Jamebonds1

vistakid10 said:


> Hopefully all the AMD issues have been resolved now. :/ The scores above are what I got on my overclocked 2500K btw.



It is really nice benchmark   Intel Core 2 Quuuaaad in my class is pretty slowest 

Let's see what my i3 get


----------



## spirit

Jamebonds1 said:


> It is really nice benchmark   Quuuaaad in my class is pretty slowest



Will try on the Q8300 again either later tonight or early tomorrow. Core 2 Quuaaaddd foreva.


----------



## Jamebonds1

vistakid10 said:


> Will try on the Q8300 again either later tonight or early tomorrow. Core 2 Quuaaaddd foreva.



Lol.  Should I post both light and heavy benchmark?


----------



## spirit

both would be cool.


----------



## Jamebonds1

vistakid10 said:


> both would be cool.



Ah okay.  I noticed almost no i3 have going pass 4.99 GHz as i had research website but i will see what my i3 get.  It would be 80 C


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> Ah okay.  I noticed almost no i3 have going pass 4.99 GHz as i had research website but i will see what my i3 get.  It would be 80 C



don't run the heavy then xD
your system is gonna explode


----------



## claptonman

got 165 seconds on the heavy threaded and 32 seconds on the light threaded.


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> don't run the heavy then xD
> your system is gonna explode



Lol.  100 C would be bad.  that is about 176 F


----------



## johnb35

Down to 39.77 on the light test.  Will do the other one now and edit.

165.65 on the heavy test.


----------



## Jamebonds1

johnb35 said:


> Down to 39.77 on the light test.  Will do the other one now and edit.



With overclocked right?


----------



## Virssagòn

nice, all that scores from amd's. They are normal.
But could you all place some pictures plz 
We gonna place fair ranks!

thnx
smile


----------



## Virssagòn

want to see how amd 8cores perform at the 8threaded test. I got 18 seconds with my i7 2600k (HT on)


----------



## johnb35

No overclock.

Here are the results.  Heavy test first.


----------



## Virssagòn

I'm going on vacation to Kos for 2 weeks! Bye all!

nice results


----------



## spirit

*Current scores!*

*Top 15 (4-Threads)

1. vistakid10 - Intel Core i5 2500K @ 4.3GHz, 16GB RipJaws-X 1600MHz - 98.4861003 secs
2. Claptonman - AMD FX-6100 @ 4.3GHz, 8GB RipJaws-X 1600MHz - 165 secs
3. johnb35 - AMD Phenom II X4 965, 8GB Vengeance 1600MHz - 165.6566888 secs


Top 15 Intel (4-Threads)

1. vistakid10 - Intel Core i5 2500K @ 4.3GHz, 16GB RipJaws-X 1600MHz - 98.4861003 secs


Top 15 AMD (4-Threads)

1. Claptonman - AMD FX-6100 @ 4.3GHz, 8GB RipJaws-X 1600MHz - 165 secs
2. johnb35 - AMD Phenom II X4 965, 8GB Vengeance 1600MHz - 165.6566888 secs


Top 15 (8-threaded)

1. N/A


Top 15 Intel (8-threaded)

1. N/A


Top 15 AMD (8-threaded)

1. johnb35 - AMD Phenom II X4 965, 8GB Vengeance 1600MHz - 34.8505607*


----------



## Virssagòn

you forgot to test the 8threaded benchmark, I thought you got 27 sec? Thats close to that amd's.
The top 8threaded is also with johnb35 on the first place


----------



## jonnyp11

Got 27 something but the screen capper only likes to work once and i had to reboot





This thing just refuses to stably boot 4GHz or higher, pisses me off, stupid cheap-but mobo. This (second) is also at 3.8GHz, idk why my FSB just won't stay still  and it keeps reading my ram wrong, it's 8gb's and CPU-Z agrees with me on that


----------



## claptonman

Update:


----------



## jonnyp11

makes no sense, i kill you at 4 threaded but you kill me on 8 threaded.


----------



## Hyper-Threaded

My screenshot is .bmp and is to large for imageshack


----------



## Hyper-Threaded

Light test.  






Heavy  

I got the fastest 4 thread AMD, right? Not to bad for a $79 cpu.


----------



## claptonman

jonnyp11 said:


> makes no sense, i kill you at 4 threaded but you kill me on 8 threaded.



Yeah... don't know what's going on there.


----------



## jonnyp11

claptonman said:


> Yeah... don't know what's going on there.



re-ran twice and both were 151's, think i'll leave the 103 though 

on the light one with it still locked i re-ran it and was pulling random numbers, 38, 48, 35, 45, all around in there


----------



## claptonman

Yeah... not to say its a bad benchmark, but it seems like it jumps around all the time. Might have something to do with temps, but each time I ran it, I closed everything else and relogged in. I dunno.


----------



## MyCattMaxx

Jonny wasn't using the new version for 4 thread.
No 8 thread button on the pic.


----------



## Laquer Head

G75 Laptop..

129.368 on Heavy...

this on light


----------



## Hyper-Threaded

MyCattMaxx said:


> Jonny wasn't using the new version for 4 thread.
> No 8 thread button on the pic.



Good call , cause mine got 103 on the first test. And he said he was getting now in the 150s, so we are even.


----------



## Laquer Head




----------



## Laquer Head

[/IMG]


----------



## StrangleHold

The 4 threaded one is still screwed up for AMD. It was using 6 cores, one around 80% and the other 5 around 50%.

The 8 threaded one ran fine. Pegged all 8 cores to 100%. Got 21.8 running at 4.2ghz.

This is with a 8120 running 4.2ghz.


----------



## claptonman

StrangleHold said:


> The 4 threaded one is still screwed up for AMD. It was using 6 cores, one around 80% and the other 5 around 50%.
> 
> The 8 threaded one ran fine. Pegged all 8 cores to 100%. Got 21.8 running at 4.2ghz.
> 
> This is with a 8120 running 4.2ghz.



Yeah, mine were all over the place, too. (for the 4-threaded test)


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> you forgot to test the 8threaded benchmark, I thought you got 27 sec? Thats close to that amd's.
> The top 8threaded is also with johnb35 on the first place


Yeah sorry I wrote those scores late at night and I was dropping off to sleep. I got 27.6 seconds for the 8-threaded by the way. 

Have a nice vacation! 



claptonman said:


> Yeah... not to say its a bad benchmark, but it seems like it jumps around all the time. Might have something to do with temps, but each time I ran it, I closed everything else and relogged in. I dunno.


Mine sometimes jumps around a bit too. Not sure if there's a lot we can do to sort this out.



StrangleHold said:


> The 4 threaded one is still screwed up for AMD. It was using 6 cores, one around 80% and the other 5 around 50%.
> 
> The 8 threaded one ran fine. Pegged all 8 cores to 100%. Got 21.8 running at 4.2ghz.
> 
> This is with a 8120 running 4.2ghz.


Might be worth for the time being just comparing the Intels and AMDs by using the 8-threaded bench only then if the heavy benchmark is still playing up on AMDs. The 8-threaded benchmark seems fine for the AMD chips at the moment.


----------



## Gun

I'll run it once I build my computer. For now my laptop has only 32-bit.


----------



## Virssagòn

Why do you think the 4threaded is that bad? I see only scores from the same cpu in the same region, like most are here 145-165. The intel 2 quad from vistakid had 199seconds!
So I think amd's are doing great now. I saw your pictures, they are telling me that your cpu divides the work from one core to the other. Thats what yhey do all the time, with everything.
I'll fix that when I come back (I really don't know whats the problem)


vista, could you add these? Don't have the time...


all of it is in stockspeed
here's my short one:







and long one: (not much better then all that amd's)






smile


----------



## Virssagòn

StrangleHold said:


> The 4 threaded one is still screwed up for AMD. It was using 6 cores, one around 80% and the other 5 around 50%.
> 
> The 8 threaded one ran fine. Pegged all 8 cores to 100%. Got 21.8 running at 4.2ghz.
> 
> This is with a 8120 running 4.2ghz.



Because they divide it...
You must run another benchmark or game. You'll see the same.
Quaads will have 90-100% load on the 4threaded bench.


----------



## FuryRosewood

Utilized all cores on my machine, not sure what people were complaining about but that does seem to be ok right now.





Heavy Run




Light Run


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> Why do you think the 4threaded is that bad? I see only scores from the same cpu in the same region, like most are here 145-165. The intel 2 quad from vistakid had 199seconds!
> So I think amd's are doing great now. I saw your pictures, they are telling me that your cpu divides the work from one core to the other. Thats what yhey do all the time, with everything.
> I'll fix that when I come back (I really don't know whats the problem)


We'll wait for a few more AMD benches and see. I think they're OK too, just some people are saying it's still not working correctly. :/ Fury's scores above for his Phenom seem absolutely fine to me. 

I've not run the newest benchmark on the Core 2 Quad yet. I'll run it tonight and tell you how I did. I got 206 on the older one (see a few pages back). 



SmileMan said:


> vista, could you add these? Don't have the time...
> 
> 
> all of it is in stockspeed
> here's my short one:
> 
> <cut>
> 
> 
> and long one: (not much better then all that amd's)
> <cut>
> 
> 
> smile


I've gotta go to school now (running a bit late), but I will update the leaderboard with all the new scores when I get back from school in about 7-8 hours time.


----------



## Virssagòn

Lol, wifi on the airplane!!


----------



## FuryRosewood

Id like to see milder OC and stock runs myself, the high overclocks may be making the bench unstable in its early stages, thats my thoughts on it.


----------



## StrangleHold

Somebody put up a shot of task manager showing the cores running the 4 threaded one using a Intel quad with HT.


----------



## spirit

Just downloaded and ran the latest benchmark on my Q8300 so we can see how an older quad-core performs.

Heavy benchmark (running 100% on all 4 cores):







Light benchmark (running 100% of all 4 cores)


----------



## StrangleHold

Weird. On a AMD 6/8 core its using 6 cores and it jumps around between 30/80% core useage. This is running the 4 threaded one. Would like to see a Intel 6 or 4 core with HT if its the same.


----------



## jimkonow

Stock clock, heavy 4 then soft 8. 
i7 3770s @3.1


----------



## spirit

I'll have the new leaderboard up in a bit.


----------



## spirit

*Current Scores!*

_*Times are in seconds. Lower is better! _

_*All CPU clockspeeds are stock unless otherwise stated._

*Top 15 4-Threaded*

1. Laquer Head - i7 3770K 5.2 - 16G RipJaws-X 1600 - 89.2945568
2. vistakid10 - i5 2500K 4.3 - 16G RipJaws-X 1648 - 98.4861003
3. SmileMan - i7 2600K - 16G Hyper-X 1600 - 111.4573749
4. jimkonow - i7 3770S - 16G RipJaws-X - 120.9002124
5. Laquer Head - i7 3610QM - 16G Vengeance 1866 - 129.368
6. Hyper-Threaded - X4 855 - 4G RipJaws-X 1333 - 154.7522698
7. FuryRosewood - X4 955 - 16G Crucial 1333 - 156.2702156
8. johnb35 - X4 965 - 8G Vengeance 1600 - 165.6566888
9. Claptonman - FX-6100 4.3 - 8G RipJaws-X 1600 - 166.0312869
10. vistakid10 - Q8300 - 4G DDR2 667 - 171.42


*Top 15 8-Threaded*

1. Laquer Head - i7 3770K 5.2 - 16G RipJaws-X 1600 - 16.7232294
2. jimkonow - i7 3770S - 16G RipJaws-X - 18.153434
3. SmileMan - i7 2600K - 16G Hyper-X 1600 - 18.8240766
4. Laquer Head - i7 3610QM - 16G Vengeance 1866 - 20.5764361
5. Claptonman - FX-6100 4.3 - 8G RipJaws-X 1600 - 21.4390775
6. vistakid10 - i5 2500K 4.3 - 16G RipJaws-X 1648 - 27.6008391
7. jonnyp11 - X4 960T 3.8 - 8G Kingston 1333 - 28.297828
8. Hyper-Threaded - X4 855 - 4G RipJaws-X 1333 - 30.1080525
9. FuryRosewood - X4 955	 - 16G Crucial 1333 - 34.6200479
10. johnb35 - X4 965 - 8G Vengeance 1600 - 34.8505607
11. vistakid10 - Q8300 - 4G DDR2 667 - 48.701

*Remember if your CPU and/or RAM is overclocked to say so in your post or write it in your signature!*


----------



## Hyper-Threaded

> 2. jonnyp11 - X4 960T 3.8 - 8G Kingston 1333 - 103.8160757



That is from the first benchmark, not the revised one with the light- heavy option.


----------



## spirit

Hyper-Threaded said:


> That is from the first benchmark, not the revised one with the light- heavy option.



Thanks, edited the leader board.

Installing XPx64 on my old Athlon 64 3700+ box now. I want to see how badly an 8 year old chip does.


----------



## Jamebonds1

vistakid10 said:


> Thanks, edited the leader board.
> 
> Installing XPx64 on my old Athlon 64 3700+ box now. I want to see how badly an 8 year old chip does.



How many desktop do you owned it at your home???


----------



## spirit

I have a few.  I own 3 personally (3700+ rig, Q8300 rig, 2500K rig), my Dad has a few, and my brother and my mum have a PC each.


----------



## Jamebonds1

vistakid10 said:


> I have a few.  I own 3 personally (3700+ rig, Q8300 rig, 2500K rig), my Dad has a few, and my brother and my mum have a PC each.



You're crazy lol.  But I'm little crazy too   I have one desktop and one 11 years old laptop.


----------



## spirit

Jamebonds1 said:


> You're crazy lol.  But I'm little crazy too   I have one desktop and one 11 years old laptop.



 It's helpful having more than one PC, because of one dies, you've got spares. If my 2500K rig were to die for any reason, I can use the Core 2 Quad until I can get a replacement rig. 

Just installing XPx64 on the 3700+ rig now. I had to remove and reinstall the IDE cable from the drive and motherboard because for some reason my DVD drive wasn't being detected but now it is. I'll have to run the benchmark with the side panel removed, just in case the CPU gets too hot.

I've tested the app in XPx64 in a VM by the way, works OK in case you were wondering.


----------



## jonnyp11

my light 8-threaded was unlocked to x6, and i re-ran the 4-threaded at 3.4ghz and got a 171.3019205, i know at 3.8 i had a 151.???????, which if you do the math is almost an exact scaling, the cpu was ~11% faster and the bench ~12%


----------



## MyCattMaxx

I have at least 12 working computers here.
Some just aren't worth much to sell and worth more to me just to keep them.
Plus I have parts to put a couple more together if I needed to.


----------



## Jamebonds1

vistakid10 said:


> It's helpful having more than one PC, because of one dies, you've got spares. If my 2500K rig were to die for any reason, I can use the Core 2 Quad until I can get a replacement rig.
> 
> Just installing XPx64 on the 3700+ rig now. I had to remove and reinstall the IDE cable from the drive and motherboard because for some reason my DVD drive wasn't being detected but now it is. I'll have to run the benchmark with the side panel removed, just in case the CPU gets too hot.
> 
> I've tested the app in XPx64 in a VM by the way, works OK in case you were wondering.



Yeah, that's true.  I have first desktop PC Athon 64 single core, but it is died due to BIOS corrupt.  Good thing is i have oldest laptop   Rig on my sig is my second desktop PC.


----------



## byteninja2

I think you just made a hit. You could have a backgroud of the CF logo, and say official CF benchmarking tool (ask ian to make it official, he might not like that its official), and have the link only on CF. Official CF Benchmark tool, by Smiles it could say. You can just ask somebody to change the name of the thread.


----------



## jonnyp11

byteninja2 said:


> I think you just made a hit. You could have a backgroud of the CF logo, and say official CF benchmarking tool (ask ian to make it official, he might not like that its official), and have the link only on CF. Official CF Benchmark tool, by Smiles *AND VISTAKID10* it could say. You can just ask somebody to change the name of the thread.



there ya go.


----------



## spirit

jonnyp11 said:


> there ya go.



Hahaha thanks.  Smiles came up with the idea and most of the code though, I did some work on the UI and added a few features.


----------



## byteninja2

Ok, now Im jealoius. I need to start coding. Maybe I will learn, help you guys. What did you use to code with, and can I have the source?


----------



## jonnyp11

vistakid10 said:


> Hahaha thanks.  Smiles came up with the idea and most of the code though, I did some work on the UI and added a few features.



that's why your name is second


----------



## byteninja2

Norton threat detected. Now, I know you guys wouldnt put a virus on my lappy, but, do you think there is any way to stop that? And, it doesnt start. I am on 64 bit 7, and it says "SmilesApp has stopped working".


----------



## spirit

byteninja2 said:


> Ok, now Im jealoius. I need to start coding. Maybe I will learn, help you guys. What did you use to code with, and can I have the source?


We used Visual Studio 2010 and wrote the program in VB.NET. It's a pretty easy language to learn, it was the first language Smiles and I learned (I've been coding in VB.NET for 2 years now). 

If you don't wanna buy VS 2010, you can download Visual Basic 2010 Express from Microsoft for free and use that http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/en-us/products/2010-editions/express it's just like a smaller (and free) version of Visual Studio 2010. 



jonnyp11 said:


> that's why your name is second


Absolutely.


----------



## spirit

byteninja2 said:


> Norton threat detected. Now, I know you guys wouldnt put a virus on my lappy, but, do you think there is any way to stop that? And, it doesnt start. I am on 64 bit 7, and it says "SmilesApp has stopped working".


The application is 64-bit only, so if you're trying to run it on a 32-bit OS it won't work. You could try disabling/turning off/removing (hint hint) Norton and try running again. Do you have at least .NET Framework 2.0 installed?


----------



## Laquer Head

I ran both benchmarks (4 & 8) with ram oc'ed on the G75, 

Corsair Vengeance DDR3-12800 1600MHZ-- oc'ed 1866MHZ 

and there was virtually no difference in either benchmark-- not even a full second higher or lower.


----------



## spirit

Laquer Head said:


> I ran both benchmarks (4 & 8) with ram oc'ed on the G75,
> 
> Corsair Vengeance DDR3-12800 1600MHZ-- oc'ed 1866MHZ
> 
> and there was virtually no difference in either benchmark-- not even a full second higher or lower.



Opps. Will update the leaderboard.


----------



## byteninja2

Should I learn C++, or VB, which one is easier?


----------



## spirit

byteninja2 said:


> Should I learn C++, or VB, which one is easier?



VB.NET (not VB, VB.NET, they're two different languages) to begin with and then move into C++ and C# later on. VB.NET is a bit more limited than C++ and C# though, just bear in mind.


----------



## Laquer Head

vistakid10 said:


> Opps. Will update the leaderboard.



This too..


----------



## byteninja2

vistakid10 said:


> VB.NET (not VB, VB.NET, they're two different languages) to begin with and then move into C++ and C# later on. VB.NET is a bit more limited than C++ and C# though, just bear in mind.



Is visual basic 2010 express VB.NET?


----------



## spirit

byteninja2 said:


> Is visual basic 2010 express VB.NET?



Yes.


----------



## jonnyp11

Norton false-flags crap all the game, flagged Black Hawk Down on my old comp every time i dl'd it and dad ended up getting pissed at me for coninuing to dl it and broke the disk, i liked that game and it ran well on my 9600se


----------



## claptonman

byteninja2 said:


> Norton threat detected. Now, I know you guys wouldnt put a virus on my lappy, but, do you think there is any way to stop that? And, it doesnt start. I am on 64 bit 7, and it says "SmilesApp has stopped working".


Uninstall Norton, since itself is a virus...


Laquer Head said:


> I ran both benchmarks (4 & 8) with ram oc'ed on the G75,
> 
> Corsair Vengeance DDR3-12800 1600MHZ-- oc'ed 1866MHZ
> 
> and there was virtually no difference in either benchmark-- not even a full second higher or lower.



same here, went from 1600 to 1866. My WEI went up, though.


----------



## Laquer Head

claptonman said:


> same here, went from 1600 to 1866. My WEI went up, though.



And you know that no other benchmark will ever be as critical and thorough as the WEI...

Apparently triple RAID-0 SSD and 5.2GHZ overclocked i7 is not quite good enough though... only got a 7.6


----------



## jonnyp11

you know your score is the lowest individual one right? or are those what each of them scored?


----------



## spirit

Do I win the award for the slowest scores? 

Athlon 64 3700+ 4-Threaded Heavy








Athlon 64 3700+ 8-Threaded Light







OK so it does work in XPx64, but there are a few issues, one of them being that you can't see some of the scores, including the final result. In XPx64, the only way to get your final result is to click 'Save Scores' and then open the text file which holds your score.

The 4-threaded heavy bench took 953 seconds on the 3700+ - that's around 15 minutes or so! I had to run the bench with the side panel removed so that the CPU didn't get too hot. Even with the side panel removed, temps were hitting 70C (this thing idles at around 45-50C). 

The 8-threaded bench didn't take so long, only around 3.5 minutes or so, but both tests pushed the CPU usage up to 100% on the single core which this Athlon has.


----------



## claptonman

Laquer Head said:


> And you know that no other benchmark will ever be as critical and thorough as the WEI...
> 
> Apparently triple RAID-0 SSD and 5.2GHZ overclocked i7 is not quite good enough though... only got a 7.6



A fresh install with my Corsair Force 3 got a 7.9, but its at 7.7 right now. If it was 7.9, I'd have all 7.9s except 7.5 for my CPU.

But yeah, I know it doesn't matter at all.


----------



## spirit

claptonman said:


> A fresh install with my Corsair Force 3 got a 7.9, but its at 7.7 right now. If it was 7.9, I'd have all 7.9s except 7.5 for my CPU.
> 
> But yeah, I know it doesn't matter at all.



My scores are 7.6, 7.9, 7.8, 7.8, 7.8 with the 2500K rig in my sig. My SSD was at 7.9 but then once I got the 5870 and installed the Catalyst Drivers it dropped to 7.8. 

Don't know how I'll ever live with that...


----------



## jonnyp11

X4 @ 3.8

and the 8-threaded was X6 @ 3.8


----------



## byteninja2

claptonman said:


> Uninstall Norton, since itself is a virus...
> 
> 
> same here, went from 1600 to 1866. My WEI went up, though.



Lol, I know. I wouldnt uninstall norton because it cost 80 bucks. And because its not my pc, I would never get norton


----------



## NyxCharon

Do you guys release the source code for this application or are you closed source?
If you do, i'd like to take a peak at it.


----------



## spirit

NyxCharon said:


> Do you guys release the source code for this application or are you closed source?
> If you do, i'd like to take a peak at it.



I'm not giving away the source code to anybody (especially publicly) until I've had permission from SmileMan.


----------



## Jamebonds1

byteninja2 said:


> Norton threat detected. Now, I know you guys wouldnt put a virus on my lappy, but, do you think there is any way to stop that? And, it doesnt start. I am on 64 bit 7, and it says "SmilesApp has stopped working".



Norton is bad antivirus, sometime it caught false virus.  Better if remove then download free antivirus Avast! edition



claptonman said:


> Uninstall Norton, since itself is a virus...



Norton is not a virus but they have issued antivirus and other stuff.  



NyxCharon said:


> Do you guys release the source code for this application or are you closed source?
> If you do, i'd like to take a peak at it.



Sorry but you have to asking SmileMan, the founder of benchmark.  
Also we wouldn't know what would you doing with it if vistakid release code source.


----------



## byteninja2

Well, avast sucks as much as norton  And he was joking when norton is a virus.


----------



## Jamebonds1

byteninja2 said:


> Well, avast sucks as much as norton  And he was joking when norton is a virus.



I have Avast antivirus for 4 years and it work really good.  It detect many of virus in my life.  When i clean my friend's laptop, Avast found about 24 virus.


----------



## byteninja2

I dont like avast, but its just my opinion.Its clucnky, gets in your way, and as I am not the type to buy a AV program, it has popups saying get avast paid.Though, almost all AV software does this, so I use Microsoft security essentials, which doesnt have these problems.


----------



## spirit

byteninja2 said:


> I dont like avast, but its just my opinion.Its clucnky, gets in your way, and as I am not the type to buy a AV program, it has popups saying get avast paid.Though, almost all AV software does this, so I use Microsoft security essentials, which doesnt have these problems.



I like Avast but I like MSE too. 

Back on topic; that was a false positive which Norton detected. You can see a link to a Virus Total scan of the application on the first page in the thread. It comes out 100% clean.


----------



## Virssagòn

Ty for all comments, I like my vacation. But I want to go home too 

I'll make the 4threaded more stable when I come home.

and no, my soucre code is closed!

grtz,
smile


----------



## KasperL

Good day Smiles 

Since you requested of me to use your program, because my CPU is a good expensive one, i did so. Here are the results. I don't know if i did everything right, but here you go.


----------



## spirit

i7 3930K there? Is it overclocked at all?


----------



## KasperL

vistakid10 said:


> i7 3930K there? Is it overclocked at all?



Sure is an I7 3930k 

Not one bit overclocked. I don't know how to. 

btw sorry for not mentioning you in the comment above.


----------



## spirit

KasperL said:


> Sure is an I7 3930k
> 
> Not one bit overclocked. I don't know how to.
> 
> btw sorry for not mentioning you in the comment above.



No worries. If you've got decent cooling and a good board and case you should try overclocking 3930K - would be interesting to see what scores you'd get.  I know you're using 16GB of RAM, what's the make and model of the RAM?

I'll add your scores to the new leaderboard when I get it up tomorrow or Friday most probably.


----------



## NyxCharon

Jamebonds1 said:


> *Sorry but you have to asking SmileMan, the founder of benchmark.  *
> Also we wouldn't know what would you doing with it if vistakid release code source.



Which is why i asked in this thread.
What would I do with it? Look and learn from it. FOSS projects are a great learning tool. I was curious how this program was implemented, but since the author doesn't want to release it, that's his decision and I'll respect it.
Still curious though, what language was it written in?


----------



## byteninja2

NyxCharon said:


> Which is why i asked in this thread.
> What would I do with it? Look and learn from it. FOSS projects are a great learning tool. I was curious how this program was implemented, but since the author doesn't want to release it, that's his decision and I'll respect it.
> Still curious though, what language was it written in?



VB.NET, I was asking the same thing.


----------



## linkin




----------



## FuryRosewood

thats giving me good hope for my 3820 i7, looks pretty fast to me

and at some point ill run it on my 1.2ghz centrino, and dual core tl-60 when i get those back to me...have to pay a friend to fix my laptops cooling


----------



## spirit

Would like to see how it does on a Centrino.  I got 953 seconds on the heavy 4-threaded bench with my Athlon 64 3700+. Had to wait a while.


----------



## Virssagòn

hey guys, already my second day! 
hehe, 12 days to go.
Nice scores with the 3930k, but not impressive faster then an 2600k.

It`s written in VB.net by the way.
difficult to write benchmark codes, because it is most written in C++...

grtz from Greece (Kos)

Smile!

(ps: the computers here are scratch and scratch, and that what I`m paying for...)


----------



## Jamebonds1

NyxCharon said:


> Which is why i asked in this thread.
> What would I do with it? Look and learn from it. FOSS projects are a great learning tool. I was curious how this program was implemented, but since the author doesn't want to release it, that's his decision and I'll respect it.
> Still curious though, what language was it written in?



Are you talk about my english? If so, please go back to topic before you getting in trouble with mods.


----------



## Jamebonds1

4.72 GHz, 4 GB 1230 MHz Patroit, 20.6700364






4.60 GHz, 4 GB 1600 MHz, 119.7926104


----------



## spirit

Jamebonds1 said:


> Are you talk about my english? If so, please go back to topic before you getting in trouble with mods.


He's asking which programming language we wrote the program in. He just wants to look at the source code to see how Smile did it. As said here several times before, this is closed source anyway. 



Jamebonds1 said:


> http://i1059.photobucket.com/albums/t439/jamebonds1/472GHzOverclockedLB.jpg
> 
> 4.72 GHz, 4 GB 1230 MHz Patroit, 20.6700364
> 
> http://i1059.photobucket.com/albums/t439/jamebonds1/460GHzOverclockedHB.jpg
> 
> 4.60 GHz, 4 GB 1600 MHz, 119.7926104


How stable is that i3 at 4.7? Are you still issues with shutdowns and stuff?


----------



## Jamebonds1

vistakid10 said:


> How stable is that i3 at 4.7? Are you still issues with shutdowns and stuff?



Not that issues shutdown but it is too much stress for my CPU and it reach 90 C after i overclock more than 4.8 GHz.


----------



## spirit

Jamebonds1 said:


> Not that issues shutdown but it is too much stress for my CPU and it reach 90 C after i overclock more than 4.8 GHz.



Ah... not good. My friend's E5400 idles at around 80-90C. Not joking. Gets over 100C under full load.


----------



## Jamebonds1

vistakid10 said:


> Ah... not good. My friend's E5400 idles at around 80-90C. Not joking. Gets over 100C under full load.



Yeah. When it is overclock too much it would shut down my computer.


----------



## claptonman

Going to update the first post, Smileman? Don't wanna flip through the pages to find the leaderboard...


----------



## spirit

He's on vacation right now so I'm doing the leaderboards. As I obviously can't edit the first post, for the next week or so the leaderboards will be posted by me. I'll try and get a new one up tomorrow afternoon once I'm back from school.


----------



## Jamebonds1

vistakid10 said:


> He's on vacation right now so I'm doing the leaderboards. As I obviously can't edit the first post, for the next week or so the leaderboards will be posted by me. I'll try and get a new one up tomorrow afternoon once I'm back from school.



Don't forgot my benchmark


----------



## spirit

Jamebonds1 said:


> Don't forgot my benchmark



I'll include all of my them. May leave my 3700+ and its woeful time of 953 seconds/15 minutes off the board though.


----------



## MyCattMaxx

vistakid10 said:


> I'll include all of my them. May leave my 3700+ and its woeful time of 953 seconds/15 minutes off the board though.


Even my P4 did better than that. 
My P4 is a Phenom 4 core...l o l


----------



## spirit

MyCattMaxx said:


> Even my P4 did better than that.



I think anything will do better than the 3700+.


----------



## Jamebonds1

MyCattMaxx said:


> Even my P4 did better than that.



Hahaha I have P4.  It is good old CPU in my life   When i was young, i think i saw P4 CPU cost 500 dollar or more, but i got it for 30 dollar to replace my laptop's slowest CPU.  P4 is good for most of my old game.

PS, should I try it on my 11 years old laptop?  lol


----------



## jonnyp11

vistakid10 said:


> I think anything will do better than the 3700+.



ehm, xp 2400+ thank you  good ole crap-paq (compaq)

i have the case sitting in a corner and the parts in another.


----------



## Ankur

Can you have a benchmark processing bar that looks something like loading bar? The benchmark stops working for a minute or 2


----------



## Jamebonds1

Ankur said:


> Can you have a benchmark processing bar that looks something like loading bar? The benchmark stops working for a minute or 2



Just let it benchmark and be sure to close all program and apps you running.  Don't do anything while benchmark it.  And that is 3 minute or so.


----------



## wolfeking

3 minutes and 6 seconds to be exact. 

4 thread 





8 thread 





specs in siggy. No OC, 1066 ram speed, gtx 480.


----------



## kobaj

This thread grew ultra fast and I don't really have time to walk through 23 pages to see if someone else has already asked this, but are you planning on making this open source?

I'm really just curious to know what algorithms you're using in your test. But also knowing that your code isn't stealing my cc info would be cool too.


----------



## MyCattMaxx

SmileMan said no to open source.


----------



## spirit

Ankur, I will look into adding a progress bar. I am aware that the benchmark appears to stop responding. The latest version does warn you about this. As soon as you click 'Benchmark' a message box should appear warning you that the benchmark may appear to stop responding but really is still benching.


----------



## Ankur

Yea I know about that message about not responding, I suggested that because the end users will like a progress bar, I suggested this assuming you guys are making this commercial.
BTW if you want to make it more popular add this in my tech blog I get over 300 page views per day over there.


----------



## spirit

I will take a look tomorrow or tonight and see if there's anything I can do about a progress bar. 

I'll speak to Smiles about advertising it on your blog, sure he'll be OK with it. I've put a link to this thread on my blog too.


----------



## Ankur

Hey it is not advertising, I will just add this in the Windows tools section for free. I will post a back link to this CF thread if you guys like .


----------



## spirit

Yeah a link to this thread would be preferable over hosting it on your site please.


----------



## kobaj

MyCattMaxx said:


> SmileMan said no to open source.



Fair enough. I'm still curious to know if the algorithm will at least be released?

Like are you benchmarking by calculating pi?

Or by calculating primes?

I simply ask because if you're just adding up numbers or something else silly. 


		PHP:
	

int limit = int.maxValue();
int start = 0;
int increment = start;

while(increment < limit)
    increment++;


It will probably get optimized out by the compiler. (Depending on the language, I know Java will). Or the overhead of the loop will cost more time than the actual arithmetic. And then you're just testing nothing.


----------



## Virssagòn

we are seriously testing something, look into the differences between the times. That says enough...


----------



## wolfeking

are you ever going to update the leaderboard? Or are we posting our scores for no reason at all?


----------



## spirit

Sorry about the wait. Got quite a few new scores to add, so without further a do...

*Current Scores!*

_*Times are in seconds. Lower is better! 

*All CPU clockspeeds are stock unless otherwise stated._

*Top 15 Heavy 4-Threaded:*

1. Laquer Head - i7 3770K 5.0 - 16G RipJaws-X 1600 - 89.2945568
2. vistakid10 - i5 2500K 4.3 - 16G RipJaws-X 1648 - 98.4861003
3. KasperL - i7 3930K - 16G DDR3 - 109.4273062
4. SmileMan - i7 2600K - 16G Hyper-X 1600 - 111.4573749
5. wolfeking - i7 2600K - 8G DDR3 - 118.0815084
6. Jamebonds1 - i3 540 4.6 - 4G Patriot 1230 - 119.7926104
7. jimkonow - i7 3770S - 16G RipJaws-X - 120.9002124
8. Linkin - i5 2500K - 8G RipJaws-X 1600 - 122.7400203
9. Laquer Head - i7 3610QM - 16G Vengeance 1866 - 129.368
10. jonnyp11 - X4 960T 3.8 (Unlocked to X6) - 8G Kingston 1333 - 151.3961111
11. Hyper-Threaded - X4 855 - 4G RipJaws-X 1333 - 154.7522698
12. FuryRosewood - X4 955 - 16G Crucial 1333 - 156.2702156
13. johnb35 - X4 965 - 8G Vengeance 1600 - 165.6566888
14. Claptonman - FX-6100 4.3 - 8G RipJaws-X 1600 - 166.0312869
15. vistakid10 - Q8300 - 4G DDR2 667 - 171.42

*Top 15 Light 8-Threaded:*

1. Laquer Head - i7 3770K 5.0 - 16G RipJaws-X 1600 - 16.7232294
2. jimkonow - i7 3770S - 16G RipJaws-X - 18.153434
3. SmileMan - i7 2600K - 16G Hyper-X 1600 - 18.8240766
4. wolfeking - i7 2600K - 8G DDR3 - 20.3892358
5. Laquer Head - i7 3610QM - 16G Vengeance 1866 - 20.5764361
6. Jamebonds1 - i3 540 4.72 - 4G Patriot 1230 - 20.6700364
7. Claptonman - FX-6100 4.3 - 8G RipJaws-X 1600 - 21.4390775
8. vistakid10 - i5 2500K 4.3 - 16G RipJaws-X 1648 - 27.6008391
9. jonnyp11 - X4 960T 3.8	 - 8G Kingston 1333 - 28.297828
10. Hyper-Threaded - X4 855 - 4G RipJaws-X 1333 - 30.1080525
11. FuryRosewood - X4 955 - 16G Crucial 1333 - 34.6200479
12. johnb35 - X4 965 - 8G Vengeance 1600 - 34.8505607
13. vistakid10 - Q8300 - 4G DDR2 667 - 48.701
14. vistakid10 - 3700+ - 1G DDR - 221.53125

*Remember if your CPU and/or RAM is overclocked to say so in your post or write it in your signature!*

_If any information here is incorrect, please let me know ASP and I will correct it._

When we get more AMD submissions, I'll break the categories down into Intel and AMD. Right now there are not enough AMD entries really to warrant doing this.


----------



## Ankur

Vista I am just curious at what frequency is KasperL's 3930K running, how did the hex core did not beat quad?


----------



## spirit

Ankur said:


> Vista I am just curious at what frequency is KasperL's 3930K running, how did the hex core did not beat quad?



His 3930K is running at stock, don't think it's been overclocked.


----------



## Laquer Head

Just noticed this, but both my 1st place scores were done at 5.0GHZ.. not 5.2


----------



## spirit

Edited.


----------



## Jamebonds1

Check spell of my member username "mebonds1" on top 25 light thread


----------



## spirit

Corrected. Sorry about that!


----------



## Virssagòn

Gonna make a site for scores later (about a month)
I`ll integrate this scores also. And the official discussion thread will be post on Computerforum>
.com!


----------



## Virssagòn

I gonna make a site for scores too ( in a month)
These leaderbords will be integrated and the official discussion thread I post here!

I only need a name for the program, a cool name 
If you guys can help me with that I would be VERY happy xD

I will add a new test also for intel hexas, CPU-breaker


----------



## claptonman

Smileman, can you please update the first post so we don't have to go back and find the scores?


----------



## Virssagòn

claptonman said:


> Smileman, can you please update the first post so we don't have to go back and find the scores?



sorry I`m on vacation.
I pay every day 50cent to go 8 min on the web xD
So I don`t have the time to do that, I`m updating it when I`m back k?


----------



## tech savvy

Here's mine.


----------



## Jamebonds1

tech savvy said:


> Here's mine.



You used safe mode?

(1/4 way until 1000 post )


----------



## wolfeking

you can use solid colour backgrounds.  Evidence attached.


----------



## tech savvy

Jamebonds1 said:


> *You used safe mode?*
> 
> (1/4 way until 1000 post )



What you mean "safe mode"? Like I booted in safe mode?

Edit: It looks like that because I run "Turbo Boost" in AdvancedSystemCare, but it's always on. I could do another run with it off, if that will be more fair, just let me know.


----------



## Jamebonds1

tech savvy said:


> What you mean "safe mode"? Like I booted in safe mode?



Yeah.  It is type of boot.  Like booted into safe mode, restore point or normal mode.


----------



## tech savvy

I'll re-run it, with Turbo Boost off.


----------



## tech savvy

Again. Not much Difference.


----------



## Jamebonds1

tech savvy said:


> Again.



what about light 8 thread?


----------



## tech savvy

Jamebonds1 said:


> what about light 8 thread?



Can I run the 8-Thread on my i5? I thought it was for the i7 with HyperThreading?


----------



## wolfeking

it will run on any processor. Just a 8 thread processor will run it better maybe?


----------



## tech savvy

wolfeking said:


> it will run on any processor. Just a 8 thread processor will run it better maybe?



I would believe so...thats why I really didnt bother posting 8-threaded. But i'l run it anyway.


----------



## spirit

tech savvy said:


> Can I run the 8-Thread on my i5? I thought it was for the i7 with HyperThreading?


Yep you can run the 8-threaded benchmark on any processor regardless of how many cores and threads the processor has.



wolfeking said:


> Just a 8 thread processor will run it better maybe?


Yep CPUs with 8-threads such as the i7s will run this bench better than say an i5 which has 4 threads.


----------



## tech savvy

8-Threaded


----------



## spirit

Your scores are very similar to mine with my 2500K @ 4.3. I get around 98 seconds on the 4-threaded and 27 on the 8-threaded. I see your 2500K is at 4.2, correct?


----------



## Jamebonds1

vistakid10 said:


> Your scores are very similar to mine with my 2500K @ 4.3. I get around 98 seconds on the 4-threaded and 27 on the 8-threaded. I see your 2500K is at 4.2, correct?



I got 20 sec for 8 theading on my i3


----------



## spirit

Jamebonds1 said:


> I got 20 sec for 8 theading on my i3



Yeah but at least I can use my 2500K without my PC crashing and shutting itself off.


----------



## tech savvy

vistakid10 said:


> Your scores are very similar to mine with my 2500K @ 4.3. I get around 98 seconds on the 4-threaded and 27 on the 8-threaded.* I see your 2500K is at 4.2, correct*?



Yep, and it's a 2550k. I can redo the test @4.4, but I thought most people cant get that high so ill stay reasonable @4.2.


----------



## spirit

At 4.4 I'd imagine you'd get roughly the same scores anyway, I'm only 100MHz higher than you and we're getting roughly the same scores - especially on the 4-threaded bench.


----------



## Jamebonds1

tech savvy said:


> Yep, and it's a 2550k. I can redo the test @4.4, but I thought most people cant get that high so ill stay reasonable @4.2.



I had run around 5 GHz on my i3 dual core but it is unstable so i turn it down to 4.8 GHz to running stable.


----------



## tech savvy

Jamebonds1 said:


> I had run around 5 GHz on my i3 dual core but it is unstable so i turn it down to 4.8 GHz to running stable.



Nice! Whats the temps like on that [email protected]?


----------



## spirit

Jamebonds1 said:


> I had run around 5 GHz on my i3 dual core but it is unstable so i turn it down to 4.8 GHz to running stable.



Madness.  What voltage is it running at again?


----------



## Jamebonds1

tech savvy said:


> Nice! Whats the temps like on that [email protected]?





vistakid10 said:


> Madness.  What voltage is it running at again?



about 80 C to 90 C on full load and it is 1.56 volt.


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> I got 20 sec for 8 theading on my i3



Yeah, you clocked the hell out of your i3 xD. And you still not getting better then my stock i7 that takes 18s 
Take it like a challenge, if you can get under 18 with your cpu. You can name yourself a boss ;D


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> Yeah, you clocked the hell out of your i3 xD. And you still not getting better then my stock i7 that takes 18s
> Take it like a challenge, if you can get under 18 with your cpu. You can name yourself a boss ;D



Grrrrrr......

PS: I think you mean than instead of then


----------



## spirit

Currently the fastest is a 3770K overclocked to 5.0GHz which scored around 16 seconds - doubt your i3 could get to 16 seconds no matter high an overclock you put on it.


----------



## Virssagòn

vistakid10 said:


> Currently the fastest is a 3770K overclocked to 5.0GHz which scored around 16 seconds - doubt your i3 could get to 16 seconds no matter high an overclock you put on it.



what would his i3 do with the new test I`ll create when I`m back (16 threaded - and heavy) 

PS: 300 posts


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> what would his i3 do with the new test I`ll create when I`m back (16 threaded - and heavy)
> 
> PS: 300 posts



Bad!


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> Bad!



already tried higher then 5.1?
Like vista said, I think your i3 won`t get higher with bigger overclock. It`s limited by its threads.


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> already tried higher then 5.1?
> Like vista said, I think your i3 won`t get higher with bigger overclock. It`s limited by its threads.



Yeah.  That's true.  My limited is 4.74 GHz for stable.


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> Yeah.  That's true.  My limited is 4.74 GHz for stable.



In your sign not... xD


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> In your sign not... xD



I post a record max ghz in my sign lol.


----------



## claptonman

Do I win? Pentium Dual Core T4400 @2.2ghz, 6 GB of 1333mhz RAM.


----------



## spirit

Nah Claptonman if you're trying for the slowest score possible I tried with an Athlon 64 3700+ and got 953 seconds on the heavy bench and 221 seconds on the light bench.


----------



## claptonman

Damn it, I lose!

If only my P4 laptop wasn't stolen when I borrowed it to someone. Would've been really slow.

(I feel sorry for whoever stole that thing... with all its 512mb of RAM.


----------



## wolfeking

if it was 32 bit I would love to get a old pentium 3 thinkpad and try it out. That might take days to run.


----------



## spirit

wolfeking said:


> if it was 32 bit I would love to get a old pentium 3 thinkpad and try it out. That might take days to run.



I can make a 32-bit version if you like, will take me all of a few seconds really.


----------



## claptonman

I could go out and buy this baby:

http://stcloud.craigslist.org/sys/3085387502.html


----------



## wolfeking

I may be oldschool, but that is too old.


----------



## claptonman

Lol its only $20. Kinda thinking of picking it up and playing with a linux distro of sorts.


----------



## wolfeking

that would be dang epic.


----------



## tech savvy

SmileMan said:


> Yeah, you clocked the hell out of your i3 xD. And you still not getting better then my stock i7 that takes 18s
> *Take it like a challenge, if you can get under 18 with your cpu. You can name yourself a boss ;D*



Anyone can be top dwag if they had the money. Of course your i7 will beat any i5/i3's(first gen.). Like how you will lose against a i7-3770K. It's not really a challenge when money can win it, it's a challenge when an i5/i3 can beat an i7.


----------



## KasperL

vistakid10 said:


> No worries. If you've got decent cooling and a good board and case you should try overclocking 3930K - would be interesting to see what scores you'd get.  I know you're using 16GB of RAM, what's the make and model of the RAM?
> 
> I'll add your scores to the new leaderboard when I get it up tomorrow or Friday most probably.



Thanks mate. My ram is VENGEANCE/HYPERX DDR3 1866 MHz. Can you tell me how to overclock my CPU, or should i just google it?


----------



## spirit

You've got a mix of brands there?

I can tell you very briefly how to overclock but you'd probably be best creating a thread in the CPUs/Overclocking section asking how to overclock. Basically what you do do is raise the multiplier (to raise the GHz you CPU runs at) and voltage of your CPU (to increase the power needed to run an OC'ed CPU) in the BIOS, but you need a good board, CPU and cooling. I'm sure your board is very good and your CPU is fine for overclocking, but I'm not sure about your cooling.


----------



## Virssagòn

vistakid10 said:


> Nah Claptonman if you're trying for the slowest score possible I tried with an Athlon 64 3700+ and got 953 seconds on the heavy bench and 221 seconds on the light bench.



I think I can beat you with my dads cpu xD
I`ll do it when I`m back ( the new pc from him is arrived, i7 3770 )
But gonna beat you with his athlon xD


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> But gonna beat you with his athlon xD


Which Athlon has he got? If it's an X2, you've got no chance, my 3700+ is a sole-core from 2005!


----------



## StrangleHold

I will throw some up for the 8 and 4 when the 4 is fixed at least for AMD processors.


----------



## Jamebonds1

StrangleHold said:


> I will throw some up for the 8 and 4 when the 4 is fixed at least for AMD processors.



I think it have been fixed for 4 thread.


----------



## spirit

StrangleHold said:


> I will throw some up for the 8 and 4 when the 4 is fixed at least for AMD processors.



I'm pretty sure the 4-threaded bench has been fixed now, Smile and I got it going again. Would you mind maybe downloading it and sharing your scores please so we can see how a high-end AMD chip does? Currently the fastest AMD in our leaderboard is an X4 960T overclocked to 3.8 I think - I'm pretty certain your FX-8120 would be faster.


----------



## StrangleHold

Dont think so, atleast for a FX on the 4 threaded one. If so how could johnb35 Phenom II 965 at 3.4ghz. beat Claptonman FX-6100 at 4.3ghz with 165.65 to 166.03. Plus the 4 threaded one uses more then 4 cores if you have a 6 or 8 core. If thats the case Claptonman could have beat it by alot.


----------



## StrangleHold

FX-8120 @ 4.5ghz. With DDR3 2000 4gb. 8 Threaded.


----------



## Jamebonds1

StrangleHold said:


> FX-8120 @ 4.5ghz. With DDR3 2000 4gb. 8 Threaded.



What kind of CPU cooler do you used?


----------



## StrangleHold

Jamebonds1 said:


> What kind of CPU cooler do you used?


 
ZEROtherm NV120 PWM


----------



## spirit

Thanks for the scores StrangleHold. I'll get a new leaderboard up tonight most likely.


----------



## FuryRosewood

If you get a 32-Bit executable going i could run it on my CF-T4, it likely will be quite a bit slower than the 3700+, its only a 1.2ghz pentium M, single core. 3700+ was still not much of a slouch back in the day, but pentium 4's definately were, however the chip i have is based off a pentium iii, because pentium 4's just could not run in the power envelope that that m has to run in, which is like 5 or 6 watts, the entire laptop uses about 10 watts... 

mine pushed a 45 sec run on light, and a 160 on heavy, not going to bother posting this setup till the 3820 is in so i can see what it can do, just going to leave it stock i think, it should be pretty formidable.


----------



## Virssagòn

FuryRosewood said:


> If you get a 32-Bit executable going i could run it on my CF-T4, it likely will be quite a bit slower than the 3700+



yeah, a 32bit program is always 50-70% slower then a 64bit xD


----------



## Virssagòn

StrangleHold said:


> Dont think so, atleast for a FX on the 4 threaded one. If so how could johnb35 Phenom II 965 at 3.4ghz. beat Claptonman FX-6100 at 4.3ghz with 165.65 to 166.03. Plus the 4 threaded one uses more then 4 cores if you have a 6 or 8 core. If thats the case Claptonman could have beat it by alot.



The FX series are known to be slow per core, so in 4 threaded they got NO advantage...


----------



## FuryRosewood

64 bit execution has no impact on performance of a application, just makes it so it can use more memory.


----------



## StrangleHold

SmileMan said:


> The FX series are known to be slow per core, so in 4 threaded they got NO advantage...


 
Never said they had a advantage if we were talking about a FX 4 core. But it does use more then 4 cores. Like said on mine the 4 threaded one uses 6 cores. There is no way a Phenom II 4 core @ 3.4ghz. should beat a Zambezi 6 core running @ 4.3ghz. The FX has a 900mhz advantage plus 2 extra cores. 

We can argue about it till the sky falls, but the 4 threaded one is not running right on a FX. If this was a Intel SB/IB vs. a Phenom II I would agree. But not between a Phenom II vs. Zambezi. There is no way a Zambezi running 900mhz faster and 2 extra cores is going to lose to a Phenom II X4.


----------



## spirit

Here is a 32-bit version of SmilesApp 2.1 to all those who want it.

*Download 32-bit app here!*

*NOTE: I likely will not include 32-bit results in the leaderboard.


----------



## Jamebonds1

StrangleHold said:


> Never said they had a advantage if we were talking about a FX 4 core. But it does use more then 4 cores. Like said on mine the 4 threaded one uses 6 cores. There is no way a Phenom II 4 core @ 3.4ghz. should beat a Zambezi 6 core running @ 4.3ghz. The FX has a 900mhz advantage plus 2 extra cores.
> 
> We can argue about it till the sky falls, but the 4 threaded one is not running right on a FX. If this was a Intel SB/IB vs. a Phenom II I would agree. But not between a Phenom II vs. Zambezi. There is no way a Zambezi running 900mhz faster and 2 extra cores is going to lose to a Phenom II X4.



It is true.  FX didn't improve a lot over old phenom AM3+.  Windows 7 didn't correctly recognize the AMD FX.  Here is solution i found not long ago.  There is rumor that if AMD FX is fully load, it would be little slow.  Also AMD FX have problem such as windows 7 shuting down unused core prematurely.      

http://www.techpowerup.com/158534/New-Windows-7-Bulldozer-Patches-Available..html


----------



## StrangleHold

Jamebonds1 said:


> It is true. FX didn't improve a lot over old phenom AM3+. Windows 7 didn't correctly recognize the AMD FX. Here is solution i found not long ago. There is rumor that if AMD FX is fully load, it would be little slow. Also AMD FX have problem such as windows 7 shuting down unused core prematurely.
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/158534/New-Windows-7-Bulldozer-Patches-Available..html


 
Not trying to be rude. But there is nothing you can tell me about a FX. I'm the AMD dude and knew this months ago. Anyway I have everything disabled and it doesnt park cores, plus I have the Schedular patch already installed.


----------



## jonnyp11

StrangleHold said:


> Not trying to be rude. But there is nothing you can tell me about a FX. I'm the AMD dude and knew this months ago. Anyway I have everything disabled and it doesnt park cores, plus I have the Schedular patch already installed.



IIRC the scheduler patch and the other one (there was 2 i know) together really didn't improve it much, it did some, but didn't it actually drop performance in some places?


----------



## StrangleHold

jonnyp11 said:


> IIRC the scheduler patch and the other one (there was 2 i know) together really didn't improve it much, it did some, but didn't it actually drop performance in some places?


 
The Scheduler patch works some what. It helps spread out the threads instead of bunching them up on the same module/s. The parked core patch doesnt apply if you have everything as in power savings disabled, then it doesnt park cores anyway.


----------



## jonnyp11

StrangleHold said:


> The Scheduler patch works some what. It helps spread out the threads instead of bunching them up on the same module/s. The parked core patch doesnt apply if you have everything as in power savings disabled, then it doesnt park cores anyway.



hopefully i can find out for myself, if i ever get this thing sold i plan to use a 6100 or 8120 and a better motherboard next time, but by the time i do hopefully i can get a piledriver, would be nice, it's so cheap to get amd chips if you go to microcenter.


----------



## StrangleHold

Think the FX Piledriver is suppost to be out in October.


----------



## salvage-this

Just got my board working again so I decided to test it out a bit 

Heavy 4-threaded




Light 8-threaded


----------



## Virssagòn

vistakid10 said:


> Here is a 32-bit version of SmilesApp 2.1 to all those who want it.
> 
> *Download 32-bit app here!*
> 
> *NOTE: I likely will not include 32-bit results in the leaderboard.



K, I gonna run it on my laptop from 2000 xD
when I`m home...


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> It is true.  FX didn't improve a lot over old phenom AM3+.  Windows 7 didn't correctly recognize the AMD FX.  Here is solution i found not long ago.  There is rumor that if AMD FX is fully load, it would be little slow.  Also AMD FX have problem such as windows 7 shuting down unused core prematurely.
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/158534/New-Windows-7-Bulldozer-Patches-Available..html



so the app is not the problem, but w7 is...?


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> so the app is not the problem, but w7 is...?



It is most likely.  AM3 work good but AMD FX still need fix.


----------



## StrangleHold

SmileMan said:


> so the app is not the problem, but w7 is...?


 
No, its the app.



Jamebonds1 said:


> It is most likely. AM3 work good but AMD FX still need fix.


 
No!


----------



## wolfeking

heavy. Processor and memory is set on the CPUz tabs. 






One thing I noticed is that the heavy is not testing to its full. It never reached 100% on any core and was bouncing around the threads constantly. 





Light 8 thread.  100% on all 8 threads.


----------



## StrangleHold

wolfeking said:


> One thing I noticed is that the heavy is not testing to its full. It never reached 100% on any core and was bouncing around the threads constantly.
> 
> 
> Light 8 thread. 100% on all 8 threads.


 
The 4 threaded one does the same on mine.


----------



## wolfeking

AMD or Intel?  Might it be a quark of HT?  I can turn HT off and try again if it would score better by locking it down to 4 cores.


----------



## wolfeking

This benchmark is not stable.  Note also that a 2600k does not outperform a 2500k at inferior speeds (200MHz over vista kid yet slower time) 





And beating laquerheads 3770k @ 5.0 with a 2600k @ 4.5


----------



## Jamebonds1

StrangleHold said:


> No, its the app.
> 
> 
> 
> No!



If it is app.  You will need to post 4 thread heavy.  So that we can see.  To be honest, I don't how long it take for your CPU on 4 Thread heavy.


----------



## StrangleHold

wolfeking said:


> AMD or Intel? Might it be a quark of HT? I can turn HT off and try again if it would score better by locking it down to 4 cores.


 
AMD, good idea. Think I might disable 1 of my cores  in each module and see how the 4 threaded one does.


----------



## wolfeking

Ill try with my 2600 too, just to be sure that your results are in line with what can be expected with others above 4 thread too.


----------



## wolfeking

getting up there with that score.


----------



## FuryRosewood

Just installed the core i7 and did the benchmark, the heavy did a 120ish time, the light did a little over 19 seconds, at stock clocks...i have a feeling it would be quite a bit faster OCed but i do not want to go that route, it runs quite cool right now, usually staying under 50C at all times.


----------



## Virssagòn

the heavy don`t means it will use all threads 100%, it are only 4 threads...
I`ll make the name `long benchmark`, that what I ment.
And very weird from the 3770k because vistakids dad owns my stock 2600k with his stock 3770...
maybe the cpu is damaged?
And yes, the i5 will not be worse then the i7 in 4threaded. Because the i7 will use only 4threads out of 8. But in 8threaded, i7 wins with a big difference...


----------



## wolfeking

Are you illerate. The issue is not with it not using just four threads.  have you tested it with a core usage reader? It jumps around threads, which means it will not get an accurate result.  That was proven my turning HT off resulting in only 4 threads to use and getting a much better result.  

For your program to be taken seriously, you need to code it in a way that locks the 4 core to the four cores it is using when it starts the test. 

8 thread is fine.


----------



## spirit

I'll get a new leaderboard up today at some point. I agree with the comments about the i5, I just ran the 4-threaded bench again on my i5 and I got 96 seconds with it overclocked to 4.3, however with the overclock removed I got around 120 seconds I think. 

Smile, remember my Dad has 32GB of RAM, and a 3770 at stock will be a tiny bit faster than a 2600K at stock.  

Still not sure what's up with the Bulldozer chips.


----------



## wolfeking

Its not just bulldozer. If your running a 8 thread HT chip, you get much better results to disable it.  The app is the issue, not the chips I am pretty sure of it.


----------



## spirit

Tempted to remove the 4-threaded benchmark and just stick with the single 8-threaded benchmark if that is working better for everybody. You said the 8-threaded bench was fine on your 2600K?


----------



## wolfeking

not really. At 4.5 I beat a 5GHz 3770k, which is not possible at all. no where near with him having a 500MHz lead.  Both are working, just not teh greatest.  4 thread jumps around. Turning off HT solves it.  I guess the 6 core Intels and 6 and up AMDs can disable cores for that test. Its not hard. 

8 thread just seems off. Unless I got a really strong chip, or his 3770k is set up incorrectly or somehow defective, which I doubt both of.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> not really. At 4.5 I beat a 5GHz 3770k, which is not possible at all. no where near with him having a 500MHz lead.  Both are working, just not teh greatest.  4 thread jumps around. Turning off HT solves it.  I guess the 6 core Intels and 6 and up AMDs can disable cores for that test. Its not hard.
> 
> 8 thread just seems off. Unless I got a really strong chip, or his 3770k is set up incorrectly or somehow defective, which I doubt both of.



or just an unstable OC... the 3th gen seems to have some heat problems.

yeah, I saw the issue now...
I`m looking for some code to let it run on 4 threads. I found one how to run it on 4 cores, but not everyone has 4 cores... thats the problem xD

But I maybe gonna delete the 4threaded and make other 3 in future:
- short 8threaded
- Cpu-Breaker (16)
- Xtreme bench (50)

not sure the Xtreme will go on every pc


----------



## FuryRosewood

^ Unstable OC makes code that may have a defect more plasuable to have a math error, we probably are seeing math errors due to OCing. It just is not making the program crash.


----------



## StrangleHold

With mine the 8 threaded works fine. All 8 cores jump up to 100% and stay there through the benchmark. Not sure what the problem is with different architectures of Intel. The 4 threaded one is using 6 cores and they jump randomly from 30 to 80%.


----------



## wolfeking

Having run prime95 for 8 hours, I know the OC is stable. But w/e.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> Having run prime95 for 8 hours, I know the OC is stable. But w/e.



I was talking about the 3770k...


----------



## wolfeking

hmm.. I can't say how stable his OC is, but I would think that he would have tested it.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> hmm.. I can't say how stable his OC is, but I would think that he would have tested it.



Hadn't they heat problems while oc? (More then the 2nd gen)

We'll wait for another 3770k oc


----------



## Virssagòn

Ty for the tips, comments and help all!
Found a code how to limit the threads. I'll release snapshot in 1-2 days.

Smile


----------



## wolfeking

they run hotter in OC from what I have herd.  I was going to go with a 3770k when I upgraded, but I could not see the extra for almost no gain in performance. 

I agree, lets wait for another. 

OT a bit, but what settings are you using for 4.9 @ 108?  I tried 108 * 43 for mine @ every volt setting between 1.250 and 1.400 and none of them would boot. . I assume your running 45 x 108, but @ what volts?


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> they run hotter in OC from what I have herd.  I was going to go with a 3770k when I upgraded, but I could not see the extra for almost no gain in performance.
> 
> I agree, lets wait for another.
> 
> OT a bit, but what settings are you using for 4.9 @ 108?  I tried 108 * 43 for mine @ every volt setting between 1.250 and 1.400 and none of them would boot. . I assume your running 45 x 108, but @ what volts?



yeah, that was the max I could get under 1.4v xD
It`s my record OC, because I still use the stock fan cooler 

what you mean OT?


----------



## wolfeking

OT means off topic. 

And what are you saying? That you don't run that all the time?  What volts were you at when you did get it running that?


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> OT means off topic.
> 
> And what are you saying? That you don't run that all the time?  What volts were you at when you did get it running that?



no, that was my record OC. Waiting for the new cooler to let him drive on it xD
volts: 1.395v   I think


----------



## wolfeking

hmm... you must have a good chip. Mine will not boot at 108 at 1.400V, so not really so good. Or might be my board. not sure. 

Anyway, scores up.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> hmm... you must have a good chip. Mine will not boot at 108 at 1.400V, so not really so good. Or might be my board. not sure.
> 
> Anyway, scores up.



yeah, I was having much blue screens until I entered the right voltage. every rig has other OC possibilitys


----------



## wolfeking

mine is hot at 4.5 @ 1.31V. Its OC was shot down to heat.   but still very good.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> mine is hot at 4.5 @ 1.31V. Its OC was shot down to heat.   but still very good.



lol, my stock cooler could cool my cpu @ 4.625ghz to 55C load in games and 65 in my benchmark  ( short one )


----------



## wolfeking

I run 78 on 4.5 and 73 or so on 4.3 where I am now.  Either this is a really hot chip, or yours is really cool.


----------



## Virssagòn

I wanna earn some money maybe later to buy a new gpu 
Thats why I`m working so hard on it now xD


----------



## wolfeking

a new GPU, whats wrong with what you have? they should be really strong.


----------



## spirit

He has issues with microstutter I think with the two 6870s.


----------



## wolfeking

Well  thats an issue no matter how high you go.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> I run 78 on 4.5 and 73 or so on 4.3 where I am now.  Either this is a really hot chip, or yours is really cool.



weird... I did once in 1.45v and went to the seventies 
But it`s long ago now, this is my last day on vacation, yes!! (2 weeks passed)  finally home to solve the problems


----------



## Virssagòn

a question, should I let the load go over all threads same or let them go over the threads that are running in the app?


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> yeah, I was having much blue screens until I entered the right voltage. every rig has other OC possibilitys



With my gigabyte motherboard.  It have fail-safe.  Like If i make it too much highest volt, it would be shut down before it can booting to windows loading.  After fail-safe shut down, it will change back the last time it work.

I heard ASUS and Gigabyte is great overclock.


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> With my gigabyte motherboard.  It have fail-safe.  Like If i make it too much highest volt, it would be shut down before it can booting to windows loading.  After fail-safe shut down, it will change back the last time it work.
> 
> I heard ASUS and Gigabyte is great overclock.



yeah, my mobo series are be told to be good


----------



## spirit

The P8Z68-V boards are good. I know because I've got one, P8Z68-V PRO/GEN3. It has all the fail safe stuff too.


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> yeah, my mobo series are be told to be good





vistakid10 said:


> The P8Z68-V boards are good. I know because I've got one, P8Z68-V PRO/GEN3. It has all the fail safe stuff too.



...and beside one time my gigabyte had died but it live again with dual BIOS.  Also I think ASUS can backup BIOS by press button on back panel right?


----------



## wolfeking

can't say about their Asus boards, but this POS ASrock has the BIOS reset on the back of the board where the USB ports are.


----------



## Jamebonds1

wolfeking said:


> can't say about their Asus boards, but this POS ASrock has the BIOS reset on the back of the board where the USB ports are.



Yeah. That's one.  Once plug in BIOS USB drive, press button for flashing BIOS.  Gigabyte overclock have cool stuff.  Like with two different setting, one for normal and other one for overclock.


----------



## spirit

New leaderboard going up tonight once I'm back from school.


----------



## Virssagòn

Vistakid, I beat you and won slowest cpu!!!

4threaded






8threaded





who can beat me?


----------



## spirit

Don't think I've got anything which is slower than that. The slowest CPU I have is the 3700+, and that should be faster than a mobile PIII.


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> Vistakid, I beat you and won slowest cpu!!!
> 
> 4threaded
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8threaded
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who can beat me?



Nah.  Mine is 2450 second on heavy benchmark


----------



## spirit

Jamebonds1 said:


> Nah.  Mine is 2450 second on heavy benchmark



...your processor is??

Also remember Smile I ran the x64 app on XPx64. I will run the 32-bit one soon and see what the 3700+ brings up.


----------



## Jamebonds1

vistakid10 said:


> ...your processor is??
> 
> Also remember Smile I ran the x64 app on XPx64. I will run the 32-bit one soon and see what the 3700+ brings up.



Intel Pentium 4 (Intel Pentium Fore! ) 1.8 GHz


----------



## wolfeking

I seriously doubt that. unless it was one of the 180nm Willamette @ 1.3GHz on Socket 423. Even then, it should beat the P3m just based on clock speed.


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> Intel Pentium 4 (Intel Pentium Fore! ) 1.8 GHz



I'll do benchmark again with 10 programs open


----------



## spirit

Jamebonds1 said:


> Intel Pentium 4 (Intel Pentium Fore! ) 1.8 GHz



PIII Mobile was a slower chip.


----------



## Jamebonds1

vistakid10 said:


> PIII Mobile was a slower chip.



Also Intel Celeron single core Socket 478 is slowest CPU i think?


----------



## Jamebonds1

wolfeking said:


> I seriously doubt that. unless it was one of the 180nm Willamette @ 1.3GHz on Socket 423. Even then, it should beat the P3m just based on clock speed.



No, it is Socket 478 but you're right for one thing.  Socket 423 CPU is slowest.  When i was young, Intel P4 used to be gaming but not anymore.  Plus it cost like 800 dollar when first released.


----------



## wolfeking

Technically the 80386 intel would be the slowest. I think that is beyond even the existence of AMD.


----------



## Jamebonds1

wolfeking said:


> Technically the 80386 intel would be the slowest. I think that is beyond even the existence of AMD.



I feel old haha


----------



## wolfeking

why do you feel old? these were last produced in 2007.


----------



## Jamebonds1

wolfeking said:


> why do you feel old? these were last produced in 2007.



I thought 80386 is oldest CPU?


----------



## wolfeking

its the oldest x86 (32 bit) processor from intel. I said it stopped production in 07, not that it was introduced in 07.


----------



## spirit

Jamebonds1 said:


> When i was young, Intel P4 used to be gaming but not anymore.  Plus it cost like 800 dollar when first released.



Off topic I know but the legendary Core 2 Quad will always be the gaming chip I 'grew up with' as well as the original i5s/i7s (had an i5 760). The Core 2 Duo E8400 was also a great chip too.


----------



## wolfeking

as off topic as it gets, but anyway. 

The chips I "grew up with"  were a k6-2, various Pentium 2 and 3s and a Pentium 4 @ 2.8 in a HP laptop that father had.  All excellent machines.


----------



## spirit

Ah well I always had P4s in my machines until I got the i5 760, but I grew up wanting a Core 2 Quad.


----------



## wolfeking

Well the k6-2 was a y2k present from mum to dad, and he never used it. Integrated everything, dial up 56k, and 98SE, and the bright shiny Millenium compliance sticker on the side.  30GB of storage that back in the day would hold everything that anyone would ever need. It was a great machine.  I was going to fix it a few months back, but the board was shot and replacements were none to be found for a socket 7. 

The P4 that we had was okay. It was a HP Pravilion lappy with 2.8GHz and I do believe some sort of ATI graphics, maybe a x1400 or so. It would run anything we threw at it. Its still here, but it will not boot due to power issues.


----------



## Jamebonds1

wolfeking said:


> Well the k6-2 was a y2k present from mum to dad, and he never used it. Integrated everything, dial up 56k, and 98SE, and the bright shiny Millenium compliance sticker on the side.  30GB of storage that back in the day would hold everything that anyone would ever need. It was a great machine.  I was going to fix it a few months back, but the board was shot and replacements were none to be found for a socket 7.
> 
> The P4 that we had was okay. It was a HP Pravilion lappy with 2.8GHz and I do believe some sort of ATI graphics, maybe a x1400 or so. It would run anything we threw at it. Its still here, but it will not boot due to power issues.



Long ago, I love Windows 98 SE but Windows ME is suck.


----------



## wolfeking

I never had an issue with either one of them. All operating systems are just fine if you take your time to work with them. 

And yes, that was long ago. 12 ish years more or less.


----------



## Jamebonds1

wolfeking said:


> I never had an issue with either one of them. All operating systems are just fine if you take your time to work with them.
> 
> And yes, that was long ago. 12 ish years more or less.



Plus some windows version were cancel.


----------



## Laquer Head

wolfeking said:


> I never had an issue with either one of them. *All operating systems are just fine if you take your time to work with them.*.



No, Vista was all kinds of fail... no matter how much you wished it was great...it wasn't


----------



## Jamebonds1

Laquer Head is right.  Some windows version can be worst, like Windows Vista and ME.  

Check it out history.  http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows/history


----------



## wolfeking

BULL.  I personally have never had an issue that a simple update of C++ or directx could not fix.  I use it daily, and it has ran far better than windows 7 has on my machines.


----------



## wolfeking

Jamebonds1 said:


> Laquer Head is right.  Some windows version can be worst, like Windows Vista and ME.
> 
> Check it out history.  http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows/history


1. If you are going to argue that they are bad, please link a source that says some issues with them. 
2. BULLSHIT! Vista is a perfectly functional operating system. If you all have issues with it, then do not use it. But with proper knowledge, it works perfectly fine. Taking a system as bad based on word of mouth is like saying "Guns kill people" or "all americans are retards" or "all french is gay". The opinion is nothing without the daily knowledge of it.


----------



## Jamebonds1

wolfeking said:


> 1. If you are going to argue that they are bad, please link a source that says some issues with them.
> 2. BULLSHIT! Vista is a perfectly functional operating system. If you all have issues with it, then do not use it. But with proper knowledge, it works perfectly fine. Taking a system as bad based on word of mouth is like saying "Guns kill people" or "all americans are retards" or "all french is gay". The opinion is nothing without the daily knowledge of it.



Calm down.  Vista might work well for you but not for me.  I sometime frustrated with Vista long ago.


----------



## wolfeking

What issues did you have with it?  I got it when it first came out, and it has never let me down. I stuck with 2k and XP over it. but it was and is by no means bad.


----------



## spirit

Gonna end this now. Vista is fine, it's not as good as 7 in my opinion, but still perfectly usable. There's nothing wrong with it. Vista never had a good start, thanks to lazy people not coding drivers correctly for Vista, hence why all the crashes. Most things have been fixed now and it is a perfectly usable OS.


----------



## Jamebonds1

wolfeking said:


> What issues did you have with it?  I got it when it first came out, and it has never let me down. I stuck with 2k and XP over it. but it was and is by no means bad.



Since I'm home repair computer.  I remove virus and fix startup stuff.  Sometime it is pretty slowest and sometime crash.  Also sometime it doing that i don't want it such as startup program.


----------



## Virssagòn

OK MEN!!
Back to topic!
snapshot will be released this evening!


----------



## spirit

Smile's working away on an updated version of the program by the way.


----------



## wolfeking

yay. i intend to continue ownage at 4.5+


----------



## spirit

I want to test this new build thoroughly before we release it into the wild. 

Going to start work on the new leaderboard now.


----------



## wolfeking

when you test the 4 thread, use a load meter on your pops 3770 to be sure that it will run accurately on a HT processor. The current one does not and it throws the scores off.


----------



## MyCattMaxx

K6? Hmmm, I still have one of those.







Later I should drag out one of my working old comps and take the record for longest in the test.


----------



## Virssagòn

K, we're gonna make 1 bench! 4 passes with different threading 
And then an average score so it's easyer for the boards. 
The Xtreme pass is 46-threaded :O


----------



## spirit

*Current Scores!*

_*Times are in seconds. Lower is better! 

*All CPU clockspeeds are stock unless otherwise stated._

*Top 15 Heavy 4-Threaded:*

1. Laquer Head - i7 3770K 5.0 - 16G RipJaws-X 1866 - 89.2945568
2. wolfeking - i7 2600K 4.5 - 8G DDR3 - 93.8184
3. tech savvy - i5 2550K 4.2 - 8G Vengeance - 98.4546284
4. vistakid10 - i5 2500K 4.3 - 16G RipJaws-X 1648 - 98.4861003
5. salvage-this - i7 930 4.0 - 12G Dominator 1600 - 106.1212076
6. KasperL - i7 3930K - 16G DDR3 - 109.4273062
7. SmileMan - i7 2600K - 16G Hyper-X 1600 - 111.4573749
8. wolfeking - i7 2600K - 8G DDR3 - 118.0815084
9. Jamebonds1 - i3 540 4.6 - 4G Patriot 1230 - 119.7926104
10. jimkonow - i7 3770S - 16G RipJaws-X - 120.9002124
11. Linkin - i5 2500K  - 8G RipJaws-X 1600 - 122.7400203
12. Laquer Head - i7 3610QM - 16G Vengeance 1866 - 129.368
13. jonnyp11 - X4 960T 3.8 (Unlocked to X6) - 8G Kingston 1333 - 151.3961111
14. Hyper-Threaded - X4 855 - 4G RipJaws-X 1333 - 154.7522698
15. FuryRosewood - X4 955 - 16G Crucial 1333 - 156.2702156


*Top 15 Light 8-Threaded:*

1. wolfeking - i7 2600K 4.8 - 8G DDR3 - 14.9604
2. Laquer Head - i7 3770K 5.0 - 16G RipJaws-X 1866 - 16.7232294
3. jimkonow - i7 3770S - 16G RipJaws-X - 18.153434
4. salvage-this - i7 930 4.0 - 12G Dominator 1600 - 18.1645896
5. SmileMan - i7 2600K - 16G Hyper-X 1600 - 18.8240766
6. wolfeking - i7 2600K - 8G DDR3 - 20.3892358
7. Laquer Head - i7 3610QM - 16G Vengeance 1866 - 20.5764361
8. Jamebonds1 - i3 540 4.72 - 4G Patriot 1230 - 20.6700364
9. Claptonman - FX-6100 4.3 - 8G RipJaws-X 1600	 - 21.4390775
10. vistakid10 - i5 2500K 4.3 - 16G RipJaws-X 1648 - 27.6008391
11. Hyper-Threaded - X4 855 - 4G RipJaws-X 1333 - 30.1080525
12. tech savvy - i5 2550K 4.2 - 8G Vengeance - 33.9348349
13. FuryRosewood - X4 955 - 16G Crucial 1333 - 34.6200479
14. johnb35 - X4 965 - 8G Vengeance 1600 - 34.8505607
15. vistakid10 - Q8300 - 4G DDR2 667 - 48.701


*Remember if your CPU and/or RAM is overclocked to say so in your post or write it in your signature!*

_If any information here is incorrect, please let me know ASP and I will correct it._

When we get more AMD submissions, I'll break the categories down into Intel and AMD. Right now there are not enough AMD entries really to warrant doing this.


----------



## spirit

wolfeking said:


> when you test the 4 thread, use a load meter on your pops 3770 to be sure that it will run accurately on a HT processor. The current one does not and it throws the scores off.



Will get Smile to test with a load meter on his 2600K and I'll proof test it on Dad's 3770.


----------



## wolfeking

wolfeking said:


> And beating laquerheads 3770k @ 5.0 with a 2600k @ 4.5


Vista, you forgot the top run I did. 15 seconds.


----------



## spirit

Opps, sorry about that. Will add you. That's 8 threaded, correct?


----------



## wolfeking

yea, that was 8 threaded.


----------



## spirit

wolfeking said:


> yea, that was 8 threaded.



All sorted. Also apparently I can't count as I only had 14 submissions in each category, so I've fixed that too so now there's 15 in both.


----------



## wolfeking

cool. Glad its sorted.  Im toying with volts under the supervision of some of the guys at OCN and should be able to get out of the 4.5 soon.


----------



## spirit

Will be interested to see if you can beat your 15 second record!  

The new version should be available soon, but as I said, I want to test it before it gets released so that Smile and I can iron out any errors/problems before we release it. There's only going to be one benchmark now with different passes which 'challenge' the CPU in different ways. The scores from all the passes will be added and then divided by the number of passes to give an average which will be the final score.


----------



## wolfeking

sounds like a plan. Im testing my OCs now. Starting at [email protected] 1.250 and seeing where it goes. Bumping one multi at a time till I run out of volts and then upping them. Seems that works better than my method of set a multi and then find a volt that will run it.


----------



## wolfeking

vista. Broke it.  Gunna hit 5 and try it. but that will be a suicide run    Cant wait for water to max this chip period.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> vista. Broke it.  Gunna hit 5 and try it. but that will be a suicide run    Cant wait for water to max this chip period.



nice, maybe vista has something to do with your nice results. try stock speed and bench again.


----------



## wolfeking

Ill run stock right now with all settings stock.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> Ill run stock right now with all settings stock except turbo and c1e.



k


----------



## wolfeking

I just let it boot after resetting the BIOS from a failed attempt at 50*100.  SO everything is bone stock in this run.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> I just let it boot after resetting the BIOS from a failed attempt at 50*100.  SO everything is bone stock in this run.



wow, did you have turboboost on??
My stock is 2 seconds faster...
Maybe a difference with vista?
Then I should be able to ditch the 13 seconds or something with same speeds.


----------



## wolfeking

let me say it again since you obviously missed it. That is just a reset BIOS. That means everything is stock. As in everything is on and in automatic.


----------



## spirit

Edited the leaderboard with your new record breaker.


----------



## wolfeking

you could have gotten 2 records in one day, but 5GHz run would not POST.   Tried everything up to 1.5V. Still would not work. so I rekon I tapped out there.


----------



## Jamebonds1

wolfeking said:


> vista. Broke it.  Gunna hit 5 and try it. but that will be a suicide run    Cant wait for water to max this chip period.



Nice overclock   I'm on limited 

But oh well...I can just do summer work for earning big buck then gettting LGA 2011 with 6 core


----------



## spirit

4.8 is very impressive really. I'd leave it at that if it's stable.


----------



## wolfeking

It was not a keep it run. Load temps at that volt is mid-upper 80s.  Put it on water and it is very doable.


----------



## spirit

You gonna put it back to 4.5 then or whatever it was at before?


----------



## wolfeking

already is. 4.3 @ 1.290 volts. Its the cool one that will run under 70 except core 3.  I can try for 4.5, but I am waiting for a water cooler to try and push that.


----------



## Virssagòn

I'm really thinking you guys all have expensive crappy boards...
Because I can hit the 5ghz in a piece of cake. (eum, not sure, ran prime for 15-20 minutes but decided to clock back because of stock cooler )

edit: vista, come back skype. Wanna release the bitch


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> I'm really thinking you guys all have expensive crappy boards...
> Because I can hit the 5ghz in a piece of cake. (eum, not sure, ran prime for 15-20 minutes but decided to clock back because of stock cooler )
> 
> edit: vista, come back skype. Wanna release the bitch



Well... not really but my motherboard is like 130 dollar.


----------



## wolfeking

Its not even a expensive crappy board. Its a $120 crappy board. its horrid, and there is no shortage of instances of me saying so on here either. When I go to Gigabyte I will guarantee 5+GHz on air and 5.3 on water.


----------



## Jamebonds1

wolfeking said:


> Its not even a expensive crappy board. Its a $120 crappy board. its horrid, and there is no shortage of instances of me saying so on here either. When I go to Gigabyte I will guarantee 5+GHz on air and 5.3 on water.



I'm trying to understand.  Do you mean your $120 motherboard?


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> Its not even a expensive crappy board. Its a $120 crappy board. its horrid, and there is no shortage of instances of me saying so on here either. When I go to Gigabyte I will guarantee 5+GHz on air and 5.3 on water.



haha, yeah. I want a gigabit board too :'(. Gonna buy an h60 or 80 and OC to 4.9ghz I think.


----------



## wolfeking

yes. My Extreme 4 that will boot sometimes, and sometimes not. That will hold a volt either .2 below or above but never on what you set it to. And that is too complicated to really use.


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> haha, yeah. I want a gigabit board too :'(. Gonna buy an h60 or 80 and OC to 4.9ghz I think.



How come you want Gigabyte now?


----------



## wolfeking

Don't know bout him, but myself for reason of they are easier to use and are better quality.


----------



## Jamebonds1

wolfeking said:


> Don't know bout him, but myself for reason of they are easier to use and are better quality.



I'm pretty sure that John like Gigabyte a lot for reason.


----------



## FuryRosewood

Im liking my asus x79 Deluxe...probably the best board ive owned so far...just had to set two changes and its been ideal.


----------



## StrangleHold

wolfeking said:


> Technically the 80386 intel would be the slowest. I think that is beyond even the existence of AMD.


 
AMD was started in 1969 The AMD equivalent was the Am386.



wolfeking said:


> 1. If you are going to argue that they are bad, please link a source that says some issues with them.


 
Are you joking? You want Links/Source about issues with ME and Vista? You would have to be born in a remote cave in Siberia, only let out at night with a blindfold and ear plugs to not know about issues with ME and Vista.




wolfeking said:


> 2. BULLSHIT! Vista is a perfectly functional operating system. If you all have issues with it, then do not use it. But with proper knowledge, it works perfectly fine. Taking a system as bad based on word of mouth is like saying "Guns kill people" or "all americans are retards" or "all french is gay". The opinion is nothing without the daily knowledge of it.


 
Me was garbage. It was a over bloated remnants of 98, well really 95, was a driver crashing nightmare . Should have never been released. Was a desperate move as a stop gap because XP wasnt ready yet. Was the brilliant rushed idea of stupidity with no reason at all, even company executives thought it would be a better idea to release 2000 for the desktop. 98SE was the last good Windows FAT32 OS.

Vista at the start was suppost to be a Service Pack for XP. Since the good old boys at microshaft could not get together what was suppost to be the next OS (new file system beyond NTFS). Same as above (brilliant rushed idea of stupidity with no reason at all, even company executives thought it would be a better idea) to go with the Service Pack. Instead they make a whole OS out of the Service Pack, hence you have Vista. Rushed out the door because of delays, it was a memory/driver nightmare. Just like above! They finally fix it and change the name to 7, then make you pay for it, we fall for it.

ME was the lacking of the two. But sure you can work on both OS and make them a useable OS, Vista more so then ME. 

Say you buy a (new) car. On the way home, the trunk pops open and wont stay shut. The windows stop rolling down. Then the air bag hits you in the face when the front left tire falls off. 
What are you going to do? 
1. Take it back and say its junk. 
2. Take it on home and fix it yourself and call it a good car.

Sure you can fix it on your own, but to make that decision instead of returning it does not make that a good car!


----------



## Okedokey

Something is wrong with this bench.  Mine takes 43 secs, new install the whole thing.

It hangs for about 30 secs then spits out 43secs.  Any clues?


----------



## Okedokey

Didn't AMD just licence Intel's 386?


----------



## Okedokey

And the heavy 4 core takes 157 secs.  This is at 5GHz.  something is wrong here.


----------



## Virssagòn

bigfellla said:


> And the heavy 4 core takes 157 secs.  This is at 5GHz.  something is wrong here.



turn HT off and it will work. We're working on that problem.


----------



## Virssagòn

bigfellla said:


> Something is wrong with this bench.  Mine takes 43 secs, new install the whole thing.
> 
> It hangs for about 30 secs then spits out 43secs.  Any clues?



you are using the 32bit?


----------



## StrangleHold

bigfellla said:


> Didn't AMD just licence Intel's 386?


 
Yeah, but they were Intel clones under IBMs two sources. That ended in court, with Intel losing and granting AMD the X86 code licence to build there own design. The first clean room based off the X86 licence was the K5. The same as Intel has a licence from AMD for AMD64, Intel calls it IA-32e or EM64T or Intel 64. As processors are now, AMD uses Intels X86 and Intel uses AMD64. Neither will really come to blows. If either ever breach there contract AMD could not make X86 and Intel could not make X86-64. Well it varys by who breached what.


----------



## spirit

bigfellla said:


> Something is wrong with this bench.  Mine takes 43 secs, new install the whole thing.
> 
> It hangs for about 30 secs then spits out 43secs.  Any clues?



Sounds to me like you may be using the 32-bit app. You can download the 64-bit one here http://www.mediafire.com/?bsd7xnm5z3b6q46 but we're releasing a new benchmark very soon anyway.


----------



## Virssagòn

**Release* Snapshot 2.2!!!*

K guys, here is a snapshot release from the next version 2.2!
Not all the problems are fixed, but thats why we release only a snapshot.

The benchmark will now have 1 Test in case of 2, the passes are built in different ways and different quantities of threads.

Cpu Breaker: 16threaded with 1 very heavy calculation
8-threaded: 8threaded with much easy calculations
4-threaded: 4threaded with 4 big calculations
Xtreme Pass: 32threaded with 1 heavy and 3 other easy calculations (PC crashed when I did 46threaded,  so I don't know that it works on dual core cpu's or 1core )

The times are measured in seconds.
Your points are Visible in the right corner under in the app. (higher the better)
Under the 4 passes an average from the 4 is shown.

The benchmark last longer and is a bit more stable. The 4threaded is not yet fully fixed, but that doesn't matter much in the points.

You can download the app here:
http://www.2shared.com/file/L07kppJZ/Smiles_App.html

Preview (me):







The scores will be an appart subject in the scoreboard.



SmileMan & Vistakid10


----------



## Virssagòn

Oeps, forgot to change the version 2.1 to snapshot 2.2 xD


----------



## Virssagòn

Current stats 

Top 25

1.SmileMan (i7-2600k, 16gb 1600 kingston hyperX, 68156.24P)


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> K guys, here is a snapshot release from the next version 2.2!
> Not all the problems are fixed, but thats why we release only a snapshot.
> 
> The benchmark will now have 1 Test in case of 2, the passes are built in different ways and different quantities of threads.
> 
> Cpu Breaker: 16threaded with 1 very heavy calculation
> 8-threaded: 8threaded with much easy calculations
> 4-threaded: 4threaded with 4 big calculations
> Xtreme Pass: 32threaded with 1 heavy and 3 other easy calculations (PC crashed when I did 46threaded,  so I don't know that it works on dual core cpu's or 1core )
> 
> The times are measured in seconds.
> Your points are Visible in the right corner under in the app. (higher the better)
> Under the 4 passes an average from the 4 is shown.
> 
> The benchmark last longer and is a bit more stable. The 4threaded is not yet fully fixed, but that doesn't matter much in the points.
> 
> You can download the app here:
> http://www.2shared.com/file/L07kppJZ/Smiles_App.html
> 
> Preview (me):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scores will be an appart subject in the scoreboard.
> 
> 
> 
> SmileMan & Vistakid10



You might want to change on OP at first pages?


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> You might want to change on OP at first pages?



k, but this is a snapshot version


----------



## wolfeking

how bout this. Fix the core jumping and it will be better. Snapshots are not needed. Really all it is showing is you don't know what your doing but your working on it. Just release final versions. 

that said 




your owned.


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> k, but this is a snapshot version



Do you have windows 7 pro right?


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> how bout this. Fix the core jumping and it will be better. Snapshots are not needed. Really all it is showing is you don't know what your doing but your working on it. Just release final versions.
> 
> that said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your owned.



you mad??
I owned you in stock lol...

Interesting, OC is doing bad at multithreaded over his threads.
But I'll check the code for more fair scores  (snapshot, don't worry)


----------



## wolfeking

prove your at stock. Im proving every speed I am. Your saying your stock, and it is bullshit. Your not going to score so well at stock. Its not possible. Having the same chip means within a margin of about 2% its going to score the same. Pics or it did not happen.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> prove your at stock. Im proving every speed I am. Your saying your stock, and it is bullshit. Your not going to score so well at stock. Its not possible. Having the same chip means within a margin of about 2% its going to score the same. Pics or it did not happen.



sry, but I am at stock really, I can't prove it anymore because the score is released. I don't go higher with my stock cooler


----------



## wolfeking

rerun it with CPUz in the window. It is not that freaking hard man. takes less than 5 minutes.


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> sry, but I am at stock really, I can't prove it anymore because the score is released. I don't go higher with my stock cooler





wolfeking said:


> rerun it with CPUz in the window. It is not that freaking hard man. takes less than 5 minutes.



I was think let someone else to do benchmark on AMD, maybe?  Just to make sure it is not app problem.


----------



## Virssagòn

here is a proven one, this is OC...
I really don't know whats wrong with your pc that can bother your results


the previous one was not overclocked, really.
Here the overclocked version.


----------



## wolfeking

dude, app issues will not cause the same processor to run different scores that far apart. Do you understand how these things work?  He is processing at the rate of a 2600 @ 3.8-4.0. That will not change on the same program. And AMD will not show a thing about it.


----------



## wolfeking

w/e smile.  This thread is junk now.  Good luck, but your bench is useless. And bigfella has already shown it.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> w/e smile.  This thread is junk now.  Good luck, but your bench is useless. And bigfella has already shown it.



thanks for you kind hart...
You really don't know how much time this takes, it seems to be no problem with the app...
I'll wait for other 2600k's... (with w7)


----------



## wolfeking

he is a 2600k. or do you no pay attention. 
And there is issues with the app, but you don't listen.  Again, good luck. useless app. if a 2600k @ 5 cant beat one at 4.5 and 4.7, the app is junk. goodbye.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> he is a 2600k. or do you no pay attention.
> And there is issues with the app, but you don't listen.  Again, good luck. useless app. if a 2600k @ 5 cant beat one at 4.5 and 4.7, the app is junk. goodbye.



bye, I don't listen to you anymore man...
I said OTHER 2600k's. I don't know sure, I think it's a vista issue. And I'm really sure it's not the app this time. 

If you had beaten me you wouldn't fire on me.
You had a bad day or something?!


----------



## wolfeking

oh, how brillant that is. Must be windows fault. Why might it not be an american and austrailian issue while your at it?

My day is fine. My issue is 1. You say your at stock at to prove it you show at 4.2. 2. He ran a 2600k in windows 7 at 5ghz and scored way worse. That is not a windows issue, that is an app issue. but wtfe.


----------



## Jamebonds1

calm down please, before mods give you a warning point.  There is really no need flame wars.  Just play fair game and getting along with other member.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> oh, how brillant that is. Must be windows fault. Why might it not be an american and austrailian issue while your at it?
> 
> My day is fine. My issue is 1. You say your at stock at to prove it you show at 4.2. 2. He ran a 2600k in windows 7 at 5ghz and scored way worse. That is not a windows issue, that is an app issue. but wtfe.



k second
I'l run again in stock.
I saw your 8threaded and 4threaded were good, but the rest was bad...
So maybe there is an issue in the new passes, I'll look in it.
Sry man, but I do my best k?


----------



## Jamebonds1

I will just test your app on my computer with i3.


----------



## wolfeking

Jamebonds1 said:


> calm down please, before mods give you a warning point.  There is really no need flame wars.  Just play fair game and getting along with other member.


I am calm. Im also sober which is part of the issue. 



SmileMan said:


> k second
> I'l run again in stock.
> I saw your 8threaded and 4threaded were good, but the rest was bad...
> So maybe there is an issue in the new passes, I'll look in it.
> Sry man, but I do my best k?


Now your starting to listen. Thank you.  I do believe that  the issue is in the extreme and 4 thread passes. If you look at the times on the passes I posted, the rest was almost the same as they were before. that tells me they are running fine. but it is still jumping threads on the 4 thread. So on that one might as well have a 2500k.     The other one appears to be running okay, but it being the only new one yes? would be the issue.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> I am calm. Im also sober which is part of the issue.
> 
> 
> Now your starting to listen. Thank you.  I do believe that  the issue is in the extreme and 4 thread passes. If you look at the times on the passes I posted, the rest was almost the same as they were before. that tells me they are running fine. but it is still jumping threads on the 4 thread. So on that one might as well have a 2500k.     The other one appears to be running okay, but it being the only new one yes? would be the issue.



K found the issue, I ran again in non overclock and had the same results as you had.
I ran it again after that and had much better scores, ran it for a 3th time and it didn't changed anymore.

So what we gonna do is to make a warming up button. After you did the warming up the benchmark button will appear.

Good or not?
Don't know how to fix that issue...


----------



## wolfeking

so it runs better after the first run?  If so, that would be fine.  At least we found the issue and are correcting it.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> so it runs better after the first run?  If so, that would be fine.  At least we found the issue and are correcting it.



yeah, try running it 2 times and place your scores


----------



## wolfeking




----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


>



got that code too if I don't press benchmark again immediatly.
Maybe I should make in the code running it twice.


----------



## wolfeking

make it run twice if you can. Make it easier for everyone.


----------



## spirit

I know I used the 'problematic' version of this new version, but I'd just like to share this with you guys anyway.






Exactly the same hardware, just different operating systems. Just proves that there isn't a difference between the two operating systems, so if anybody says "your times were slower than mine because you had Vista and I had 7" (for example), that's BS.


----------



## wolfeking

vista, how did you get such a good time on a stock Q8300?  I feel good seeing that that the 4 thread is hurting the 2600K hard.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> vista, how did you get such a good time on a stock Q8300?  I feel good seeing that that the 4 thread is hurting the 2600K hard.



yeah, saw that 2 xD
hehe, he was lucky with his first run.
I think switching from the quantity threads will be a problem too...


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> yeah, saw that 2 xD
> hehe, he was lucky with his first run.
> I think switching from the quantity threads will be a problem too...



Curious.  How do this app doing math for average?  Like (CPU breaker+8 thread+4 thread+xtreme pass)/(4)?


----------



## spirit

wolfeking said:


> vista, how did you get such a good time on a stock Q8300?


Goodness knows...



Jamebonds1 said:


> Curious.  How do this app doing math for average?  Like (CPU breaker+8 thread+4 thread+xtreme pass)/(4)?


Yep. All four scores added together and divided by 4.


----------



## Jamebonds1

vistakid10 said:


> Goodness knows...
> 
> 
> Yep. All four scores added together and divided by 4.



I think there is something wrong with app.  Like i check it out with my Ti-84.  

(20.7636+13.1664+91.5564+39.78)/(4)=41.3166.  But it say 55.0888.  I do math from your picture on vista version.


----------



## MyCattMaxx

Jamebonds1 said:


> I think there is something wrong with app.  Like i check it out with my Ti-84.
> 
> (20.7636+13.1664+91.5564+39.78)/(4)=41.3166.  But it say 55.0888.  I do math from your picture on vista version.


A test I ran results said 87.3 but when I use the calculator I get 65.4


----------



## spirit

Yes but the score is different. The score is 10,000 minus your average score.


----------



## Virssagòn

vistakid10 said:


> Yes but the score is different. The score is 10,000 minus your average score.



nope
the average is divided by 3

and score is also not that way


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> nope
> the average is divided by 3
> 
> and score is also not that way



Hmm... I wonder why not divided by 4 instead of 3?


----------



## MyCattMaxx

Jamebonds1 said:


> Hmm... I wonder why not divided by 4 instead of 3?


Does it really matter if it treats everyone the same?


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> nope
> the average is divided by 3
> 
> and score is also not that way



There's a problem that we need to sort out - average score needs to be worked out by dividing the total score by 4 not 3; otherwise it's not an average. I know you're going away again so I'll take a look at it and try to correct it.


----------



## MyCattMaxx

Or you could just use the total of all 4 put together which would be more accurate.


----------



## spirit

Well wouldn't you want an average score of all the benches to give you a general idea of how well your CPU performed?


----------



## Virssagòn

vistakid10 said:


> There's a problem that we need to sort out - average score needs to be worked out by dividing the total score by 4 not 3; otherwise it's not an average. I know you're going away again so I'll take a look at it and try to correct it.



Don't change anything in that calculations. I made the calculation of the points the most fair. It's not only based on the average. I only want you to make it run twice when I'm away...


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> Don't change anything in that calculations. I made the calculation of the points the most fair. It's not only based on the average. I only want you to make it run twice when I'm away...



OK. That's pretty easy to do I have an idea of how that can be done.


----------



## Virssagòn

When I got the automatic site up and running, I maybe gonna split them back. But to make it easy for us, we make 1 benchmark now.


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> When I got the automatic site up and running, I maybe gonna split them back. But to make it easy for us, we make 1 benchmark now.



You should making stress test like Hard drive and Flash USB, burning disc and reading disc, GPU, or stuff that make it more stress and rising heat from CPU.


----------



## spirit

Jamebonds1 said:


> You should making stress test like Hard drive and Flash USB, burning disc and reading disc, GPU, or stuff that make it more stress and rising heat from CPU.



Sadly with Visual Basic we are a bit limited with what we can do. Coding a CPU benchmarking application in VB.NET is pretty tough as it is and we've had a few issues.


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> You should making stress test like Hard drive and Flash USB, burning disc and reading disc, GPU, or stuff that make it more stress and rising heat from CPU.



yeh, I was planning to make a stability or stress test. But hadn't enough time.
I'll make it when I'm back!


----------



## wolfeking

no offense smile, but I would stick with one project at a time. What you have is good, but not quite perfect. I would make it perfect before moving on.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> no offense smile, but I would stick with one project at a time. What you have is good, but not quite perfect. I would make it perfect before moving on.



my program is 1 thing, I want to make it somebit bigger.
But vista gonna make it run 2 times and we'll see then.


----------



## wolfeking

you through me when you said you wanted to make a stability and stress test. It sounded as though you wanted to make a new program to run them.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> you through me when you said you wanted to make a stability and stress test. It sounded as though you wanted to make a new program to run them.



No, why should I make a new program?


----------



## wolfeking

I don't know. But it looked like that was the intent.


----------



## FuryRosewood

Dunno, seems a bit off, i kinda am disregarding the number in the corner, every time i ran it it did not change...and comparing to Wolfe....my i7 is bone stock.


----------



## G80FTW

Maybe this question has already been answered somewhere in this thread....but too many pages for me to go through:

What exactly does this program do? Does it just do like floating point calculations?

Heres my score I guess, feel like I did something wrong somehow:

G80FTW i7 970 3.20GHz (3.34GHz turbo, stock clocks)


----------



## MyCattMaxx

Got my HP w/FX-4100 going again.
This bottom of the line MB won't hold voltage well and the cores won't stay locked on the multiplier, I watched the speed dropping to 3.2Ghz while the test was running.
I ran the test a few times in a row and this is the best run.

FX-4100 @3.6 (stock) 8gig 1333Mhz ram.


----------



## spirit

This version is not finished yet remembered, I'm not sure why SmileMan even released it into the wild at all. There's still some work that needs doing on it.


----------



## Jamebonds1

I was going post of my benchmark but my computer is died.  Killed by water drip from top floor   (I'm in rent bottom floor house BTW)  Anyway i got 59000 point benchmark.


----------



## spirit

Bad news about your PC, James. I thought your insane overclocking would have killed it first!


----------



## Jamebonds1

vistakid10 said:


> Bad news about your PC, James. I thought your insane overclocking would have killed it first!



Lol. I had take well care of it until there is water drip


----------



## spirit

So hang on water dripped from your ceiling and into your PC (through a vent I guess?) and now it won't work at all, correct?


----------



## Jamebonds1

vistakid10 said:


> So hang on water dripped from your ceiling and into your PC (through a vent I guess?) and now it won't work at all, correct?



Yeah.  It is come from top floor.  I think someone had spill some water or something.  Anyway I and my roommate will talk with owner.  I'm look for best Gigabyte motherboard LGA 1155.  Maybe i7 LGA 2011


----------



## spirit

Nah don't go for LGA 2011 - pointless as LGA 1155 is all you need. An i7 3770K is faster at stock than an i7 3820 remember, and the 3770K can overclock.


----------



## Jamebonds1

vistakid10 said:


> Nah don't go for LGA 2011 - pointless as LGA 1155 is all you need. An i7 3770K is faster at stock than an i7 3820 remember, and the 3770K can overclock.



Yeah.  I sometime can be struggle to looking for motherboard LGA 1155.  Beside if it is just 300 dollar CPU LGA 2011, not really worth unless it is six core that cost 600 dollar.

Also I think i will getting old i5 LGA 1155.


----------



## spirit

It's easy finding 1155 boards, especially in the US where you live.


----------



## Jamebonds1

vistakid10 said:


> It's easy finding 1155 boards, especially in the US where you live.



Not really. Lol.  I'm in small town where no computer part near us.


----------



## Jamebonds1

So, which one is better Z68 or Z77?


----------



## spirit

This is off topic, but...



Jamebonds1 said:


> Not really. Lol.  I'm in small town where no computer part near us.


Newegg. 



Jamebonds1 said:


> So, which one is better Z68 or Z77?


Z77 runs cooler and has native USB 3.0 support and of course it's newer - Z68 is still very viable though. I have a Z68 board myself and it's great. I'd go for Z77 if I were buying new though.


----------



## Jamebonds1

vistakid10 said:


> This is off topic, but...
> 
> 
> Newegg.
> 
> 
> Z77 runs cooler and has native USB 3.0 support and of course it's newer - Z68 is still very viable though. I have a Z68 board myself and it's great. I'd go for Z77 if I were buying new though.



Ah okay.  Thank for some information.  I'm way off topic, oops.


----------



## Ramodkk

Here are mine:

Light Benchmark
ramodkk (i3570K @ 4.0GHz, 8GB G.Skill RipJaws PC3-12800, 17.9s)






Heavy Benchmark
ramodkk (i3570K @ 4.7GHz, 8GB G.Skill RipJaws PC3-12800, 84.8s)


----------



## Jamebonds1

ramodkk said:


> Here are mine:
> 
> Light Benchmark @ stock 3.4GHz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heavy Benchmark @ 4.7GHz



Nice overclock   You should try it out with SmileMan's new app


----------



## Ramodkk

Thanks! And mannnn I didn't see the new version. I'll do it later, too lazy to overclock again


----------



## Jamebonds1

ramodkk said:


> Thanks! And mannnn I didn't see the new version. I'll do it later, too lazy to overclock again



It is easy to overclock for me


----------



## MyCattMaxx

vistakid10 said:


> This version is not finished yet remembered, I'm not sure why SmileMan even released it into the wild at all. There's still some work that needs doing on it.


My bad.
I'll grab the right one and run it in about 4 hours after my SMP client finishes folding out this unit.


----------



## spirit

ramodkk said:


> Thanks! And mannnn I didn't see the new version. I'll do it later, too lazy to overclock again


You can try the new version and let us know what your score is if you like but remember the new version is a beta and still has issues which I am going to get round to fixing soon.  Looking at fixing the issues on Monday and re-releasing soon after then.


----------



## Ramodkk

Okay nevermind then, I'll wait till it's released, if then.


----------



## Okedokey

vistakid10 said:


> Sounds to me like you may be using the 32-bit app. You can download the 64-bit one here http://www.mediafire.com/?bsd7xnm5z3b6q46 but we're releasing a new benchmark very soon anyway.



I was using 64bit.  Has this been resolved or do i need to take off ht?


----------



## spirit

bigfellla said:


> I was using 64bit.  Has this been resolved or do i need to take off ht?



You need to disable HT I think but I'm resolving the issue as we speak. Give me a few more days and it will be here. I've been in London all day today.


----------



## Virssagòn

K guys, I'm back in town! Tomorow I gonna start with it.
Sry for the problems. The clock is going down in the app when the threads end and start again, that's what I gonna solve.

Smile!


----------



## FuryRosewood

Toughbook ran today, not sure if it takes the top, but it did make a good effort at being slow 
Soft:




Heavy:







wolfeking said:


> I seriously doubt that. unless it was one of the 180nm Willamette @ 1.3GHz on Socket 423. Even then, it should beat the P3m just based on clock speed.



And from way back, a Pen III will easily outrun a first gen Pentium 4, Pentium 4 was a crap architecture, and if you do want to do a truely slow run, you will find one of those chips, which seems to be what happened. So yea, pentium iii mobile is indeed faster than a Pentium 4, based on this benchmark...so you aren't totally broken.


----------



## G80FTW

FuryRosewood said:


> Toughbook ran today, not sure if it takes the top, but it did make a good effort at being slow
> Soft:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heavy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And from way back, a Pen III will easily outrun a first gen Pentium 4, Pentium 4 was a crap architecture, and if you do want to do a truely slow run, you will find one of those chips, which seems to be what happened. So yea, pentium iii mobile is indeed faster than a Pentium 4, based on this benchmark...so you aren't totally broken.



But the P4 Northwood and onward with HT are alot faster than any P3....


----------



## FuryRosewood

clock per clock i still feel their a inferior chip vs the pentium iii they only feel faster because their running at 3ghz+ and the pentium iii maxes out at 1.4ghz.


----------



## G80FTW

FuryRosewood said:


> clock per clock i still feel their a inferior chip vs the pentium iii they only feel faster because their running at 3ghz+ and the pentium iii maxes out at 1.4ghz.



Exactly. If you could get a P3 up to 3.2ghz to compare to a P4 post the results


----------



## Virssagòn

I just catched a P2 from my grandma .
It is x64 bit lol. And the pc is 10x smaller then my pc xD.


----------



## FuryRosewood

...what? p2 64 bit? what is this nonsense?


----------



## wolfeking

I think he is using p2 for phenom II. That is the only way he could get 64 bit on a "p2"


----------



## FuryRosewood

also id like to see someone post a HT 3.06 ghz pentium 4, im willing to bet you will be surprised the results arent as earth shattering as you would think. Take the 3700 plus and add 25 percent to that time...that is what id expect to see out of a 3ghz pentium 4. they really are quite slow.


----------



## Virssagòn

hehe, saw on the box and the pc is another then the box saids .
It is 32 bit xD.
I got an HP and on the box its an acer...


----------



## spirit

FuryRosewood said:


> also id like to see someone post a HT 3.06 ghz pentium 4, im willing to bet you will be surprised the results arent as earth shattering as you would think. Take the 3700 plus and add 25 percent to that time...that is what id expect to see out of a 3ghz pentium 4. they really are quite slow.



I have a P4 HT 3.06GHz I can try the 32-bit app on if you like?


----------



## Shane

Here is mine,Cpu is at 4.2. 

Light-






Heavy-


----------



## FuryRosewood

Give it a shot i suppose Smile. It is slow, i have to deal with them at work...their dogs of a cpu...


----------



## spirit

FuryRosewood said:


> Give it a shot i suppose Smile. It is slow, i have to deal with them at work...their dogs of a cpu...



Tell me about it, used to have to use them everyday.  I'll try it on my Mum's P4 HT as soon as I can.


----------



## Pyotr

The light 8-threaded went well, the heavy 4-threaded not so much.  I'm not entirely unhappy anyway, will eventually overclock both CPU and RAM (or rather put it at 1866MHz where it's supposed to be) and see where I end up.
Edit: Maybe attaching image wasn't the cleverest idea. x_x Let me know if I should upload it somewhere instead or if you can actually see what it says.


----------



## spirit

Can't really see the result, can you try hosting elsewhere?

Not sure if we still have issues with AMD processors or not.


----------



## Pyotr

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/8047/8threadbenchmark2012080.png
I would do an img tag, but I just noticed I hadn't cropped the image so it has a huge white border.


----------



## Virssagòn

Pyotr said:


> http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/8047/8threadbenchmark2012080.png
> I would do an img tag, but I just noticed I hadn't cropped the image so it has a huge white border.



hey, try the new test. I want to see what the 8core does with more then its threads.

Vistakid, plz come on skype. I'm already waiting 2 days


----------



## spirit

I would Smile but I'm trying to re-build my system, gimme a couple of hours. Sorry, I've been really busy lately.


----------



## Pyotr

SmileMan said:


> hey, try the new test. I want to see what the 8core does with more then its threads.


You mean the heavy 4-threaded benchmark? Not great when stock I'm afraid. Having 8 cores is great, but what's not so great is their stock speed at 3.1GHz. Just ran it and got a similar result as the two times yesterday, 210-215 seconds. Which is why I couldn't be bothered with a screenshot.  I know I should overclock, but as I stated in some other thread we have warm weather and my computer room is badly ventilated. When it was at its worst I had core temps at 58 degrees when running Orcs Must Die..


SmileMan said:


> Vistakid, plz come on skype. I'm already waiting 2 days


You should like, go eat, drink and sleep some time.


----------



## spirit

There is a small problem with AMD processors and this bench, ie - it favours Intel processors. Smile and I still aren't sure why, he's trying to fix it.


----------



## Pyotr

Maybe because Intel are better..?


----------



## StrangleHold

Which test are we suppost to be running? The date on the one from the first post is dated July 2nd.


----------



## Virssagòn

StrangleHold said:


> Which test are we suppost to be running? The date on the one from the first post is dated July 2nd.



the snapshot release of the new version


----------



## Pyotr

Oh, you mean we have to read the entire first post.. 
Also, download link seems broked.


----------



## spirit

Download the latest one here http://www.2shared.com/file/L07kppJZ/Smiles_App.html

The link on the first post is broken because I removed the file as it was the old version.


----------



## Pyotr

Do we still want to run the old one as well, or will the new one replace the old?


----------



## spirit

New replaces the old but I wouldn't trying it now we're getting close to releasing another new and updated version.


----------



## Virssagòn

we are now fixing "all" the bugs we can find in it. But we need testers to find more bugs.
So we'll release it very soon.


----------



## Pyotr

I'll test it in a bit. Doing overclocking right now, will beat all them pesky intels afterwards. x)


----------



## spirit

Pyotr said:


> I'll test it in a bit. Doing overclocking right now, will beat all them pesky intels afterwards. x)



Doubt it - there's some serious issues with AMD chips and SmilesApp right now.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Doubt it - there's some serious issues with AMD chips and SmilesApp right now.



no?
In the previous previous


----------



## Pyotr

spirit said:


> Doubt it - there's some serious issues with AMD chips and SmilesApp right now.


Have faith! Right now I'm stable at 4.2 GHz. Might push it a bit more, might not, but so far I'm happy. We'll see if it gives good results.


----------



## Virssagòn

Pyotr said:


> Have faith! Right now I'm stable at 4.2 GHz. Might push it a bit more, might not, but so far I'm happy. We'll see if it gives good results.



I'm very curious!


----------



## Pyotr

I don't know, is this good, bad or average?

Running CPU at 4.2 GHz, RAM is 1600 MHz despite what it says in my signature.


----------



## spirit

Looks about average I think. There should be a leaderboard with the top scores a few pages back.


----------



## Pyotr

Average is not good enough. Will have to overclock to like 5 GHz when winter comes.  Open window, snow outside, sub-zero temperatures. Should be good enough.


----------



## Ramodkk

How often do you update the leaderboard in the OP?


----------



## spirit

That's not the latest leaderboard in the OP, I posted one a few pages back, I think around July 20th? I usually write out a new leaderboard when we get a lot of new scores.


----------



## Virssagòn

Pyotr said:


> I don't know, is this good, bad or average?
> 
> Running CPU at 4.2 GHz, RAM is 1600 MHz despite what it says in my signature.



try running it twice, the second score is always a way better for some reason...


----------



## Pyotr

The more times I run it the worse it gets.. 
Did get one at 55k points, but didn't screenshot it. And that was the first. The third hit 45k points.


----------



## StrangleHold

Pyotr said:


> The more times I run it the worse it gets..
> Did get one at 55k points, but didn't screenshot it. And that was the first. The third hit 45k points.


 
Sure yours is at 4.2ghz. This is at 4.2ghz. but with only 4gb. of memory. But the memory is running at 2133. Dont really think the memory makes any difference though.


----------



## Virssagòn

All the passes seems to be great, only the 4threaded is a badass with the 8 cores.


----------



## claptonman

For your enjoyment, puppies.


----------



## Virssagòn

claptonman said:


> For your enjoyment, puppies.



Nice scores! only the 4threaded stays bad in the amd section...


----------



## Virssagòn

the new smilesapp is coming!!!
(hg hg, announcement )


----------



## Pyotr

Puppies!!!


----------



## Virssagòn

We gonna start a new thread because we changed the name of it.


----------



## spirit

http://www.computerforum.com/213711-official-black-hole-benchmark-ranking-thread.html

This thread can be un-stickied now.


----------

