# *STABLE* Black Hole Benchmark



## Virssagòn

Hey guys,

The new version of black hole is out!

Quote from the official release:



> BlackHole V4.2 Final
> 
> Download the latest version of the Black Hole CPU benchmark!
> 
> Let the beast run and benchmark your system in three different tests (Multithreaded, Singlethreaded & 4 Threaded) that will test your CPU to the very limit, and score you among hundreds of other systems that have tested.
> 
> • Multithreaded will test your CPU's efficiency of running more than one thread without major system lag. The higher you score on this one, the more threads your CPU can handle with a comfortable speed. High multithreaded scores generally means you can render things faster.
> 
> • 4 Threaded tests your CPU's performance in games, since most games currently run on 4 threads.
> 
> •Singlethreaded evaluates how fast the CPU can handle a single, dedicated thread of processing.
> 
> Since Multithreaded is arguably the most important and most future-proof test, it has a greater impact on the overall score results than the other individual tests.
> 
> The program uses every instruction set enabled for 32bit systems, but sadly the instruction sets that are only active in 64bit systems are disabled in the benchmark. With our beta tests, we saw that Intel's 'Haswell' CPUs used the new AVX2 instruction to achieve abnormally high scores. We will enable 64bit when more programs support the new AVX2 instruction properly, but for now we think 32bit offers the most accurate real-world performance measurements at this point in time, so that's what we focus on.
> 
> You can easily submit your scores from the link inside the program. Why not show the world that your CPU is at the top of the leaderboard?! These will be updated every week or day.
> 
> 
> 
> Fixes and changes compared to the beta:
> 
> • Chances of the 4 Threaded benchmark running only 2 threads greatly reduced.
> 
> • Overall stability improved dramatically.
> 
> • New program design for a more professional look (by Timmie).
> 
> • New score submit options.
> 
> • Different scaling protocols; Multithreaded now scales much higher than before.
> 
> • New methods to evaluate the CPU's performance, especially in the 4-threaded test.
> 
> • The benchmark is now exclusively 32bit (still works on 64bit machines, of course).
> 
> 
> 
> Bugs:
> 
> • Very small chance of the 4 Threaded test to only run 2 threads.
> 
> • No other known bugs currently - Report bugs on our website.
> 
> 
> 
> Other important information:
> 
> • Black Hole Benchmark is designed to run on Windows XP and newer.
> 
> • You must have .NET framework 2.1 or greater installed to run the benchmark.
> 
> • System RAM speed and latency can have minor effects on a PC's final score.
> 
> • The benchmark supports up to 34 threads.











*Download*


*Scores from Computerforum members:*



> Rules before being able to submit your score to the scoretable:
> * at least 100 posts or you must be member for at least a year.
> * submission needs to contain:
> - cpu-z
> - black hole
> - notepad with your name, computerforum and the date
> - Submit to database here: http://blackholetec.com/main/content/computerforum-scores





























I'll try to update this every week, but I'm very busy these days.


www.blackholetec.com
Like us on Facebook! Sharing is even better!


Robbie Pyckhout
Black Hole Project


----------



## turbobooster

going to be the first.


----------



## Shane

I find this benchmark to be a bit iffy,reason been i ran it and got a score of 14572..then realized my ram was only running at 1333Mhz with 9-9-9-24 timings..so i went into bios and adjusted it to what it should be 7-8-7-24 1600Mhz...and got a lower score!


----------



## Virssagòn

Shane said:


> I find this benchmark to be a bit iffy,reason been i ran it and got a score of 14572..then realized my ram was only running at 1333Mhz with 9-9-9-24 timings..so i went into bios and adjusted it to what it should be 7-8-7-24 1600Mhz...and got a lower score!



Your 4 threaded seems to still have the bug of running only 2 threads (this reduces the score very hardly), we thought the bug was fixed because none of the systems that had the problem still had this bug with the new version.

Thanks for the test, normally it should be fixed with another run.

Now I know it is still not fixed, just reduced.


----------



## turbobooster




----------



## Darren

Smile, remind me to run this at some point on Steam.  I'm at school now so can't really do it.


----------



## Virssagòn

Denther said:


> Smile, remind me to run this at some point on Steam.  I'm at school now so can't really do it.



I will for sure


----------



## Virssagòn

jamesd1981 said:


>



Try running it again plz, you're the second who have brought the bug back that I "fixed"...
Could you run it some times (only the 4 threaded) and say me how often it happens?
I have had 2 systems with the bug, an FX8350 and an i7 3770. Both don't have the issue anymore. Weirldy there seem still to be systems with the same problem.

I'll try to make a fix for it.


----------



## jamesd1981




----------



## spynoodle

Not bad for a little Pentium Dual-core, huh?  I have no idea how my single-threaded score seems to match Ivy Bridges and Haswells at similar clock speeds.


----------



## Virssagòn

jamesd1981 said:


>



That's a big difference, and that's a nice score!


----------



## Virssagòn

spynoodle said:


> Not bad for a little Pentium Dual-core, huh?  I have no idea how my single-threaded score seems to match Ivy Bridges and Haswells at similar clock speeds.



You will find out that the architecture is pretty similar to eachother, especially in 32bit singlethreaded applications the performance gain at the same clockspeed is almost nothing.

And indeed, that's a great score for a pentium and a good score for an overclocked pentium 
Exactly what you need when you want a cheap pc for doing basic stuff and web browsing. Gaming performance should not be great, but enough to play less intensive (on cpu) games.

Btw, I saw your submission, this brings you to the top from the intel 2 threads category!


----------



## jamesd1981

SmileMan said:


> That's a big difference, and that's a nice score!



Yes it was just with some minor bios tweaks, I am not sure if it is a bug in the program or just settings in my bios.

Going to test it more tomorrow with different bios settings.


----------



## Virssagòn

jamesd1981 said:


> Yes it was just with some minor bios tweaks, I am not sure if it is a bug in the program or just settings in my bios.
> 
> Going to test it more tomorrow with different bios settings.



Ok, nice. But it happens randomly, normally with this version less than previous.


----------



## spynoodle

SmileMan said:


> You will find out that the architecture is pretty similar to eachother, especially in 32bit singlethreaded applications the performance gain at the same clockspeed is almost nothing.


Yeah, I've always somewhat suspected that, given how well this old chip performs for most flash/html5 apps or other complex websites. It's nice to see some concrete evidence, given how much everyone is always bent on upgrading to the newest architecture nowadays.


SmileMan said:


> Btw, I saw your submission, this brings you to the top from the intel 2 threads category!


Sweet.


----------



## jamesd1981




----------



## StrangleHold

This one did good on a AMD FX. The 4 threaded ran 4 cores and one core on each module.

Got multi 6888/ 4 thread 3300 and single 1940 with a total of 12128 at just 4.2ghz. As usual it gets killed in single.


----------



## Virssagòn

StrangleHold said:


> This one did good on a AMD FX. The 4 threaded ran 4 cores and one core on each module.
> 
> Got multi 6888/ 4 thread 3300 and single 1940 with a total of 12128 at just 4.2ghz. As usual it gets killed in single.



Hmm, your singlethreaded score is very low. An fx8350 scores 2380 at stock, yours shouldn't be much less on 4.2GHz. Try running it again.


----------



## Darren




----------



## StrangleHold

SmileMan said:


> Hmm, your singlethreaded score is very low. An fx8350 scores 2380 at stock, yours shouldn't be much less on 4.2GHz. Try running it again.


 
Now its a no go. Back to just using 2 cores on the 4 threaded test.


----------



## Virssagòn

@ Stranglehold, do you use w8? I found out with my athlon and the database I got that AMD CPUs seem to score less on singlethreaded in w8 (about 300 points difference)
However, 4 threaded and multithreaded seem to score okay.


----------



## StrangleHold

No, running 7 ultimate.


----------



## spirit

Thought I'd give it a run. I like the design but I think it should run straight away once you've pressed the 'Run' button when the application opens and I think the black text on the grey background (at the bottom of the window) should be changed to white. Looking great otherwise.


----------



## spirit

Fired up the Athlon 64 and run this bench on it. 

I believe stock speed is 2.4GHz.


----------



## Jamebonds1

Here is my new CPU overclocked!


----------



## spynoodle

spirit said:


> Fired up the Athlon 64 and run this bench on it.
> 
> I believe stock speed is 2.4GHz.


Gotta love the classics.


----------



## Shane

Here is a re-run you asked for Smile.  :good:






This is at stock,With Turbo on of course.


----------



## Virssagòn

Found a performance difference between windows vista and windows 8:









The athlon is running 50 mhz higher on windows 8 and scores better on multithreaded and 4 threaded, but singlethreaded is much lower then on vista.


And another score of course, my awesome beast.... THE PENTIUM III M!!!


----------



## Virssagòn

Shane said:


> Here is a re-run you asked for Smile.  :good:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is at stock,With Turbo on of course.



Ty! Seems like the fix works on 8 threaded intel cpus, however on 8 core FX cpus it still doesn't work :'(.

Could you test the 4 threaded test some more times during the day? So I'm sure the fix really does its job?


----------



## Virssagòn

Okay, I had to get the top 
My silver arrow seems to be a beast even in summer when it is around 26°-27°c in this room (it's always hot in this room though).
I kept the temps under 80°c with the first run and under 88°c for the second, so I think there was no thermal throttle...


1st 5Ghz






2nd 5.2Ghz




(this has tested the early version where the 5th number from multithreaded fell off the box)


However, I'm not pleased with the results, because a i7 3770k scores MUCH higher at only 5.15Ghz :'( 
Especially at the multithreaded, the 3rd gen i7 scores very much, but I think it also has to do with the RAM speed though:

4.7Ghz





5.15Ghz


----------



## Jamebonds1

Nooooooooooooooo.........  

I will defeat you later


----------



## Virssagòn

Total already, rest comes later


----------



## Shane

Nice results graph.  :good:


----------



## turbobooster




----------



## Jamebonds1

Shane said:


> Nice results graph.  :good:



I feel bad that I beat mods here


----------



## spynoodle

SmileMan said:


> Total already, rest comes later



Look at that Pentium E5200 up there, kicking some ass. :good:


----------



## Virssagòn

spynoodle said:


> Look at that Pentium E5200 up there, kicking some ass. :good:



If my athlon didn't have a wall, I would have done 5Ghz!  No matter what the voltage would be  (cooling is no problem)


----------



## Virssagòn

Shane said:


> Nice results graph.  :good:



Ty, since the total is not really the most important score, I'll make 3 other tables for the subtests


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> If my athlon didn't have a wall, I would have done 5Ghz!  No matter what the voltage would be  (cooling is no problem)



You will blow up your cpu! Lol.  Im pretty sure that old cpu are use less watt power


----------



## Shane

Jamebonds1 said:


> I feel bad that I beat mods here



Well your 3770K is still at a 1Ghz advantage after my 3.5 turbo kicks in. 

I use to be big on overclocking,benchmarks and all that stuff but these days i couldn't really care to be honest,as long as my system does what i need it to and performs well..that's all that matters,Only reason i really submitted my scores is because Smile asked me to test BH for him. 

When i get Windows 8 back up and running on my on my Laptop (I5 Mobile) il post that result also if that's of any interest to you Smile?


----------



## Virssagòn

Shane said:


> Well your 3770K is still at a 1Ghz advantage after my 3.5 turbo kicks in.
> 
> I use to be big on overclocking,benchmarks and all that stuff but these days i couldn't really care to be honest,as long as my system does what i need it to and performs well..that's all that matters,Only reason i really submitted my scores is because Smile asked me to test BH for him.
> 
> When i get Windows 8 back up and running on my on my Laptop (I5 Mobile) il post that result also if that's of any interest to you Smile?



Yes thanks!


----------



## Shane

Got Windows 8 back on my laptop.


----------



## turbobooster

today tested the 2700k at 5.0 multi is 53 so we try to benchmark 5.2 later.





smileman i got no internet so this is done at a friend how put the 2700k in.
speak to you when internet is back.


----------



## Virssagòn

turbobooster said:


> today tested the 2700k at 5.0 multi is 53 so we try to benchmark 5.2 later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smileman i got no internet so this is done at a friend how put the 2700k in.
> speak to you when internet is back.



Seems like I own ya on the same clock  I also want to know your temps at 5.2ghz


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> Total already, rest comes later



Would be interesting to see what kind of scores AMD's Bulldozer and Vishera chips are getting.

I know Denther is getting an 8320 soon, maybe he'll run it and post the score? 

By the way the stock clockspeed of the 3700+ is 2.4GHz.


----------



## Calin

New scorez
E8400 3.7GHz


----------



## turbobooster

will get there smileman


----------



## Virssagòn

Will update on Friday.


----------



## Calin

SmileMan said:


> Will update on Friday.


Can't wait


----------



## Virssagòn

turbobooster said:


> will get there smileman



Up your ram a bit and you'll own me I think.


----------



## spirit

I've got a friend who has just purchased an FX-8320. I'll ask him to run it and post his score if that's OK?


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> I've got a friend who has just purchased an FX-8320. I'll ask him to run it and post his score if that's OK?



That's ok for me


----------



## Calin

And the update?


----------



## spirit

CalinXP said:


> New scorez
> E8400 3.7GHz





CalinXP said:


> And the update?



Looks like your score doesn't count until you run it again with the following open and post a new screenshot.



			
				SmileMan said:
			
		

> Rules before being able to submit your score to the scoretable:
> * at least 100 posts or you must be member for at least a year.
> * submission needs to contain:
> *- cpu-z*
> - black hole
> *- notepad with your name, computerforum and the date*


----------



## Darren

I got 10444 on my FX 8320... Which is lower than my 955's score.


----------



## Calin

Okay, there you go. Idk why it says 2.4GHz


----------



## Darren

Denther said:


> I got 10444 on my FX 8320... Which is lower than my 955's score.



Then 11064 on the second run...


----------



## Calin

Now go on,  Man, update it


----------



## Virssagòn

CalinXP said:


> Now go on,  Man, update it



Sorry guys, I haven't had the time to update the table today. I'll do it tomorrow morning.

Denther, are both results on stock? The second score seems to be fairly high.
I also have to mention that the Phenom architecture scores higher then the vishera on singlethreaded when they are clocked at the same speed.
But the vishera architecture is made to run on higher clocks, so oc that cpu!!


----------



## Calin

Well, it's alredy 16 in Romanian and no update?


----------



## Virssagòn

CalinXP said:


> Well, it's alredy 16 in Romanian and no update?



yep, I'm doing it right now
give me 10 min


----------



## Darren

SmileMan said:


> Sorry guys, I haven't had the time to update the table today. I'll do it tomorrow morning.
> 
> Denther, are both results on stock? The second score seems to be fairly high.
> I also have to mention that the Phenom architecture scores higher then the vishera on singlethreaded when they are clocked at the same speed.
> But the vishera architecture is made to run on higher clocks, so oc that cpu!!



It's at stock with Turbo on. On the single core test it jumped up to 4.0GHz on the first core.


----------



## Calin

SmileMan said:


> yep, I'm doing it right now
> give me 10 min


kk...


----------



## Calin

SmileMan said:


> yep, I'm doing it right now
> give me 10 min


Seriously................


----------



## Virssagòn

Lol, I had to go unexpected...

Now...............

HERE IT IS!


----------



## Virssagòn

And the most important!!!

The subscores are at least as important as the total score!


----------



## Calin

YAY!
cant w8 to get a 4440


----------



## claptonman

New 4670k at stock. Will be overclocking next week.

Edit: Hmm, CPUz showing memory at single channel, even though I followed the mobo guide. Will try to fix that and run again.

Edit2: got a worse score... I'll stick with this one.


----------



## Virssagòn

Nice new system you got there! Pretty nice score for stock!


----------



## Virssagòn

CalinXP said:


> YAY!
> cant w8 to get a 4440



A 4440? What do you mean?


----------



## Calin

SmileMan said:


> A 4440? What do you mean?


http://www.pcgarage.ro/procesoare/intel/core-i5-4440-31ghz-box/


----------



## Virssagòn

CalinXP said:


> http://www.pcgarage.ro/procesoare/intel/core-i5-4440-31ghz-box/



That would be a nice bump in performance, but why not spending a little more for a K-version?


----------



## Calin

SmileMan said:


> That would be a nice bump in performance, but why not spending a little more for a K-version?


Because my parents won't spend that much money


----------



## Calin

spynoodle said:


> not bad for a little pentium dual-core, huh?  i have no idea how my single-threaded score seems to match ivy bridges and haswells at similar clock speeds.


how?


----------



## claptonman

@4.5ghz.


----------



## jamesd1981

Intel pentium G2020 ivybridge at 2.9ghz stock


----------



## Virssagòn

Lol, more cores and BANG, world record has been broken 






Edit: source is not me, found on the internet.

Will update the list when there are some more submissions.


----------



## turbobooster

I know, it has been tested with a 3930k also, niceeeeeee


----------



## Okedokey

Nice to see the 2600K is still owning years later.


----------



## Virssagòn

Okedokey said:


> Nice to see the 2600K is still owning years later.



Haha . Anyway, ivy bridge is the strongest in my bench. haswell scores almost the same, but less in multithreaded and a little more in single and 4threaded.
An i7 3770k at the same clock as an i7 2600k would results 1000-1500 points higher.


----------



## turbobooster

3770k faster then a 4770k at the same clock????????

2700k still good choice


----------



## Virssagòn

turbobooster said:


> 3770k faster then a 4770k at the same clock????????
> 
> 2700k still good choice



Yeah, but only by a small amount and only on the multithreaded test.


----------



## Okedokey

SmileMan said:


> Haha . Anyway, ivy bridge is the strongest in my bench. haswell scores almost the same, but less in multithreaded and a little more in single and 4threaded.
> An i7 3770k at the same clock as an i7 2600k would results 1000-1500 points higher.



But that's the point isn't it?  Sandys overclock like heros!  Id like to see a 3770k at 5.2GHz!  That'd take some doing.


----------



## Virssagòn

Okedokey said:


> But that's the point isn't it?  Sandys overclock like heros!  Id like to see a 3770k at 5.2GHz!  That'd take some doing.



All sandys got a wall around 5.2-5.8Ghz, mine has a wall on 5.230ghz, I wasn't limited by temps or voltage, just the wall :'(

Ivy is only ~4-5 degrees warmer and doesn't have a wall I think...


----------



## Okedokey

Ivys are well known not to OC as well.  And if you didn't have a temp barrier, you didn't put enough volts


----------



## Virssagòn

Okedokey said:


> Ivys are well known not to OC as well.  And if you didn't have a temp barrier, you didn't put enough volts



What's your i7s wall? Good chips can go up to 5.8Ghz.


----------



## FuryRosewood

I just posted mine at the XMP profile i have set, which sets me at 3.8 ghz, may go and play with the asus OC tool and run the bench again. Currently only on 16 gigs of ram due to a issue with two sticks, currently crucial is shipping them to michigan...and im in colorado, hoping they get returned to sender so eventually ill recieve em and can put in my last four sticks.


----------



## Jiniix

At stock and at an overclocked speed

Stock @ 3.2GHz







OC'd @ 4.2GHz






*Specs:* 
AMD Phenom II X2 555 Black Edition 3.2GHz @ 4.2GHz w/ CM Hyper 212 Evo
ASUS M3A32-MVP Deluxe
Corsair ValueSelect 4x2GB DDR2-667MHz
AMD HD 5770 1GB Crossfire
Coolermaster HAF 912 w/ CM Scout II Red LED fans
Samsung HD322HJ 320GB/7200rpm
Silver Power SP-SS750M 80+ Silver

This is why I love overclocking. Free performance!


----------



## Darren

That's quite an overclock ^^.


----------



## spirit

Denther said:


> That's quite an overclock ^^.



On an AMD Phenom II, yeah it is.  

I assume it's stable at 4.2GHz?


----------



## PCunicorn

spirit said:


> On an AMD Phenom II, yeah it is.
> 
> I assume it's stable at 4.2GHz?



It must be stable if it can run the benchmark all the way through without crashing. Very awesome Jiniix.


----------



## turbobooster

PCunicorn said:


> It must be stable if it can run the benchmark all the way through without crashing. Very awesome Jiniix.



sorry not true.
I can run the benchmark at 5.2/ have to try 5.3 also, but at 5.2 its not stable.
I also can run it at 4.5 with vcore of 1.275 but its not prime/linx stable at that vcore.


----------



## spirit

PCunicorn said:


> It must be stable if it can run the benchmark all the way through without crashing. Very awesome Jiniix.



It might be stable for the 5 minutes it takes to run the benchmark, but how about 5 hours?


----------



## PCunicorn

Yeah true. Didn't really think about that.


----------



## FuryRosewood

4.7Ghz attempt, just shy of 17k.






And back to stock i go


----------



## Jamebonds1

FuryRosewood said:


> 4.7Ghz attempt, just shy of 17k.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And back to stock i go



And now I must try to beat smileman's record 

What held me back is my first time overclock.  For really, my heatsink is not enough for overclock.  Heatsink handle 160 watt heat and overclocked CPU is 130 heat, or possible over heatsink's limited.


----------



## Virssagòn

Jiniix said:


> At stock and at an overclocked speed
> 
> Stock @ 3.2GHz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OC'd @ 4.2GHz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Specs:*
> AMD Phenom II X2 555 Black Edition 3.2GHz @ 4.2GHz w/ CM Hyper 212 Evo
> ASUS M3A32-MVP Deluxe
> Corsair ValueSelect 4x2GB DDR2-667MHz
> AMD HD 5770 1GB Crossfire
> Coolermaster HAF 912 w/ CM Scout II Red LED fans
> Samsung HD322HJ 320GB/7200rpm
> Silver Power SP-SS750M 80+ Silver
> 
> This is why I love overclocking. Free performance!



Mine arrives soon, then I'll beat you! ;P
Trying at least 5GHz, for the price, I don't mind or it dies 
Can't you unlock the 4th core?


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> And now I must try to beat smileman's record
> 
> What held me back is my first time overclock.  For really, my heatsink is not enough for overclock.  Heatsink handle 160 watt heat and overclocked CPU is 130 heat, or possible over heatsink's limited.



You only need a 4.8GHz oc to beat me I think, ivy scores a little better then Sandy.


----------



## Jiniix

SmileMan said:


> Mine arrives soon, then I'll beat you! ;P
> Trying at least 5GHz, for the price, I don't mind or it dies
> Can't you unlock the 4th core?



I've looked for the core unlocking feature actually, but I read somewhere that it doesn't appear on M3 motherboards (Mine is M3A32-MVP Deluxe)

Is it really a good overclock? I considered it semi-high, but with room for more. I read that a Phenom II shouldn't be volted beyond 1.55v for 24/7 use, so I gave it a bit of headroom and saw what I could do with 1.45v.
Haven't tried for higher clocks, but the cooling allows it. Priming for 24 hours only raised the CPU temps to 47C (read that AMD chips could measure some wrong temps, so I gave it a 20C headroom).
But I am using a Coolermaster Hyper 212 Evo with 2x Coolermaster Scout II Red LED push-pull fans running at 5v off a molex adapter (The entire machine is dead quiet)
Plenty of cooling available, could set them to the 12v (adapter has 2x5v and 2x12v fan plugs) and use some of the 12v -> 7v adapters I have from my Corsair AF120s.
Whenever I find a really good deal on something, I buy a good stock, because I always end up using it anyway.
Got 10 of the Scout II fans for $3 each, which is cheap, considering they are around $21 normal retail price for one. I've mentioned this a lot, but Denmark is expensive.
Any comments on the max voltage for the chip? Wouldn't mind pushing it further if it can take it.
Side note: It only needs 1.275v for 3.8GHz, which is the same as stock voltage if you reset your BIOS and keep everything stock.


----------



## Virssagòn

The silicon used on the phenom chip can handle pretty much voltage (all AMD's actually)
So I'd say 1.6max, 1.7v with good cooling.


----------



## Jamebonds1

Hey smileman, isn't your heatsink support 250 watt heat?


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> Hey smileman, isn't your heatsink support 250 watt heat?



Idk, but I can easily run the bench on 5.2GHz without heat issues. Even in summer.


----------



## turbobooster

stil not yet, but I,m getting close, and I still don't now if this is my wall.

smileman I,m coming hahaha.


----------



## Virssagòn

No worry, I'll beat you again


----------



## turbobooster

SmileMan said:


> No worry, I'll beat you again



we will see, have to try 5.3 also wait a few days.


----------



## Jamebonds1

turbobooster;18e said:
			
		

> Yeah, yeah if you get coolent gas to beat smileman


----------



## WeatherMan

Here you go man

You've been waiting for me to do this for ages 









I also tried running this on 2 different laptops, both encountered errors trying to run the application


----------



## turbobooster

sorry smile i defaet you


----------



## Virssagòn

turbobooster said:


> sorry smile i defaet you



How? You're not on an higher clock? what's the speed and timings of your ram?


----------



## turbobooster

SmileMan said:


> How? You're not on an higher clock? what's the speed and timings of your ram?



no just installed windows 7, the other run was on w8.
did a clean instal with no programs installed.


----------



## spirit

turbobooster said:


> sorry smile i defaet you


Lol, I love how competitive you two are over this!


----------



## turbobooster

spirit said:


> Lol, I love how competitive you two are over this!



no pain now gain hahaha.
its nice to be competitive


----------



## Darren

Ran it on one of the school computers, don't have a way of hosting an image so I'll just tell you the scores.

4808 - Overall
1418 - Multi
1306 - 4 Threads
2084 - Single

This is on a Pentium Dual Core e5300 at 2.6Ghz with 2GB RAM


----------



## Virssagòn

Denther said:


> Ran it on one of the school computers, don't have a way of hosting an image so I'll just tell you the scores.
> 
> 4808 - Overall
> 1418 - Multi
> 1306 - 4 Threads
> 2084 - Single
> 
> This is on a Pentium Dual Core e5300 at 2.6Ghz with 2GB RAM



That is an ok score for a schoolcomputer . We also got Pentiums in this school, but they score only 4000 points lol...


----------



## Darren

These computers are getting replaced this year with i5's I believe. Either Christmas break (I hope) or spring break. I'll run it again then.


----------



## Virssagòn

Denther said:


> These computers are getting replaced this year with i5's I believe. Either Christmas break (I hope) or spring break. I'll run it again then.



Ok, nice!


----------



## spirit

Got myself an older Socket 775 PC for free, pretty pleased with it.  E5300 with 4GB of DDR2, not a bad spec at all. It's running Windows 8 quite nicely. 







Interesting how my E5300 scores over 5,000 and Denther's scored 4808 - maybe the extra 2GBs of RAM helped?


----------



## Virssagòn

Turbo! You still didn't post the results I sent you! 
Oh, I'll have to do it myself, but that's for tomorrow!


----------



## PCunicorn

spirit said:


> Got myself an older Socket 775 PC for free, pretty pleased with it.  E5300 with 4GB of DDR2, not a bad spec at all. It's running Windows 8 quite nicely.
> 
> Snip



Y u so lucky?


----------



## spirit

PCunicorn said:


> Y u so lucky?



This is what happens when you have a father in the IT industry who has clients that upgrade their PCs and then just tell him to 'throw the old ones away' when they are still perfectly functioning.


----------



## WeatherMan

I just stuck a Athlon 64 X2 3800 into my mum's PC yesterday so I will bench it soon 

The X2 is actually for a HTPC I am building, I've got a E6600 on the way for her PC so will bench that too once it gets here, I also have another E6600 coming too lol, that will be going on eBay unless anyone wants it for £15?


----------



## Virssagòn

WeatherMan said:


> I just stuck a Athlon 64 X2 3800 into my mum's PC yesterday so I will bench it soon
> 
> The X2 is actually for a HTPC I am building, I've got a E6600 on the way for her PC so will bench that too once it gets here, I also have another E6600 coming too lol, that will be going on eBay unless anyone wants it for £15?



Ok nice!


----------



## turbobooster

i,m posting the new scores for smileman.


----------



## Virssagòn

Thanks


----------



## Jiniix

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600
At stock and 3GHz

Stock






3GHz







spirit said:


> This is what happens when you have a father in the IT industry who has clients that upgrade their PCs and then just tell him to 'throw the old ones away' when they are still perfectly functioning.


I got 15x OEM PSU 250w + case with GA-G31M-S2L, 2GB Corsair-667MHz and C2D E7200 and 15x mobo+CPU+RAM without case or PSU to play with when my dad bought an architect company that had gone broke. Very nice to get this fully functional old hardware.


----------



## Virssagòn

Nice scores Jiniix!


----------



## Jiniix

I really like overclocking.
My Q6600 chip is set to 1.25v if I reset CMOS, but it's stable at 3GHz with 1.232v in the BIOS


----------



## spirit

Core 2 Quads are awesome.  Will give this a run on the Q8300 on Wednesday or Thursday when my brother isn't using it.


----------



## Virssagòn

Jiniix said:


> I really like overclocking.
> My Q6600 chip is set to 1.25v if I reset CMOS, but it's stable at 3GHz with 1.232v in the BIOS



Just get a 11 euro waterblock from ebay and put the tubes on the watertab, then overclock that thing and let it fly! ;P
Cool the phase design with some fans, it could be risky sometimes for the mobo


----------



## Jiniix

I ran the test at 3.2GHz quickly and it scored around 9500 pts. Didn't post it, because I just set it to 356x9 and auto volt, so couldn't tell if it was 100% stable the entire run. (RAM is also affected by OCing the CPU)
Cooling the chip really isn't an issue. It runs incredibly cold if you ask me. On the stock cooler at 333x9 it runs a max temp of 80-83 in the Fractal Design Core 1000.
I'm thinking of putting it into a Coolermaster Elite 430 with a Coolermaster Hyper 212 Evo or Seidon 120M. Then it'll run really cool, for sure.
I have both of those coolers lying on standby, but none of them really fits in the Core 1000 ;(


----------



## mr.doom

Here is my pc after some upgrades


----------



## Heku

CPU OC @ 3.6ghz


----------



## Virssagòn

Thanks for the scores you both! I'll update this evening


----------



## Virssagòn

It is coming...






There will be an article with the features,... later.


----------



## Virssagòn

Denther said:


> Ran it on one of the school computers, don't have a way of hosting an image so I'll just tell you the scores.
> 
> 4808 - Overall
> 1418 - Multi
> 1306 - 4 Threads
> 2084 - Single
> 
> This is on a Pentium Dual Core e5300 at 2.6Ghz with 2GB RAM



Haha, my school beats yours! 
However, they seem to use the same CPUs, which is pretty interesting.


----------



## Virssagòn

For the ones interested in the Cross-Platform edition, I made an article about it. I'll try to get it done before next year!

*www.blackholetec.com - Black Hole Cross-Platform*


----------



## spirit

HA! I beat you both. Pentium E5300, I score over 5,000 - see here: http://www.computerforum.com/224005-black-hole-benchmark-12.html#post1895393 

I do have 4GB of RAM though. It's my secondary PC btw.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> HA! I beat you both. Pentium E5300, I score over 5,000 - see here: http://www.computerforum.com/224005-black-hole-benchmark-12.html#post1895393
> 
> I do have 4GB of RAM though. It's my secondary PC btw.



Haha nice! But I was also running some programs, and sometimes when the teacher was standing next to me, I had to do normal and do thing while benching  Could have had impact.


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> Haha nice! But I was also running some programs, and sometimes when the teacher was standing next to me, I had to do normal and do thing while benching  Could have had impact.



Excuses, excuses, excuses. 

Just admit it - my E5300 is superior to yours (and Denther's).


----------



## Virssagòn

It's from my school, it's not mine ;P


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> It's from my school, it's not mine ;P



Mine is still superior.


----------



## claptonman

Do I win?


----------



## Virssagòn

claptonman said:


> Do I win?



sure.


----------



## claptonman

SmileMan said:


> sure.



You all heard it!


----------



## spirit

claptonman said:


> Do I win?


Well, you've got the fastest E2200 on the forum, so yes. 

But if you meant overall, then, urmm... no.


----------



## PCunicorn

Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition @ 3.5 GHz
http://valid.canardpc.com/mdvyp8


----------



## Virssagòn

Try to unlock the 4 cores, it will give you almost 50% more performance


----------



## jp198780

Think I have Turbo enabled, maybe not.

stock 3570k


----------



## PCunicorn

SmileMan said:


> Try to unlock the 4 cores, it will give you almost 50% more performance



My motherboard doesn't support it sadly. I have tried, I think it's because ASUS thought it was unnesacary as it was made for AM3+ CPUs, at least more so than the old Phenoms and Athlons and Semprons. Oh, and it's a 550, not a 555, put the wrong thing down.


----------



## Virssagòn

jp198780 said:


> Think I have Turbo enabled, maybe not.
> 
> stock 3570k



You got turbo disabled, you can see that on the singlethreaded score, it should somewhat higher.


----------



## jp198780

SmileMan said:


> You got turbo disabled, you can see that on the multithreaded score, it should somewhat higher.



thanks man, im gonna restart it now and try it again :good:

says Turbo is enabled. I have the 3570K with a Q77 chipset


----------



## AlienMenace

these stock speed with turbo on.


----------



## Virssagòn

AlienMenace said:


> these stock speed with turbo on.



Lol that theme. I should run it again since you got the 4 threaded issue. It will be finally fixed on the cross-platform edition since I'm writing in a total new language.


----------



## turbobooster

most people already now the stock score, from a 2600k.
this is the 2700k stock, on windows 8.1


----------



## PCunicorn

Why do you have the ROG theme with a ASRock board?


----------



## turbobooster

PCunicorn said:


> Why do you have the ROG theme with a ASRock board?



its not the rog theme, just cpu-z is rog.
the wallpaper is amd


----------



## PCunicorn

Yeah, why do you have the ROG edition CPU-Z? Why do you have it on a ASRock board, and not the standard CPU-Z, like this?


----------



## spirit

PCunicorn said:


> Yeah, why do you have the ROG edition CPU-Z? Why do you have it on a ASRock board, and not the standard CPU-Z, like this?



Maybe he likes it?


----------



## Darren

spirit said:


> Maybe he likes it?



Ding ding ding. I have wallpapers of all these fancy cars and I drive a Chevy Econobox with a spoiler (with front wheel drive mind you). Doesn't mean I have them does it?


----------



## turbobooster

PCunicorn said:


> Yeah, why do you have the ROG edition CPU-Z? Why do you have it on a ASRock board, and not the standard CPU-Z, like this?



why not, is there a law that I cant use the rog theme ore rog cpu-z if you have asrock, yes like it more then the standaard


----------



## spirit

Denther said:


> Ding ding ding. I have wallpapers of all these fancy cars and I drive a Chevy Econobox with a spoiler (with front wheel drive mind you). Doesn't mean I have them does it?



No way!!??


----------



## Virssagòn

turbobooster said:


> why not, is there a law that I cant use the rog theme ore rog cpu-z if you have asrock, yes like it more then the standaard



And btw, isn't ASrock and ASUS from the same maker/boss?


----------



## turbobooster

SmileMan said:


> And btw, isn't ASrock and ASUS from the same maker/boss?


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> And btw, isn't ASrock and ASUS from the same maker/boss?



Yup, they're related companies.


----------



## PCunicorn

http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=687325
No. I have known this for quite a while, and while they are a little related, Pegatron makes parts for them both they are still completely different brands. Denther, you can have a a wallpaper of whatever you want. This is like putting a sticker that says Cadillac on a Chevy. Sure, they are both owned by GM, but they are completely different vehicles. Tiurbobooster, I am surprised you actually where so sure they where the same companies, is a quick Google so hard?


----------



## Darren

PCunicorn said:


> http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=687325
> No. I have known this for quite a while, and while they are a little related, Pegatron makes parts for them both they are still completely different brands. *Denther, you can have a a wallpaper of whatever you want.* This is like putting a sticker that says Cadillac on a Chevy. Sure, they are both owned by GM, but they are completely different vehicles. Tiurbobooster, I am surprised you actually where so sure they where the same companies, is a quick Google so hard?



Then he can have a skin on software whatever he damn well pleases. 

Also they said they were related, not owned by one another. Pegatron was owned by Asus but was spun off and made to it's own company in 2010. Pegatron controls AsRock. They are related. Also the chairman of AsRock was a founder of Asus. So further relations. Also Turbo never said they were the same company, just their "boss" was the same. 

That's not the point, what does it even matter what he has as his skin.

Ran the bench. Got 9692. This is way to unpredictable to be a good benchmark on the AMD CPU's at least. I've had close to 11K and then this.


----------



## StrangleHold

In the beginning Asus didn't want their name on low end/cheaper end boards, except in OEMs, most people that owned OEMs didn't have any idea what board was in it. They started Asrock for retail low end sales. Asus started Pegatron to split their businesses. Basically against companies like Foxconn. Then Asus made Asrock part of Pegatron. They spun off Pegatron 4 or 5 years ago.


----------



## PCunicorn

denther said:


> then he can have a skin on software whatever he damn well pleases.
> 
> Also they said they were related, not owned by one another. Pegatron was owned by asus but was spun off and made to it's own company in 2010. Pegatron controls asrock. They are related. Also the chairman of asrock was a founder of asus. So further relations. Also turbo never said they were the same company, just their "boss" was the same.
> 
> That's not the point, what does it even matter what he has as his skin.
> 
> Ran the bench. Got 9692. This is way to unpredictable to be a good benchmark on the amd cpu's at least. I've had close to 11k and then this.



turbobooster didn't say anything other than 

and they are related some what, yes, but no where near enough to have a rog theme on cpu-z. He can have whatever he wants, whatever, and i can damn well put a cadillac sticker on a damn chevrolet, doesn't mean i will. Because it looks odd.


----------



## spirit

Denther said:


> Ran the bench. Got 9692. This is way to unpredictable to be a good benchmark on the AMD CPU's at least. I've had close to 11K and then this.



Historically, we've always had problems with AMD and this benchmark. You bought the wrong CPU.


----------



## turbobooster

ahh   question!!!!     is this a overclock tread, ore is this a complaining tread about thems???????


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Historically, we've always had problems with AMD and this benchmark. You bought the wrong CPU.



Nope, the benchmark sometimes fails to allocate the right amount of threads on the 4 threaded using an i7/FX 8 core. Normally my benchmark is pretty stable, only this issue still happens on some systems. Since I'm writing a totally new benchmark with the cross-platform edition, it should be fixed.


----------



## spirit

But we have had problems with AMD in the past. I remember one version was working fine with the Intel chips but wasn't playing nicely with the AMD ones. I remember AMD users on here were having a go at us for it.


----------



## Darren

spirit said:


> Historically, we've always had problems with AMD and this benchmark. You bought the wrong CPU.



Yeah no. The benchmark just doesn't like me or my life choices. When games become optimized for 8 cores I will be a happy man. Until then, I'll suffer in single threaded performance compared to Intels.


----------



## spirit

Denther said:


> When games become optimized for 8 cores I will be a happy man. Until then, I'll suffer in single threaded performance compared to Intels.



Yeah this is the problem. The FX-8320 is a good CPU I'm sure, but at the moment most things are not taking advantage of all of its cores. By the time applications and games which do take advantage of 8 cores are released, something much more powerful than the FX-8320 will be on offer.

It's the Phenom II X6 story all over again in that respect.


----------



## Darren

spirit said:


> Yeah this is the problem. The FX-8320 is a good CPU I'm sure, but at the moment most things are not taking advantage of all of its cores. By the time applications and games which do take advantage of 8 cores are released, something much more powerful than the FX-8320 will be on offer.
> 
> It's the Phenom II X6 story all over again in that respect.



Stuff will be more powerful yes but I don't think it will be quite the same as the X6. 8 threaded games are going to be coming pretty soon since the new consoles have them.


----------



## spirit

Denther said:


> I don't think it will be quite the same as the X6. 8 threaded games are going to be coming pretty soon since the new consoles have them.



I agree with you. I think we'll see the move to 8 cores sooner than we saw the move to 6 cores.


----------



## Virssagòn

I have to say that the Phenom II X6 is still a beast of a processor, clock for clock it beats the FX8320/FX8350 by a tiny bit (however, these visheras are generally clocked pretty much higher from stock already)


----------



## StrangleHold

AMD screwed up the L1 cache on the Bulldozer module, to slow and not enough.


----------



## Intel_man




----------



## Virssagòn

Pretty nice score for the old i7! Intel needs to take improvements more serious. Last 3 generations didn't change that much in performance...


----------



## Intel_man

I'll probably push it back up to 4 to see how much higher it goes and maybe not run as many background apps. lol


----------



## Virssagòn

I got the a10 6790K for review and tested black hole on it, not bad at all for an APU...


----------



## spirit

That's not a bad score at all!


----------



## PCunicorn

What's your score at 5.2?


----------



## Virssagòn

Everyone has always been saying that APUs aren't great overclockers. I think they're completely wrong! They overclock awesome!
5,2Ghz wasn't that difficult. A score of almost 11K.


----------



## Darren

Got 6808 Multi, 1916 4 Threads, and 2468 Single for a total 11192 on my 8320 at 4.2GHz. Going to run again with a hopefully functioning 4 core run.

Second run. Saw all 4 cores in task manager running at full capacity.


----------



## G80FTW

Noticed my i7 wasnt listed on there. So here is how it competes with a little OC:





This is on air, and I dont like the temps so I am going back to stock. I just used the auto OC feature from my motherboard.

This puts me oddly high on the charts. Unless I did something wrong. I dont recall this processor being on the same level or better than the new gen i7s


----------



## Virssagòn

G80FTW said:


> Noticed my i7 wasnt listed on there. So here is how it competes with a little OC:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is on air, and I dont like the temps so I am going back to stock. I just used the auto OC feature from my motherboard.
> 
> This puts me oddly high on the charts. Unless I did something wrong. I dont recall this processor being on the same level or better than the new gen i7s



There's something wrong with the multithreaded score... ow, wait, I forgot the old i7 970 had 12 threads xD. Good score, denther your score is also nice


----------



## G80FTW

SmileMan said:


> There's something wrong with the multithreaded score... ow, wait, I forgot the old i7 970 had 12 threads xD. Good score, denther your score is also nice



I knew 12 threads would come in handy for something! 

With that note here is everything stock and I forgot notepad in my last screen so here is that as well 





Either way looks like my overall score would still put me in third! I love this old 970. Glad I got a hell of a deal on it! ($300 brand new in 2012 when it was going on newegg for $900).


----------



## Intel_man

$300 for a 970 is a wicked deal.


Speaking of which, I need to reapply my thermal paste on my 920 soon. Temps are hitting 70 degrees at peak use.


----------



## G80FTW

Intel_man said:


> $300 for a 970 is a wicked deal.
> 
> 
> Speaking of which, I need to reapply my thermal paste on my 920 soon. Temps are hitting 70 degrees at peak use.



Whats boggling my mind is why the 970 is still holding its price. I was looking around and places that did have it were putting prices on it above $650. One even had it posted for $1,300.

The only reason I bought into this dead platform was not only its price, but it was the only realistic option for a 6 core processor as the only other one available was the sandy bridge 3970k which was $1,000.  

Im still actually learning about the 1366 platform and trying to figure out why exactly it was dropped.  It seems to have been a very good platform with potential.  

So the platform is dead, was dead when I bought it, but 970s still go for $650? It makes no sense as far as I know there is NOTHING special about this processor other than being a 6 core which you can get a new gen 6 core now for less than $600.

Either way, I may be on a dead socket but it hasnt slowed me down a bit. Im confident that I can ride this processor all the way into the next gen platforms. My next plan is to wait and see if I can get any games that become too demanding for my system then upgrade the GPU before the processor and see if my 970 can still keep up.  This could be my longest platform life. Both my P4 and AMD X2 builds only lasted me 2 years each before I felt the need to upgrade. Maybe technology was moving relatively faster back then... Perhaps the lack of high end competition from AMD has slowed everything else down. Who knows.


----------



## Jiniix

I understand where you're coming from, but CPU performance is not everything.
PCI lanes, USB ports, SATA ports, RAM speeds etc all take part. 2011/X79 is 1366/X58's successor, and has maaaany more PCI lanes if I'm not mistaken. Also 6-cores were the maximum they could squeeze out of the socket, while X79 can be up to 10 core/20 thread and have quad-channel RAM vs tri-channel.


----------



## Intel_man

Yea but knowing Intel, they'll swap sockets to sell you a new 10 core processor and charge you a kidney for one.


----------



## Virssagòn

Getting Kaveri in a week (for a review), I'm curious what steamroller can do. Early reviews show nice gpu performance and a nice improvement in IPC, but with the lower clock speed it only beats the previous flagship by a small margin in CPU benchmarks.


----------



## Jiniix

Yeah. Read the reviews on the A10-7850K on Anandtech. It scored pretty much the same as the 6800K, so I hope it's a hell of an overclocker and compatible with like a 7850 (get it?? ) for CFX


----------



## Virssagòn

Jiniix said:


> Yeah. Read the reviews on the A10-7850K on Anandtech. It scored pretty much the same as the 6800K, so I hope it's a hell of an overclocker and compatible with like a 7850 (get it?? ) for CFX



Nope only cards from hd7000 series and up with DDR3 ram work coupled with the a10 7850K.
And yes I get your joke hd'7850' and a10 '7850'k.... you're not a good humorist right?


----------



## G80FTW

Jiniix said:


> I understand where you're coming from, but CPU performance is not everything.
> PCI lanes, USB ports, SATA ports, RAM speeds etc all take part. 2011/X79 is 1366/X58's successor, and has maaaany more PCI lanes if I'm not mistaken. Also 6-cores were the maximum they could squeeze out of the socket, while X79 can be up to 10 core/20 thread and have quad-channel RAM vs tri-channel.



I get what your saying. But was it REALLY the limitations of the socket itself or just that Intel wanted everyone to buy into a new socket?  I mean, I can understand that with less pins there is less they can cram into the CPU itself and limits data flow however I feel that Intel has started dropping sockets left and right since LGA775 just to make more money off people swapping to those sockets for the latest gear....

I could be completely wrong though.  Its just a little suspect to have a socket with a life span of just 2 years.. I mean, look at 1155. That socket has been around for how long now? And are they not still dropping new CPUs for it?

Anyway, Im still completely satisfied with my dead socket. 

The quad channel RAM would be nice though. I am already almost maxing out what Intel says my CPU can do in terms of bandwidth. Says its max is 25GB/s and Im at 20. Im sure with overclocking I could get close to that. Having 50GB/s would certainly speed things along in memory intensive editing programs Id imagine. Which I use alot. Was the main reason I wanted a 6 core processor over a quad core. But also didnt want to drop over a grand for one either, which at the time I couldnt find a 6 core SB for any less. I was lucky to find this 970 on ebay brand new for $300.  Otherwise I would have stayed away from this platform completely.


----------



## Jiniix

LGA1155 has been "dead" for a while. Haswell/Z87 uses LGA1150, which is not compatible.
The reason I put it in quotation marks is because very few people saw a reason to upgrade. Clock for clock, Haswell is about 5-10% better, but OCs bad. Uses less power too, but not many people care about a TDP reduction from ~95W to 84W.
And when I say 'OCs bad', I don't mean the clock speeds. It's the heat. Oh boy dat heat, son!


----------



## StrangleHold

SmileMan said:


> Getting Kaveri in a week (for a review), I'm curious what steamroller can do. Early reviews show nice gpu performance and a nice improvement in IPC, but with the lower clock speed it only beats the previous flagship by a small margin in CPU benchmarks.


 
 Already got one for a build. Got it because the dude is using the onboard video. Other then the onboard GPU, not much different then the 6800K. Think they just cant keep the wattage down, so they under clocked it to keep it at a 95W. The CPU clock for clock, I give it a average 10% increase in IPC. As far as overclocking, its about the same as the 6800K. For the price right now (50 bucks more then the 6800K) its a no go, especially if your using a video card. Even a FX 4300 or FX 6300 will kick its butt and overclock better. Plus the FX 8320 is even cheaper. Thought Steamroller was going to be better. I'm really starting to get disappointed with AMD. I can see why they didn't make a server or FX with it. AMD is starting just to be a lowend onboard video king. End of story


----------



## G80FTW

StrangleHold said:


> Already got one for a build. Got it because the dude is using the onboard video. Other then the onboard GPU, not much different then the 6800K. Think they just cant keep the wattage down, so they under clocked it to keep it at a 95W. The CPU clock for clock, I give it a average 10% increase in IPC. As far as overclocking, its about the same as the 6800K. For the price right now (50 bucks more then the 6800K) its a no go, especially if your using a video card. Even a FX 4300 or FX 6300 will kick its butt and overclock better. Plus the FX 8320 is even cheaper. Thought Steamroller was going to be better. I'm really starting to get disappointed with AMD. I can see why they didn't make a server or FX with it. AMD is starting just to be a lowend onboard video king. End of story



Iv been disappointed with AMD since 2006. Its sad because i would love to have a new AMD build but they seem to be stuck in the ice age.


----------



## StrangleHold

G80FTW said:


> Iv been disappointed with AMD since 2006. Its sad because i would love to have a new AMD build but they seem to be stuck in the ice age.



It because they have lost all of the Nexgen people. Plus went to all automated design tools that cause around 20% loss in performance and 20% more transistors then needed. Its cheaper and faster. They use to do transistors by hand that were critical parts. Makes no sense to save money building a CPU, then lose money/market share selling them because of low IPC. 

You know it took Intel 6 years to beat the Athlons IPC. They did it by using the Pentium III and Mobile, came up with the Core 2. Which still today the Haswell is nothing but a upgraded Core 2. But with Sanders putting Ruiz in charge, he just destroyed the CPU team and put them 4 billion in debt buying ATI. How can you design a new CPU die when you lost all the good people and 4 billion in dept. You cant, you end up with the first Phenom which was a disaster and they still haven't recovered.


----------



## Darren

If you're in the "lower tier" of gaming machines, AMD does just fine I think. They may not be the most efficient clock for clock and what not but they still make cheap processors that can play games well, which is what many people are after. For that, they're great. For high end computing, not so much. I'm too young to appreciate what they used to be so maybe I'm a bit naive to that part of it. But from the stuff I've seen of late, I'm not disappointed with where they are, it's just different from maybe where they were in the past.


----------



## voyagerfan99

Here's the latest result for my CPU


----------



## G80FTW

Denther said:


> If you're in the "lower tier" of gaming machines, AMD does just fine I think. They may not be the most efficient clock for clock and what not but they still make cheap processors that can play games well, which is what many people are after. For that, they're great. For high end computing, not so much. I'm too young to appreciate what they used to be so maybe I'm a bit naive to that part of it. But from the stuff I've seen of late, I'm not disappointed with where they are, it's just different from maybe where they were in the past.



My first build was an AMD Athlon.  Was 1.6GHz.  Back then, in 2001, AMD was top dog. They were far superior to their Intel rivals.  And as StrangleHold stated, that run lasted them a long while. AMD milked the K8 architecture for wayyy too long. While the K8 architecture was amazingly advanced for its time, its time that AMD let it go.  When they introduced the "K10" architecture with the Phenom it was nothing but a mildly updated version of the K8. Very few changes if I recall. Which is why you did not see any significant increase in performance versus the X2 Athlons. As far as I know, even the brand new processors AMD is releasing are still strongly based on the K8.  Which is why AMD hasnt had any socket changes in the past years, even the jump from 939 to 940 wasnt significant. I think all AM2 and AM3 boards are all 940 sockets just with different chipsets. Makes no sense at all if you ask me.

Back in the day, there was really no comparison to AMD and Intel.  AMD was so much faster clock for clock and even the top end Intel Pentium 4s at 3GHz were still not as fast as their 2GHz AMD rivals. Almost exactly flipped today. The only difference is, back then the AMD and Intel processors were pretty matched in price meaning that Intel relied on selling their clock speeds to people who did not know any better. Seemed to work fine. The whole NetBurst architecture Intel had at that time was garbage if you ask me. It was a cheap way to get higher clock speeds at the expense of having ultra long pipelines making the IPC terrible at best and in the case of the Prescott which had even longer pipelines than the Northwoods, made them run MUCH hotter.


----------



## Intel_man

Back in the Athlon days, the AMD was faster in gaming, but since the P4 was hyperthreaded, it was more usable for day to day applications. 


AMD really needs to step up their game... My i7 920 is still keeping up with current gen stuff without a huge difference in performance.


----------



## G80FTW

Intel_man said:


> Back in the Athlon days, the AMD was faster in gaming, but since the P4 was hyperthreaded, it was more usable for day to day applications.
> 
> 
> AMD really needs to step up their game... My i7 920 is still keeping up with current gen stuff without a huge difference in performance.



Yes hyperthreading was not introduced until 2003, and even then it was only select applications where the P4 saw an advantage.


----------



## StrangleHold

AMD with dreams of Bulldozer just ran the Athlon architecture to long, really the Phenom II was the last of it. Just kept updating it and putting all their resources on Bulldozer. Then right in the middle of it Ruiz buys ATI and takes in all kind of debt. Bulldozer at first was going to be released on 65nm. instead of Phenom I. The first Phenom I was nothing but 4 Brisbane cores with L3 cache and unfinished. In other words, a rushed job because they had to fill in because Bulldozer was no where near ready. Then came the Phenom I 50 series with fixes. Phenom II comes. The Phenom II was a good filler. They should have just waited and kept using Athlon 64 till the Phenom II was ready. Would have never had the grief they went through with the Phenom I. The amount of resources spent to release the Phenom I could have been spent on research and the Phenom II could have come out earlier and better. 

AMD at first had a good idea. They saw what Intel was trying to do with the P4 but couldn't because of heat and wattage. Took a wild guess that bulldozer could pull it off with high clock speed and the module was better then Hyperthreading. But if you have a CEO and board that decides to spend 5 billion when they just have 1.5 kinda puts a monkey wrench in it. You end up selling your Fabs to keep from going bankrupt and come up with the idea of a APU. Because the GPU company you bought is the only thing left intact and because of the above you destroyed your CPU dept.


----------



## Virssagòn

Intel_man said:


> Back in the Athlon days, the AMD was faster in gaming, but since the P4 was hyperthreaded, it was more usable for day to day applications.
> 
> 
> AMD really needs to step up their game... My i7 920 is still keeping up with current gen stuff without a huge difference in performance.



And how much has the intel architecture been changed after your i7 920? Clock for clock, your i7 won't be very far behind the newer gens.


----------



## G80FTW

SmileMan said:


> And how much has the intel architecture been changed after your i7 920? Clock for clock, your i7 won't be very far behind the newer gens.



Clock for clock the first gen i7s arent even close to the new gens from what iv seen.


----------



## Jiniix

We've seen a general ~10% increase in IPC per generation since the first gen i7 chips.
This is pretty theoretical, but should be true enough.
4th gen 4.125GHz = 3rd gen 4.540GHz = 2nd gen 4.992GHz = 1st 5.490GHz
To simplify: To keep up with a Haswell clocked at 4.125GHz, you would have to OC your chip to 5.5GHz to get the same single-threaded performance.
This isn't exact to the MHz, but it's the right model.


----------



## PCunicorn

G80FTW said:


> Clock for clock the first gen i7s arent even close to the new gens from what iv seen.



Maybe you should just get a custom loop and oc the hell out of that 970


----------



## Virssagòn

Jiniix said:


> We've seen a general ~10% increase in IPC per generation since the first gen i7 chips.
> This is pretty theoretical, but should be true enough.
> 4th gen 4.125GHz = 3rd gen 4.540GHz = 2nd gen 4.992GHz = 1st 5.490GHz
> To simplify: To keep up with a Haswell clocked at 4.125GHz, you would have to OC your chip to 5.5GHz to get the same single-threaded performance.
> This isn't exact to the MHz, but it's the right model.



After the second gen it increased only by 5% or less... You're basing yourself on promises that Intel made in the past. AMD may be wrong with their statement before launch, but Intel was at least as disappointing the last 2 years.


----------



## spirit

Yeah, really the 4670K is not a massive leap from the 3570K and I was a little underwhelmed when I replaced my i5 760 with a 2500K in 2012. Don't get me wrong, I do love my 2500K, but I think I could have hung onto my 760 for a little longer.


----------



## Intel_man

Especially with the fact that games are more leaning towards more calculations on the GPU, the CPU bottleneck in a game isn't even a huge thing anymore.


----------



## Virssagòn

Intel_man said:


> Especially with the fact that games are more leaning towards more calculations on the GPU, the CPU bottleneck in a game isn't even a huge thing anymore.



Jup, and when you use higher settings, the gap is even smaller  Pretty funny though.


----------



## Virssagòn

Kaveri at 4.5Ghz:






Comparing to an A10 6790K at 5GHz - 'A10 6790K(OC)'


----------



## Jiniix

So at 4.5GHz it's about the same a 6790/6800K @ 5GHz? Neat.
Have you tried for higher clocks?


----------



## StrangleHold

For the price I think they suck. I use to recommend the 6000 series for people that use onboard. These are over priced. Got a old FX 8120, even running at 4.2 beats the 6970 at 5.0 and the 7850K at 4.5. Got a total of 12076. The 8120 beats the crap out of it running at between 4.5 and 5.0. Can get a 8320 cheaper. Not impressed.


----------



## Virssagòn

Jiniix said:


> So at 4.5GHz it's about the same a 6790/6800K @ 5GHz? Neat.
> Have you tried for higher clocks?



This is the score from someone else. I'm getting the APU later for review, that will be in a week though...
And I'll probably won't get far with only a CM Hyper 212 EVO. The 6790K was under watercooling, but that watersetup is damaged, so I got a cheap aircooler.


----------



## Intel_man

My 3? year old i7 920 @ 3.6GHz is on par with that Kaveri.



Intel_man said:


>


----------



## G80FTW

Intel_man said:


> My 3? year old i7 920 @ 3.6GHz is on par with that Kaveri.



But the Kaveri is an APU which has a whole different purpose and design than a standard i7.

Although Im not entirely sure why AMD decided to bring an APU into the market. Perhaps someday I will build a rig with just the APU and see how it really does in gaming.


----------



## jp198780

should I be running higher? 
I5 3570K
6GB Corsair XMS3

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/800x600q90/547/xub7.png


----------



## turbobooster




----------



## turbobooster




----------



## turbobooster




----------



## Virssagòn

Well, that's a big improvement . You see! Ram speed and timings help to get higher scores...


----------



## turbobooster

Yes I now, and every improvement is a improvement.


----------



## G80FTW

SmileMan said:


> Well, that's a big improvement . You see! Ram speed and timings help to get higher scores...



I still dont see my numbers on the chart   I was all excited about my score.


----------



## Virssagòn

G80FTW said:


> I still dont see my numbers on the chart   I was all excited about my score.



Hmm yes, I'll be adding the newer results friday , because right now I'm studying very hardly for a big maths test friday....


----------



## mr.doom

I just got a new laptop and I am shocked by how powerful these things are nowadays! (I know I sound old


----------



## Virssagòn

That's a pretty nice score for a laptop!


----------



## spirit

@mr.doom what laptop did you get?


----------



## mr.doom

I got the Lenovo Y510P.

i7, Nvidia 755 in SLI and such, it is a beast. Plays games nicely.


----------



## spirit

Nice. I like the Lenovo ThinkPads a lot.


----------



## Jiniix

The only thing about them I don't like, is that it seems random if you need to use the FN-key or not. I often have to go into Audit Mode on these laptops for a client, and sometimes it's ctrl-shift-fn-f3, sometimes it's just ctrl-shift-f3. Even worse for boot menus  But build-quality and specs are generally good.


----------



## mr.doom

I am generally very pleased with this laptop. Performance is like I have never experienced on a laptop, which just goes to say, how good Haswell processors are. SLI is working very well, and I am still to have any issues with it. Speakers are good too, for a laptop. I am very sensitive to sound and I get annoyed with even slightest bad quality, but those JBLs are relatively ok. For a laptop, like I said 

Cons would be:
1. I switched from a 13" MacBook Pro and the size and weight difference is HUGE!
2. The bezel around the screen is unnecessarily thick.
3. The power brick is huge and heavy.
4. In-built webcam is truly horrible quality (I would have rather not have it at all, and be able to have thinner bezels with larger screen).

Otherwise it is a really good laptop and good value as well, when you consider the performance it has.


----------



## PCunicorn

The 4 threaded seems very low.


----------



## turbobooster

PCunicorn said:


> The 4 threaded seems very low.



I don't think that only the 4 tread is low.
also the multi tread seems low.

in this score your multi is higher, but my previous score my multi is higher.
I now the overall score is higer with me because your 4 tread is so low, but why is your multi tread lower then mine

why do I score higher with a amd fx 8120 at 4.4ghz then you do with your fx 8350 at 4.6


----------



## PCunicorn

Maybe I'll try running it again later. Maybe it was a one time thing.


----------



## spirit

Run it again but this time make sure Steam is closed. It's made a difference for me in the past.


----------



## turbobooster

yes probably how more disabled the more memory it can use.


----------



## PCunicorn

Ran it again (everything closed except the nVidia driver, Steam exited), much better.


----------



## turbobooster

PCunicorn said:


> Ran it again (everything closed except the nVidia driver, Steam exited), much better.



yes much better


----------



## PCunicorn

Its kinda funny, I'm almost exactly the same as a 4670K at the same frequency.


----------



## turbobooster




----------



## G80FTW

PCunicorn said:


> Its kinda funny, I'm almost exactly the same as a 4670K at the same frequency.



Shouldnt be horribly surprising since you do have twice as many physical cores.  Still a bit shy from my 970 though


----------



## Virssagòn

For the people wanting to help me, please like and *share* the new BlackHoleTec Facebook page! https://www.facebook.com/BlackHoleTec


----------



## Virssagòn

Well, Kaveri scores pretty well in Black Hole:
stock A10 7850K





CPU-z rejects it this time it seems... Yesterday it worked okay


----------



## Intel_man

Lol nice clock speeds.


----------



## Virssagòn

Intel_man said:


> Lol nice clock speeds.



Yeah, cpu-z was doing weird, now it works just fine.


----------



## CorruptHawkeyez

Getting an error trying to load up the program. Ran it as administrator and still getting the error.

The error is: INput string was not in correct format.


----------



## turbobooster

for a older gen cpu, the i7 975 extreme, asus p6t delux v2, not a bad score


----------



## turbobooster




----------



## Virssagòn

turbobooster said:


>



Wow, that's pretty awesome!

Back into the old wilco?


----------



## Virssagòn

CorruptHawkeyez said:


> Getting an error trying to load up the program. Ran it as administrator and still getting the error.
> 
> The error is: INput string was not in correct format.



Try the fix on the support page: Support


----------



## CorruptHawkeyez

SmileMan said:


> Try the fix on the support page: Support



That fixed it, thanks.


----------



## spirit

Good tech support there Rob. Better than a lot of companies I know of!  :good:


----------



## turbobooster

SmileMan said:


> Wow, that's pretty awesome!
> 
> Back into the old wilco?



yes back to the old, hahahaha.


----------



## turbobooster

so new score changed the memory speed, and a new vcore, to see what it will do.

will test for stability (not stable at this vcore and settings, so back to 4.1 higher vcore for 4.2 it gives me to much vcore I think.
so vcore now under load 1.264 and stable


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Good tech support there Rob. Better than a lot of companies I know of!  :good:



Thanks .
That bug was found ages ago, the fix has been online for 5 months and people still don't seem to find the site.


----------



## turbobooster

so still not now the max, but happy at the moment for 24/7 (hope so)


----------



## Calin

I'm looking at the results... no FXs, gonna be first!!!


----------



## turbobooster

Calin said:


> I'm looking at the results... no FXs, gonna be first!!!



no true, but the are good cpu,s asnd the cost less, and when you stream the are very good.
also in this benchmark i am faster at 4.0 then a fx 8120 at 4.5, but in cinebench i,am slower.


----------



## Calin

Currently stock... will OC soon, after runinng valley.


----------



## spirit

You beat me, Calin. 

Mind you, I dunno if I had stuff running in the background or not.


----------



## Virssagòn

I say for the last time, you have to look at the separate scores to judge which one is the best for your uses. For gaming and regular stuff you're beating Calin. While Calin beats you in rendering and other multithreaded stuff.


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> I say for the last time, you have to look at the separate scores to judge which one is the best for your uses. For gaming and regular stuff you're beating Calin. While Calin beats you in rendering and other multithreaded stuff.



Sorry, didn't read all 27 pages of this thread before posting my new scores. 

Yeah I see where you're coming from. Fair enough. I know from rendering/producing stuff on this PC that my i5 2500K is still pretty quick though.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Sorry, didn't read all 27 pages of this thread before posting my new scores.
> 
> Yeah I see where you're coming from. Fair enough. I know from rendering/producing stuff on this PC that my i5 2500K is still pretty quick though.



Yeah, that sandy bridge i5 is still one of the most legendary cpus intel has had over the years


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> Yeah, that sandy bridge i5 is still one of the most legendary cpus intel has had over the years



I know. It's so badass. So was the i5 I owned previous to it: the 760. 

Should be getting another i5 in the summer, this time an i5-4200M in a Lenovo ThinkPad T540p laptop. Will be benchmarking it with this!

I am 'the i5 man'.


----------



## PCunicorn

Nice wallpaper Jason


----------



## Darren

PCunicorn said:


> Nice wallpaper Jason



Damn it you beat me to it.

I'll bench my laptop when I get it. See if the A10 is as bad as Jason says.


----------



## spirit

PCunicorn said:


> Nice wallpaper Jason





Denther said:


> Damn it you beat me to it.
> 
> I'll bench my laptop when I get it. See if the A10 is as bad as Jason says.



Haha cheers guys.  I was waiting to see who'd say it first.  You might be able to recognise who it is...

And yeah it'll be interesting to see what the A10 gets. Take it you're still going to go with it?


----------



## Virssagòn

Denther said:


> Damn it you beat me to it.
> 
> I'll bench my laptop when I get it. See if the A10 is as bad as Jason says.



Yeah,  Richland laptop APUs are pretty bad... But the upcoming Kaveri ones will be much better for the use in laptops. The IPC is improved by much and they'll perform better on lower clockspeeds.


----------



## Calin

spirit said:


> You beat me, Calin.
> 
> Mind you, I dunno if I had stuff running in the background or not.




4.5


----------



## Darren

SmileMan said:


> Yeah,  Richland laptop APUs are pretty bad... But the upcoming Kaveri ones will be much better for the use in laptops. The IPC is improved by much and they'll perform better on lower clockspeeds.



When do they come out?


----------



## Virssagòn

Denther said:


> When do they come out?



H2 from this year


----------



## Darren

smileman said:


> h2 from this year



h2?


----------



## Calin

Denther said:


> h2?


Half 2 I think


----------



## turbobooster

Calin said:


> 4.5



very nice score, but i,m really suprised to see that a score more at 4.0ghz


----------



## Virssagòn

Calin said:


> Half 2 I think



Yup, I need to do some research though. I'll ask my friend at AMD for the official slides and dates.


----------



## Okedokey




----------



## turbobooster

Okedokey said:


>



very nice score, in time i whant to test if i can hit 5.0ghz.


----------



## Okedokey

turbobooster said:


> very nice score, in time i whant to test if i can hit 5.0ghz.



Yeah, that was my first run.  I just hit watercooling profile in the bios, bumped the clocks to 50 and then restarted.  It was easy.


----------



## spirit

Here's the E5300. Also got a Core 2 Quad Q8300, an i3 3220 and an i7 3770 to bench at some point.


----------



## Okedokey

invalid, you spelt computer forum incorrectly. 

interesting thought, half the wattage, half the frequency, a quarter of the performance...


----------



## spirit

Okedokey said:


> invalid, you spelt computer forum incorrectly.
> 
> interesting thought, half the wattage, half the frequency, a quarter of the performance...


Yeah I noticed that after I uploaded it. Dammit. 

Assuming you're comparing it to your i7 4820K, the E5300 also has a quarter of the threads (2 vs 8).


----------



## turbobooster

Okedokey said:


> Yeah, that was my first run.  I just hit watercooling profile in the bios, bumped the clocks to 50 and then restarted.  It was easy.



ye at the moment i dont have watercooling, so have to test on air.
lets see how high i can go, later.


----------



## Okedokey

spirit said:


> Yeah I noticed that after I uploaded it. Dammit.
> 
> Assuming you're comparing it to your i7 4820K, the E5300 also has a quarter of the threads (2 vs 8).



or twice the power per thread?


----------



## spirit

Okedokey said:


> or twice the power per thread?



Yeah that's another way of looking at it.

The E5300 is a pretty weak CPU now. It will be interesting to see what score I get when I bench my i3 3220 a bit later on (today - hopefully). I know the i3 has an extra pair of threads but it'll be interesting to compare nonetheless. 

It'll also be interesting to compare the i3 to the Q8300 when I get around to benching to that too. I reckon the i3 will score higher.


----------



## Okedokey

An e8400 at 4ghz might give the I 3 a go


----------



## spirit

Well here's the Q8300 at stock (2.5GHz).

This is with 4GB of DDR2 by the way (forgot to add that to the Notepad description).

i3 and i7 coming later. 





computerforum.com spelled correctly this time.


----------



## spirit

i3 3220. Way faster than the E5300 and even faster than the Q8300 (not a great surprise though).


----------



## Calin

Okedokey said:


> An e8400 at 4ghz might give the I 3 a go


I can do it, but the board is broken.
Btw, spirit, your wallpaper on the last page hurts my eyes.
When is the update coming btw?


----------



## spirit

Calin said:


> Btw, spirit, your wallpaper on the last page hurts my eyes.



Oh, haha.


----------



## Calin

Anyway, OC the Q8300, maybe it'll beat the i3


----------



## spirit

Calin said:


> Anyway, OC the Q8300, maybe it'll beat the i3



Can't overclock it. For a start, the Q8300 isn't a great overclocker anyway (Q8xxx Core 2 Quads didn't overclock as well as the Q6xxx and Q9xxx chips did) and secondly, the board doesn't support overclocking - it's only a basic G45 board I believe. Not got aftermarket cooling on it either, only the stock Intel one. And this chip runs quite hot!


----------



## Virssagòn

Have been testing the kaveri APU today, but I forgot to take a shot of the score...
I wasn't able to reach 5GHz for some reason. But I've got a score for 4.7GHz!
Posting a picture with cpu-z... tomorrow, for the moment I got this:

TOTAL: 11244
4THREADS: 3908
MULTI: 4412
SINGLE: 2924

It could be that I had heat issues when I tried at 4.8GHz. But I don't know if it's true or not since the sensor on the chip doesn't seem to work well. One program says I'm over 100 and the other says that I'm stil 50 off the limit -.-
Will try with extreme watercooling later though.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> i3 3220. Way faster than the E5300 and even faster than the Q8300 (not a great surprise though).



And even then, your score should be higher... Pfff, all that bugs in the 4 threaded benchmark are a pain in the ass. The cross-platform version won't have that part included anymore.


----------



## turbobooster

oke today i tested the max Multi of my cpu, just by upping the multiplier, so i stayed away from fsb just did 35x133 (4.67ghz) vcore of 1.4 diddent start.
multiplier 34x133 (4.5ghz) no problem.
no other settings where made.

is this oke for a i7 975.


----------



## Virssagòn

turbobooster said:


> oke today i tested the max Multi of my cpu, just by upping the multiplier, so i stayed away from fsb just did 35x133 (4.67ghz) vcore of 1.4 diddent start.
> multiplier 34x133 (4.5ghz) no problem.
> no other settings where made.
> 
> is this oke for a i7 975.



That's a good overclock you got there! :good:


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> And even then, your score should be higher... Pfff, all that bugs in the 4 threaded benchmark are a pain in the ass. The cross-platform version won't have that part included anymore.



I think the scores I got for my i3 are reasonable. I was expecting those kinds of scores. It's not overclocked or anything, just running at stock.

I will bench the i7 3770 soon and I might also try the Atom in the Acer netbook Dad has.


----------



## Virssagòn

To compare richland with Kaveri at the same clocks (4.1 base / 4.4 turbo)

--------------------*A10 6800K-----------A10 7850K*
*Multi  *......................3420 ....................... 3836................*+10,8%*
*4Threaded  *..............3132.........................3372................*+7,1%*
*Single*......................2484.........................2546................*+2.4%*

Not as much as I thought it would be... Anyway, when I test the A10 6800K at 5GHz and the A10 7850K at 4.7Ghz, Kaveri wins in every bench including this one? Weird stuff xD


----------



## Calin

When are you gonna update the scores?


----------



## Virssagòn

Calin said:


> When are you gonna update the scores?



Currently writing the kaveri review. I'll try to do it after the review, but I want to enjoy the rest of my hollidays though


----------



## Calin

SmileMan said:


> Currently writing the kaveri review. I'll try to do it after the review, but I want to enjoy the rest of my hollidays though


Okay.


----------



## Calin

Lol the e8400 beats the 8350 on singlethread
Sorry for double posts I didnt saw that the last post was mine too.


----------



## Virssagòn

Calin said:


> Lol the e8400 beats the 8350 on singlethread
> Sorry for double posts I didnt saw that the last post was mine too.



Yea, AMDs singlethreaded didn't really improve much the last years...


----------



## Calin

SmileMan said:


> Yea, AMDs singlethreaded didn't really improve much the last years...


I know, but I didn't expected it to be so low.


----------



## spirit

Another benchmark - got myself an older PC today with an Athlon 64 X2 4450e and 2GBs of DDR2 RAM. Not the fastest.


----------



## Calin

spirit said:


> Another benchmark - got myself an older PC today with an Athlon 64 X2 4450e and 2GBs of DDR2 RAM. Not the fastest.


OC it


----------



## spirit

Calin said:


> OC it



Can't mate. This is in an HP Pro desktop...


----------



## Calin

spirit said:


> Can't mate. This is in an HP Pro desktop...


Oh ok. I never had a prebuild. Only PCs build by me or my dad's friend.


----------



## spirit

Calin said:


> Oh ok. I never had a prebuild. Only PCs build by me or my dad's friend.



Yeah usually when buying for myself I always go with custom builds and all of the PCs in our home are custom builds apart from a few (including this one) which were salvaged from offices who were replacing them and throwing them out.


----------



## Calin

spirit said:


> Yeah usually when buying for myself I always go with custom builds and all of the PCs in our home are custom builds apart from a few (including this one) which were salvaged from offices who were replacing them and throwing them out.


How many do you have?


----------



## spirit

Calin said:


> How many do you have?



I personally own three desktops, but we have six desktops in our household and a netbook and a little server.


----------



## Calin

spirit said:


> I personally own three desktops, but we have six desktops in our household and a netbook and a little server.


Lol, I have this, another one that I'll build with the old e8400 once I'll get a cooler for it (stock cooler is broken) and a Pentium 1. My dad has an i3 laptop, as well as my mom


----------



## Calin

spirit said:


> I personally own three desktops, but we have six desktops in our household and a netbook and a little server.



I have this, another one that ill build with the e8400 once ill get a cooler for it (old one is broken) and a pentium 1.
My father has an i3 laptop and my mom a 2300E one with XP.


----------



## Virssagòn

Currently 4 pc's up and running for my own use .
If you count the pc's of my 2 brothers and 2 parents with it + the 2 laptops + 2 servers. You got 12 working computers in our house + an old pentium 4 server.


----------



## turbobooster

Did a new benchmark at 4.0ghz again, this time i used not the Multi to get to 4.0, but the bclk.


----------



## Calin

turbobooster said:


> Did a new benchmark at 4.0ghz again, this time i used not the Multi to get to 4.0, but the bclk.


Nice score!


----------



## turbobooster

so finaly my compleet stable overclock.
not bad for this older cpu under air.


----------



## Calin

turbobooster said:


> so finaly my compleet stable overclock.
> not bad for this older cpu under air.


Nice, better than my 8350.
Still waiting for the update...


----------



## turbobooster

Calin said:


> Nice, better than my 8350.
> Still waiting for the update...



what is going to be your update then.


----------



## Calin

I mean, I'm waiting for smileman to update the leaderboard...


----------



## turbobooster

Calin said:


> I mean, I'm waiting for smileman to update the leaderboard...



ahhhhh   thats going to be a long wait then hahahahaha


----------



## spirit

Calin said:


> I mean, I'm waiting for smileman to update the leaderboard...



Patience... people do have more important things to do.


----------



## Calin

spirit said:


> Patience... people do have more important things to do.


For me the most important thing is my pc lol . I understand he has other things to do, but did he even updated it in 2014?


----------



## spirit

Calin said:


> For me the most important thing is my pc lol . I understand he has other things to do, but did he even updated it in 2014?



Wait a few years and preparing for exams will become way more important than updating benchmark leaderboards on forums. Rob is a very busy man at the moment with exams (and I am too).


----------



## Calin

spirit said:


> Wait a few years and preparing for exams will become way more important than updating benchmark leaderboards on forums. Rob is a very busy man at the moment with exams (and I am too).


I think I'll fail some classes until I get there.


----------



## Okedokey

These two moan constantly about this.... even with an average of 6 posts a year....


----------



## turbobooster

Okedokey said:


> These two moan constantly about this.... even with an average of 6 posts a year....



these two???  who???


----------



## spirit

Going to see if I can test the i7 3770 today. 

We also have some *big* Xeons in the house at the moment since we have several brand new HP servers in waiting to be sold (with a crazy amount of RAM, like 96GB in one of them I think), so I'm going to give those a run too.


----------



## turbobooster

good luck.


----------



## Virssagòn

I'll make a webform where you can fill in your scores. That'll also take less time for me to update the scores
 If that's okay for cf of course?


----------



## Calin

Sound cool, do it!!


----------



## Virssagòn

Okay. Made the webform.
Only members of cf can submit and you still need to post a pic over here to verify the score.
Due to the amount of spammers I had previous time, it's required to have an account before you submit.

Here is the form. http://blackholetec.com/drupal7/content/computerforum-scores

I'll be in Paris for a week, so I'll update on Friday for the first time.


----------



## spirit

Sadly I couldn't run it on the Xeon hex-core server because BH requires .NET Framework 3.5 and for whatever reason Dad didn't want me to install that on the server, so unfortunately I can't post a score for that.

I can post a score for his i7 3770 @ stock (3.6GHz?) though. 

And no, I'm not going to overclock it, before you ask me, Calin.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Sadly I couldn't run it on the Xeon hex-core server because BH requires .NET Framework 3.5 and for whatever reason Dad didn't want me to install that on the server, so unfortunately I can't post a score for that.
> 
> I can post a score for his i7 3770 @ stock (3.6GHz?) though.
> 
> And no, I'm not going to overclock it, before you ask me, Calin.



Could you please use the database I made? Until now only Calin submitted to it, not enough to even look into it to update the chart.


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> Could you please use the database I made? Until now only Calin submitted to it, not enough to even look into it to update the chart.



Yeah I'll add all of my scores to it in a sec.

I'll be testing the i5-4200M in the ThinkPad when it arrives. Very excited!


----------



## spirit

Well I tried to add my score for the i7 to the database but it said it couldn't find the page when I tried to submit, so...


----------



## Calin

I remember that I got a similar error when I posted my fx score? Why do you use a sandy i5 over a ivy i7? Because the i7 is not overclockable?


----------



## spirit

Calin said:


> Why do you use a sandy i5 over a ivy i7? Because the i7 is not overclockable?



No because my Dad has the i7 in his PC.


----------



## Calin

spirit said:


> No because my Dad has the i7 in his PC.


Does he even use it on CPU intensive tasks? Because you can give him your i5 and get the i7


----------



## spirit

Calin said:


> Does he even use it on CPU intensive tasks? Because you can give him your i5 and get the i7



Yeah virtual machines and stuff like that. I do all that on my i5 and it's fine though (and I do photo and video editing too).

He's not gonna give up his i7. I've already swapped monitors with him and he's given all sorts of other bits for free, so...


----------



## Calin

spirit said:


> Yeah virtual machines and stuff like that. I do all that on my i5 and it's fine though (and I do photo and video editing too).
> 
> He's not gonna give up his i7. I've already swapped monitors with him and he's given all sorts of other bits for free, so...


Okay then, good for him


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Well I tried to add my score for the i7 to the database but it said it couldn't find the page when I tried to submit, so...



Fixed that


----------



## turbobooster

get an error running the benchmark

teller % processor time doesent exist



ystem.InvalidOperationException: Teller % Processor Time bestaat niet in de opgegeven Category.
   bij System.Diagnostics.CategorySample.GetCounterDefinitionSample(String counter)
   bij System.Diagnostics.PerformanceCounter.NextSample()
   bij System.Diagnostics.PerformanceCounter.NextValue()
   bij Black_Hole_V4_Beta2.Form1.Timer1_Tick(Object sender, EventArgs e)
   bij System.Windows.Forms.Timer.OnTick(EventArgs e)
   bij System.Windows.Forms.Timer.TimerNativeWindow.WndProc(Message& m)
   bij System.Windows.Forms.NativeWindow.Callback(IntPtr hWnd, Int32 msg, IntPtr wparam, IntPtr lparam)


************** Geladen assembly's **************
mscorlib
    Assembly-versie: 2.0.0.0
    Win32-versie: 2.0.50727.7052 (QFE.050727-7000)
    CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.NET/Framework/v2.0.50727/mscorlib.dll
----------------------------------------
Black Hole V4.2 Final
    Assembly-versie: 1.0.0.0
    Win32-versie: 1.0.0.0
    CodeBase: file:///C:/Users/GEBRUI~1.GEB/AppData/Local/Temp/Rar$EXa0.905/Black%20Hole%20V4.2%20Final.exe
----------------------------------------
Microsoft.VisualBasic
    Assembly-versie: 8.0.0.0
    Win32-versie: 8.0.50727.5420 (Win7SP1.050727-5400)
    CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/assembly/GAC_MSIL/Microsoft.VisualBasic/8.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/Microsoft.VisualBasic.dll
----------------------------------------
System
    Assembly-versie: 2.0.0.0
    Win32-versie: 2.0.50727.7052 (QFE.050727-7000)
    CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System/2.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.dll
----------------------------------------
System.Windows.Forms
    Assembly-versie: 2.0.0.0
    Win32-versie: 2.0.50727.7057 (QFE.050727-7000)
    CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Windows.Forms/2.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Windows.Forms.dll
----------------------------------------
System.Drawing
    Assembly-versie: 2.0.0.0
    Win32-versie: 2.0.50727.5467 (Win7SP1GDR.050727-5400)
    CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Drawing/2.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/System.Drawing.dll
----------------------------------------
System.Runtime.Remoting
    Assembly-versie: 2.0.0.0
    Win32-versie: 2.0.50727.5420 (Win7SP1.050727-5400)
    CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Runtime.Remoting/2.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Runtime.Remoting.dll
----------------------------------------
mscorlib.resources
    Assembly-versie: 2.0.0.0
    Win32-versie: 2.0.50727.7052 (QFE.050727-7000)
    CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.NET/Framework/v2.0.50727/mscorlib.dll
----------------------------------------
System.resources
    Assembly-versie: 2.0.0.0
    Win32-versie: 2.0.50727.5420 (Win7SP1.050727-5400)
    CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.resources/2.0.0.0_nl_b77a5c561934e089/System.resources.dll
----------------------------------------
System.Windows.Forms.resources
    Assembly-versie: 2.0.0.0
    Win32-versie: 2.0.50727.5420 (Win7SP1.050727-5400)
    CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Windows.Forms.resources/2.0.0.0_nl_b77a5c561934e089/System.Windows.Forms.resources.dll
----------------------------------------

************** JIT-foutopsporing **************
Als u JIT-foutopsporing wilt inschakelen, moet in het configuratiebestand voor deze
toepassing of computer (machine.config) de waarde
jitDebugging in het gedeelte system.windows.forms zijn ingesteld.
De toepassing moet ook zijn gecompileerd terwijl foutopsporing
was ingeschakeld.

Bijvoorbeeld:

<configuration>
    <system.windows.forms jitDebugging="true" />
</configuration>


----------



## Virssagòn

turbobooster said:


> get an error running the benchmark
> 
> teller % processor time doesent exist
> 
> 
> 
> ystem.InvalidOperationException: Teller % Processor Time bestaat niet in de opgegeven Category.
> bij System.Diagnostics.CategorySample.GetCounterDefinitionSample(String counter)
> bij System.Diagnostics.PerformanceCounter.NextSample()
> bij System.Diagnostics.PerformanceCounter.NextValue()
> bij Black_Hole_V4_Beta2.Form1.Timer1_Tick(Object sender, EventArgs e)
> bij System.Windows.Forms.Timer.OnTick(EventArgs e)
> bij System.Windows.Forms.Timer.TimerNativeWindow.WndProc(Message& m)
> bij System.Windows.Forms.NativeWindow.Callback(IntPtr hWnd, Int32 msg, IntPtr wparam, IntPtr lparam)
> 
> 
> ************** Geladen assembly's **************
> mscorlib
> Assembly-versie: 2.0.0.0
> Win32-versie: 2.0.50727.7052 (QFE.050727-7000)
> CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.NET/Framework/v2.0.50727/mscorlib.dll
> ----------------------------------------
> Black Hole V4.2 Final
> Assembly-versie: 1.0.0.0
> Win32-versie: 1.0.0.0
> CodeBase: file:///C:/Users/GEBRUI~1.GEB/AppData/Local/Temp/Rar$EXa0.905/Black%20Hole%20V4.2%20Final.exe
> ----------------------------------------
> Microsoft.VisualBasic
> Assembly-versie: 8.0.0.0
> Win32-versie: 8.0.50727.5420 (Win7SP1.050727-5400)
> CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/assembly/GAC_MSIL/Microsoft.VisualBasic/8.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/Microsoft.VisualBasic.dll
> ----------------------------------------
> System
> Assembly-versie: 2.0.0.0
> Win32-versie: 2.0.50727.7052 (QFE.050727-7000)
> CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System/2.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.dll
> ----------------------------------------
> System.Windows.Forms
> Assembly-versie: 2.0.0.0
> Win32-versie: 2.0.50727.7057 (QFE.050727-7000)
> CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Windows.Forms/2.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Windows.Forms.dll
> ----------------------------------------
> System.Drawing
> Assembly-versie: 2.0.0.0
> Win32-versie: 2.0.50727.5467 (Win7SP1GDR.050727-5400)
> CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Drawing/2.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/System.Drawing.dll
> ----------------------------------------
> System.Runtime.Remoting
> Assembly-versie: 2.0.0.0
> Win32-versie: 2.0.50727.5420 (Win7SP1.050727-5400)
> CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Runtime.Remoting/2.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Runtime.Remoting.dll
> ----------------------------------------
> mscorlib.resources
> Assembly-versie: 2.0.0.0
> Win32-versie: 2.0.50727.7052 (QFE.050727-7000)
> CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.NET/Framework/v2.0.50727/mscorlib.dll
> ----------------------------------------
> System.resources
> Assembly-versie: 2.0.0.0
> Win32-versie: 2.0.50727.5420 (Win7SP1.050727-5400)
> CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.resources/2.0.0.0_nl_b77a5c561934e089/System.resources.dll
> ----------------------------------------
> System.Windows.Forms.resources
> Assembly-versie: 2.0.0.0
> Win32-versie: 2.0.50727.5420 (Win7SP1.050727-5400)
> CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Windows.Forms.resources/2.0.0.0_nl_b77a5c561934e089/System.Windows.Forms.resources.dll
> ----------------------------------------
> 
> ************** JIT-foutopsporing **************
> Als u JIT-foutopsporing wilt inschakelen, moet in het configuratiebestand voor deze
> toepassing of computer (machine.config) de waarde
> jitDebugging in het gedeelte system.windows.forms zijn ingesteld.
> De toepassing moet ook zijn gecompileerd terwijl foutopsporing
> was ingeschakeld.
> 
> Bijvoorbeeld:
> 
> <configuration>
> <system.windows.forms jitDebugging="true" />
> </configuration>



Tried this already? http://blackholetec.com/drupal7/support


----------



## Calin

I posted my OLD score on the website, so that way you know it is me. Look at page 28..
It said dont forget to check. Check what?


----------



## spirit

Rob I have added the scores for the i5 2500K, i7 3770, i3 3220, Q8300, E5300 and the 4450e to the database. 

i5-4200M coming soon!


----------



## Calin

How do I see the CF scores on that site?


----------



## turbobooster

SmileMan said:


> Tried this already? http://blackholetec.com/drupal7/support



yes i did, still nothing.


----------



## turbobooster

my old cpu.


----------



## Okedokey

Lol it'll be your dead CPU if you run it at 75oC lol.


----------



## turbobooster

Okedokey said:


> Lol it'll be your dead CPU if you run it at 75oC lol.



no its not dead, but dident stress test it, at that speed and no for only benchmarking that temp is no problem at all, not even during stress test but of course not all the time.


----------



## Okedokey

Yeah, but its a nonsense test, you couldnt run that for even an hour without killing it.  75oC is an unstable overclock.  Either way, a good score.

BTW you said old CPU, why have you chosen a slower CPU (in your sig)? Also, why the hell do you have a 1200W PSU?  Your machine is so out of balance.


----------



## Virssagòn

This is what I received until now, didn't have much time, but here is a small table!


----------



## turbobooster

i sell and by pc,s somtimes.
the systeem i have now was bought this way but with no 2x 840.
the 1200w psu was in it.
and a seccond card is on his way now.

on the 2700k was my 24/7 overclock 4.7ghz and then it hit during stress test, linx 75 degrees, was compleet stable, let linx run 4 hours, and after that i did gaming rendering and all of that, without any problems.


----------



## Calin

I am 2 times in there? Lol I only submitted it one time the first time I tried I got an error. But apparently the database received it.


----------



## spirit

Calin said:


> I am 2 times in there? Lol I only submitted it one time the first time I tried I got an error. But apparently the database received it.



Yeah same here for my i7 3770 score. Better to appear twice than not at all though.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Yeah same here for my i7 3770 score. Better to appear twice than not at all though.



Hmm, I remember I deleted the duplicate on the i7, but it seems like you submitted a third time? Or am I blind this time?


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> Hmm, I remember I deleted the duplicate on the i7, but it seems like you submitted a third time? Or am I blind this time?


Only submitted it twice, unless I tried twice the other night and it failed and then I tried again last night and it was successful...


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Only submitted it twice, unless I tried twice the other night and it failed and then I tried again last night and it was successful...



Well, I'm still tired from my holliday in Paris. A hard week for my body and especially my mind.


----------



## Calin

spirit said:


> Yeah same here for my i7 3770 score. Better to appear twice than not at all though.


True :good:


----------



## Calin

1 Module / 2 Cores / 2 Threads 4 ghz... worser than my E8400.






And the E8400


----------



## Calin

4.7 ghz, gonna run 4.8 stress test right after posting tthis


----------



## Calin

Sorry for multiple posts guys 
5GHz, maximum


----------



## Virssagòn

Repost for entering the recent database:


----------



## Okedokey

Where's my score then ?


----------



## Virssagòn

Okedokey said:


> Where's my score then ?



Saw it in the database 
Updating it this evening.
Also post the image on here, so everyone can admire your achievements 

Here is Okedokeys score!


----------



## Virssagòn

UPDATE!!


----------



## turbobooster

shit, yes my highest score was not  oke but you now I did score higher hahaha


----------



## turbobooster




----------



## spirit

Got the ThinkPad L540 today. Will probably post a score for the i5 4200M tomorrow or on Sunday.


----------



## Darren

To go with that. Here's my 4200U. It's a Dual Core with HT and a 1.6GHz clock with 2.6 Turbo for 1 core and 2.4 to both cores. 






And here's my 8320 at stock. Windows was telling me that I only had 3 threads running during the 4 thread test. It was, 1, 3, and 7 for some weird reason. I feel like it's done that before too. Edit: Ran just 4 threads again and it gave me the same score but showed 4 cores (1, 3, 5, and 7) running that time.


----------



## Okedokey

Wow really shows that "Haswell Hurt" on the 8350 lol!  PWND!


----------



## Darren

That's still a respectable score for a sub 200 dollar chip.


----------



## turbobooster

even an older cpu of intel wil hurt the 8350, so what.


----------



## spirit

Not quite sure what's up with the appearance of Black Hole (looks like Calin had the same problem too, maybe it's our screen resolutions?) but here is an i5 4200M. It's about on par with an i3 3220 and a Core 2 Quad Q8300.


----------



## turbobooster

nice score for the i5 4200M


----------



## Virssagòn

Denther said:


> And here's my 8320 at stock. Windows was telling me that I only had 3 threads running during the 4 thread test. It was, 1, 3, and 7 for some weird reason. I feel like it's done that before too. Edit: Ran just 4 threads again and it gave me the same score but showed 4 cores (1, 3, 5, and 7) running that time.



You had the 4threaded bug. This bug happens with some FX 8 core or i7 setups. The benchmark tries to run the 4 threads on only 2 of the 4 physicals. Running it a second time should solve it.

Edit: weird that you didn't get an higher score when running it again?


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Not quite sure what's up with the appearance of Black Hole (looks like Calin had the same problem too, maybe it's our screen resolutions?) but here is an i5 4200M. It's about on par with an i3 3220 and a Core 2 Quad Q8300.



Finally got that thinkpad? 
Nice score btw.
Yea, I saw that bug with the design earlier.


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> Finally got that thinkpad?
> Nice score btw.
> Yea, I saw that bug with the design earlier.



Yes, thanks.


----------



## Darren

That's decently higher than the 4200U. Also, we need to have a talk about your background.


----------



## ghost

Here's our new build


----------



## spirit

Denther said:


> That's decently higher than the 4200U. Also, we need to have a talk about your background.



Haha changed it now to a photo of an F-16 I took at an airshow last year.


----------



## Virssagòn

Just to say ****it to the old:
The newest Haswell refresh: the i7 4790 (non-K) at a stock speed of 3.6GHz





The review on BlackHoleTec follow soon!
However, the only real improvement is the advanced TIM...


----------



## Virssagòn

ghost said:


> Here's our new build



Well, nice multithreaded is all I can say


----------



## turbobooster

will soon post the score of my new rig.


----------



## spirit

Re-run on the ThinkPad (and new desktop background!  )


----------



## Virssagòn

Tried some overclocking, this is how far I could get the chip: 3956MHz base and 4148MHz turbo. Higher block would instantly crash.





Sad that this chip isn't unlocked, I got so nice temperatures... Anyway, I achieved an higher score than I thought I could squeeze out it.


----------



## turbobooster

first attempt, and yes i now its in dual channel, going to fix that by adding 2 extra sticks.


----------



## turbobooster




----------



## Okedokey

SmileMan said:


> Well, nice multithreaded is all I can say



invalid bro, 0.8V at 1.2GHz.  My other scores have been scratched for less.


----------



## Virssagòn

Okedokey said:


> invalid bro, 0.8V at 1.2GHz.  My other scores have been scratched for less.



Yea, I'd prefer a pic of the clockspeed and voltage when the cpu is loaded.


----------



## ghost

SmileMan said:


> Well, nice multithreaded is all I can say



Yeah thanks dude, its a stock Xeon E5 2697 server CPU crammed in a desktop pc. 12 core with HT


----------



## Okedokey

ghost said:


> Yeah thanks dude, its a stock Xeon E5 2697 server CPU crammed in a desktop pc. 12 core with HT



Essentially a 4960K - crank up those clocks...


----------



## salvage-this

Double actually.  I completely missed that Intel made 12 cores.

http://ark.intel.com/products/75283/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2697-v2-30M-Cache-2_70-GHz?q=e5 2697


----------



## Virssagòn

salvage-this said:


> Double actually.  I completely missed that Intel made 12 cores.
> 
> http://ark.intel.com/products/75283/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2697-v2-30M-Cache-2_70-GHz?q=e5 2697



Weird enough an average 4960K scores only 1600-1700 less on the multithreaded test. I'd like to see those 2 at the same clockspeed


----------



## Okedokey

Ghost, is the binary output scalable to 24 threads?


----------



## turbobooster




----------



## Jiniix

Had to install Windows 7 on a Fujitsu MX130 S2 server today, thought I'd run BH 







Seems very low, but then again, it's an underclocked 8350


----------



## spirit

Yeah it's not much faster than the i5 4200M in my laptop and that's a dual-core with HT!

The 4200M got about 7,500 or so...


----------



## Virssagòn

Jiniix said:


> Had to install Windows 7 on a Fujitsu MX130 S2 server today, thought I'd run BH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems very low, but then again, it's an underclocked 8350



I've to admit that this is a very very low score. Any chance of getting the system run BH a second time?


----------



## Jiniix

Already shipped to the client. I ran two runs, and the first one was a few points lower. 
I've seen RAM make a difference in the test and this one was using a single stick of 4GB 1333MHz ECC RAM, FYI.


----------



## turbobooster

difference quad channel and dual channel.
oke did a blackhole test with dual channel 16gb and 16gb quad channel.
exactly the same settings for the rest.

the lowest score is the dual so the 1 on the right.


----------



## Virssagòn

These are the systems I'll be testing after exams:
















Got them here already, wish me luck with those reviews !


----------



## Virssagòn

Kaveri does pretty good at higher clocks. The only problem is that up from 4.6GHz, you'll need to increase the voltage by very much to make it stable again... So Kaveri is maybe an improvement in IPC, but certainly not an improvement in overclocking abilities, so overclocking headroom stays the same. Richland has a higher base clock, but can reach 5GHz easily. Anyway, could have been the heat as well, but my temp sensors seem to be faulty.
After exams I'll go for at least 5GHz!


----------



## Okedokey

SmileMan said:


> These are the systems I'll be testing after exams:
> 
> Got them here already, wish me luck with those reviews !



Nice man, just make sure you give it epic cooling and volts!!! I wanna see a fire!


----------



## Virssagòn

Okedokey said:


> Nice man, just make sure you give it epic cooling and volts!!! I wanna see a fire!



Well, these scores are including 2 laptops and 1 locked i7 4790, so you won't see much fire there... Or do you mean that Kaveri setup? I'll be putting an open loop on the kaveri, like I did with richland when I ran blackhole on 5.2GHz.


----------



## Okedokey

Ah k, no worries, lucky boy!~  whoops you're a man now!!! ahhahah


----------



## Virssagòn

Got the i7 4790K on the testing bench since yesterday. These are his stock scores:





Overclocked ones come later


----------



## turbobooster

24/7 overclock


----------



## Okedokey

I wouldve expected higher from that turbo!


----------



## turbobooster

Okedokey said:


> I wouldve expected higher from that turbo!



it will, this is just my 24/7 overclock, problem for a higher overclock 24/7 is the corsair h75


----------



## Okedokey

turbobooster said:


> it will, this is just my 24/7 overclock, problem for a higher overclock 24/7 is the corsair h75



You have it in push pull fan installation?

Make sure Qfan is disabled in the bios or connect the CPU fans to a direct 12V source (e.g. molex to fan converter) to ensure they're at max and see what you get for temps that way.  Also putting good quality TIM on every so often helps.

I have a 420 mm (10 cm thick) and a 240mm rad on my CPU so i can run it at 5GHz less than 15oC delta.  But boy, does it warm up my study!


----------



## turbobooster

Okedokey said:


> You have it in push pull fan installation?
> 
> Make sure Qfan is disabled in the bios or connect the CPU fans to a direct 12V source (e.g. molex to fan converter) to ensure they're at max and see what you get for temps that way.  Also putting good quality TIM on every so often helps.
> 
> I have a 420 mm (10 cm thick) and a 240mm rad on my CPU so i can run it at 5GHz less than 15oC delta.  But boy, does it warm up my study!



Yes its push pull, and when I run benchmarks or stresstest the fans are running at  100% 
At the moment the TIM what came with the cooler its on it, normally a use cooler master IC Essential E2


----------



## Okedokey

turbobooster said:


> Yes its push pull, and when I run benchmarks or stresstest the fans are running at  100%
> At the moment the TIM what came with the cooler its on it, normally a use cooler master IC Essential E2



Yeah well do yourself a favour, get some Arctic Silver 5 and replace that TIM.  I have seen up to 10oC drop doing so...


----------



## Virssagòn

Okedokey said:


> Yeah well do yourself a favour, get some Arctic Silver 5 and replace that TIM.  I have seen up to 10oC drop doing so...



Doesn't help that much though. In my tests the Chill Factor III from thermalright came out as best TIM. I tried these: Arctic Silver 5, be quiet! DC, default scythe paste, default CM TIM (came out as worst with a 6c difference compared to chill factor III) and noctua's default.

Be aware that every paste needs up to a week regular use to run on its full potential. Especially the Arctic Silver 5


----------



## turbobooster

Okedokey said:


> Yeah well do yourself a favour, get some Arctic Silver 5 and replace that TIM.  I have seen up to 10oC drop doing so...



tried the artic silver, after that I bought the cooler master gold, temp dropped for me, but run out of it, so that's why I have the thim on what came on the cooler


----------



## Okedokey

SmileMan said:


> Doesn't help that much though. In my tests the Chill Factor III from thermalright came out as best TIM. I tried these: Arctic Silver 5, be quiet! DC, default scythe paste, default CM TIM (came out as worst with a 6c difference compared to chill factor III) and noctua's default.
> 
> Be aware that every paste needs up to a week regular use to run on its full potential. Especially the Arctic Silver 5



So the worst one came out at a a 6oC drop... id call that a big help


----------



## Virssagòn

Okedokey said:


> So the worst one came out at a a 6oC drop... id call that a big help



I'm awaiting some cryorig stuff, after that I'll put a review on about the TIMs I tested.


----------



## turbobooster

for the moment enough, lol.


----------



## turbobooster

hahahaha    funnyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy


----------



## Virssagòn

turbobooster said:


> hahahaha    funnyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy



Lightning fast! Where do you buy this premium stuff?!


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> Lightning fast! Where do you buy this premium stuff?!



The local rubbish dump?


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> The local rubbish dump?



On my way...


----------



## Virssagòn

To make you curious for what is coming...


----------



## spirit

Time for overclocking!!


----------



## turbobooster

no it is the old pc from a friend of mine.


----------



## turbobooster

SmileMan said:


> To make you curious for what is coming...



lets join hahaah time for winter temps.


----------



## Virssagòn

turbobooster said:


> lets join hahaah time for winter temps.



If it's a success, we'll probably do one in winter (European) as well. Even crazier stuff happens in these cold temperatures


----------



## turbobooster

mrkieranb1997 said:


> Free live Streams http://letmestreamit.org.uk/



Thanks


----------



## Jiniix

Will test an Intel Xeon E5450 (12M Cache, 3.00 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB, BOX : $969.00, LGA771, Q4'07) later today.
Got it working in my Gigabyte G31M-S2L (LGA775) with minimal modding!  Only a $2 adapter, a bit of glue and a box cutter was needed.
Gonna attempt a dirty quick overclock as well, hoping for around 4GHz, but board is not overclocking friendly


----------



## Jiniix

Here's the Xeon E5450 at stock speeds (2x2GB DDR2-667MHz if it matters):






As I said, this chip has a small adapter to switch two pins, making it fit a 775 motherboard. But I've stress tested the crap out of it, rock solid.
Will be the base of my new LAN rig  Only gets 50C on load with a $15 cpu cooler (mind you the 212 evo is $50 here).


----------



## Virssagòn

Well, the competition is not far away and the first announcement is made:
http://blackholetec.com/main/article/announcement-black-hole-mayhem

Prizes will be revealed on monday, sponsors are already known! Good luck to everyone who decides to join!


----------



## Virssagòn

Well, the competition launched! Prizes revealed.

Hope to see you all in there soon!
http://blackholetec.com/main/article/competition-black-hole-mayhem


----------



## spirit

My entry for the Black Hole Mayhem - i5 2500K @ 4.3GHz (currently the fastest thing I have in the house since the 24-threaded server I had in briefly went to it's buyer lately  )







Probably not going to win based on points because turbobooster has already owned me by about 4,000 points with a 4670K @ 4.8GHz in the 4-threaded cateogry but maybe I'll be randomly drawn for a prize...


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> My entry for the Black Hole Mayhem - i5 2500K @ 4.3GHz (currently the fastest thing I have in the house since the 24-threaded server I had in briefly went to it's buyer lately  )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably not going to win based on points because turbobooster has already owned me by about 4,000 points with a 4670K @ 4.8GHz in the 4-threaded cateogry but maybe I'll be randomly drawn for a prize...



Haha, I think most extreme overclockers will wait till the end to submit to be entirely sure. Overclockers like TopDog and MadGoat are in the game as well.


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> Haha, I think most extreme overclockers will wait till the end to submit to be entirely sure. Overclockers like TopDog and MadGoat are in the game as well.



I would go beyond 4.5GHz but if I do that my board won't boot. I think I need better cooling or maybe my chip just is limited to 4.5GHz but it's still fast enough for me!


----------



## turbobooster

could not get to first place thought try 4.9ghz and if I come close I try higher, but nope so I just post the 4.9ghz benchmark here, still very nice for a 4670k.

on a corsair h105.


----------



## spirit

Jesus 14,500+ is an awesome score for an i5 4670K! That's a quad-core with no HT there! My 2500K @ 4.3GHz scores about 10,000!


----------



## spirit

Gotta love 1024x768 displays - I could barely fit everything on! 

This is on an old HP laptop. It's so slow as you can imagine with a 1.8GHz dual-core and 1GB of RAM.


----------



## turbobooster

spirit said:


> Jesus 14,500+ is an awesome score for an i5 4670K! That's a quad-core with no HT there! My 2500K @ 4.3GHz scores about 10,000!



thx yes and a overclock of 4.9ghz for a 4670k isn't bad also.
don't forget I'm just under a normal aio cooler.


----------



## spirit

4.9GHz on air is very impressive indeed! :good:


----------



## turbobooster

spirit said:


> 4.9GHz on air is very impressive indeed! :good:



not air, a corsair h105 but still good, and only 1.34v


----------



## spirit

turbobooster said:


> not air, a corsair h105 but still good, and only 1.34v



Oh sorry misread 'aio' as 'air' lol.


----------



## spirit

Final 'slow' CPU to bench - the Atom N450 in my netbook! 

BH didn't show the total score (probably because of the screen resolution being too low to actually display the entire window properly) but if you add all the numbers up it comes to 1,632. 







Fun fact of the day: A Core Duo T2400 is quite a bit faster than an Atom N450! 

It took ages for BH to run on this by the way - at least 20 minutes if not 30!


----------



## tylerjrb

thought id finally give this a try , forgot to put date and ram speed on it but it was today, 30/08/2014. With the latest version of bh benchmark and the RAM was running at 1601mhz (16gb) due to me having a few overclock problems with it earlier this week had it set down from 1866 to 1600. cpu is set at (100.1 x 50). Still very very happy with the result but wouldnt want to push the chip much further. Could maybe manage 5.1ghz but it starts to get really quite hot on the multi-threaded part of the bench. only managed to get it stable at 1.48v, could have taken the pll down a bit but didnt want to try get anymore out of it just wanted to go over 5ghz .

i wanted to try break 20,000 but didnt want to push it much further.

 if i need to re-run to make it valid and put the ram speed, name date etc then i will do.


----------



## Virssagòn

Great score! Not many people on this forum manage to write down such results!


----------



## Virssagòn

Holy mother of multithreading currently on the Black Hole testbench


----------



## Jiniix

So I had to install consumer hardware in a rack mount (I actually had to build 12 of these). Thought I'd run BH :good:










I set the options to XMP, so it might've made the turbo frequencies run on max on all cores, but other than that, it's stock (didn't check, didn't care)

_Intel i5-4690S
ASUS Z97-A
Corsair Vengeance 1600MHz 2x4GB
Chieftec 400W + rack case
WD 500GB Black
Intel Something NIC_


----------



## Jiniix

Came across a CPU I hadn't seen before - thought I'd run BH 

Intel Xeon E3 1226 v3 stock. Saw it run at 3.5GHz on all cores at multi and quad thread tests (I'm pretty sure it turbos to 3.7GHz on single core)


----------



## jamesd1981

Most recent Blackhole attempt, ran at 4.3 ghz oc


----------



## jamesd1981

Ivybridge build with intel pentium G2020 @ stock 2.9 GHZ with stock cooler


----------



## jamesd1981

Intel haswell build with G3258 @ stock 3.2 GHZ with stock cooler


----------



## jamesd1981

Intel haswell build with G3258 @ 3.4 GHZ OC with stock cooler


----------



## jamesd1981

Intel haswell build with G3258 @ 3.6 GHZ OC with stock cooler


----------



## Jiniix

How warm does it get with stock cooler? Read it should be quite chill.


----------



## jamesd1981

Jiniix said:


> How warm does it get with stock cooler? Read it should be quite chill.



What one Jiniix ? The G3258 was just above 40c at 3.6 GHZ, when I tried to go to 3.8 machine would not start, so will have to up the voltage to get higher, but temps do some pretty cool unlike my 4770k


----------



## Jiniix

Yeah, meant the G3258. 40C with stock cooler is pretty chill - regardless of OC. I assume it's on load?


----------



## jamesd1981

Jiniix said:


> Yeah, meant the G3258. 40C with stock cooler is pretty chill - regardless of OC. I assume it's on load?



Oh yes Jiniix that was when it was OC running Blackhole, when it`s at stock on idle or just light use like photo browsing  etc, it sits between 28 & 32 c

I think for £50 it is an absolute bargain, I would recommend it to anyone looking for a budget build.

I only have one system left on ivybridge when I upgrade that one it will certainly be replaced with another G3258 base.


----------



## turbobooster

did pull a oldie from the shell, still a good cpu, when it gets a bit colder try if and how much it will go over 5.0ghz.


----------



## FuryRosewood

I have to run this with the 4930k sometime, then OC.


----------



## ninjabubbles3

jamesd1981 said:


> Oh yes Jiniix that was when it was OC running Blackhole, when it`s at stock on idle or just light use like photo browsing  etc, it sits between 28 & 32 c
> 
> I think for £50 it is an absolute bargain, I would recommend it to anyone looking for a budget build.
> 
> I only have one system left on ivybridge when I upgrade that one it will certainly be replaced with another G3258 base.



I just got a Hyper 221 Plus, should be able to OC my Pentium up to 4.4 Ive heard.

ill run this ASAP


----------



## Jamebonds1

I will benchmark again as soon as I getting this 

http://www.thermaltake.com/products-model.aspx?id=C_00001826


----------



## FuryRosewood

CPU upgrade done, however its still very inconsistent shutting down, will OC tomorrow and post new result, dont expect too much.


----------



## Jamebonds1

FuryRosewood said:


> CPU upgrade done, however its still very inconsistent shutting down, will OC tomorrow and post new result, dont expect too much.



You have X99 chipset motherboard?


----------



## FuryRosewood

The board is a P9X79, X99 will be running 5xxx chips and DDR4 ram.

4.2Ghz, DDR3 1600 CL8 settings


----------



## Virssagòn

Follow us on our new twitter page!
https://twitter.com/BlackHoleTec


----------



## ninjabubbles3

Just ran it


----------



## Virssagòn

ninjabubbles3 said:


> Just ran it



You should run the current version, http://blackholetec.com/main/Download


----------



## spirit

I see we've not had a post in this thread for about 8 months, but I thought I'd give it a run on the machine I built last week! 




i7 4790k by ThinkPad Review, on Flickr


----------



## Virssagòn

Great to see my bench up and running again  Great scores Mr. Brown! Is this machine for personal use or is this build for a friend/customer?


----------



## spirit

Virssagòn said:


> Great to see my bench up and running again  Great scores Mr. Brown! Is this machine for personal use or is this build for a friend/customer?


Hey Rob, didn't recognise you with your new username! 

This was a PC I put together for a customer last week. It's for running Autodesk software such as AutoCAD. You can see some photos and the specs here: Post A Pic Of Your Pc Here 

My main machine is still the one in my signature. The only thing that's changed is that it is now running Windows 10 Pro, not 8.1 Pro.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Hey Rob, didn't recognise you with your new username!
> 
> This was a PC I put together for a customer last week. It's for running Autodesk software such as AutoCAD. You can see some photos and the specs here: Post A Pic Of Your Pc Here
> 
> My main machine is still the one in my signature. The only thing that's changed is that it is now running Windows 10 Pro, not 8.1 Pro.



The good old sandy bridge is still inside your rig  I had times with my 2600K which I'll never forget.


----------



## spirit

Virssagòn said:


> The good old sandy bridge is still inside your rig  I had times with my 2600K which I'll never forget.


Lol 'times I'll never forget with my 2600K', classic. Is it like an ex girlfriend or something? 

Anyway, yeah my three year build/four year old CPU is still going strong! I'm finding that the software released today that I use isn't any more demanding (in fact it is often _less demanding_) than the software I was using in 2012 when I built this PC, so I don't foresee a major upgrade for a long time yet - especially since I don't play games so there's no need to keep upgrading my GPU (which is probably already overkill for what I use it for!)

Maybe one day I'll put it in a new case and get a modular power supply (I used a Corsair RM650 for the i7 4790K build - 80+ Plus Gold and fully modular for £85, what a good deal!) but that probably won't be for a few years yet.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Lol 'times I'll never forget with my 2600K', classic. Is it like an ex girlfriend or something?



Probably the most reliable girlfriend ever


----------



## spirit

Virssagòn said:


> Probably the most reliable girlfriend ever


Yeah that's why I spend my money on cameras and computers and not girls. They last for longer and don't give me hassle when they wanna break up or stop working!


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Yeah that's why I spend my money on cameras and computers and not girls. They last for longer and don't give me hassle when they wanna break up or stop working!



So Mr. Brown without bitchess?  Doesn't sound right!

Lol, we're way off topic...


----------



## spirit

Virssagòn said:


> So Mr. Brown without bitchess?  Doesn't sound right!
> 
> Lol, we're way off topic...


Haha I've had a few but I think just having female friends is better than having a girlfriend for me at the moment at least.


----------



## Donaldmac

Bit late and not really sure if this is a good score but here you go guys


----------



## 2048Megabytes

Here is one of my computers.  My other would get better marks because it has a Quad-core processor.


----------



## Jiniix

APU for 24/7 operation from a Samsung SBB. Notice the voltage lol


----------



## beers

2048Megabytes said:


> Here is one of my computers. My other would get better marks because it has a Quad-core processor.


Have you tried ACC unlocking that X2?


----------



## spirit

i3 4130 - got ten PCs with 4130s donated to a local children's charity to set up so I thought I'd give BH a whirl.


----------



## Calin

Almost forgot about this good old benchmark. Here you go. Also sorry for the bump


----------



## Darren

Tried to run it and throws an error. Might be a Windows 10 incompatibility.

RIP.


----------



## Calin

Darren said:


> Tried to run it and throws an error. Might be a Windows 10 incompatibility.
> 
> RIP.


Well I'm on Windows 10 too. Build 10586 to be exact


----------



## Darren

Calin said:


> Well I'm on Windows 10 too. Build 10586 to be exact



Oh. For some reason I looked at your taskbar and the blue made me think it was 8.1. The error was a variable conversion error in relation to system info or something to that effect. My programming skills are pretty rough.


----------



## Intel_man

I ran a test on Win 10 a week ago... worked fine.


----------



## RujoKinJal

I ran this. got an overall of 13k.

Once i hit the 100 posts i will post the pic


----------



## RujoKinJal

Is this thread still active?


----------



## Jiniix

In short bursts, I guess


----------



## Intel_man

I keep telling myself to run this test on the W3690, but haven't gotten around doing it yet.


----------



## RujoKinJal

I ran mine, now i just need 100 posts or to be here for a year


----------



## Darren

RujoKinJal said:


> I ran mine, now i just need 100 posts or to be here for a year


Feel free to post it honestly, the leaderboards aren't up to date anyway.


----------



## RujoKinJal

i will rerun it when i get home


----------



## Intel_man

Whatever happened to BlackHoleTec? Haven't seen him on lately.


----------



## Calin

Intel_man said:


> Whatever happened to BlackHoleTec? Haven't seen him on lately.


His website is still active. I think he forgot about this forum  http://blackholetec.com/main/


----------



## Darren

Calin said:


> His website is still active. I think he forgot about this forum  http://blackholetec.com/main/


He's not the only one sadly...


----------



## Intel_man

Yea, I know when I first joined, the forum was very popular.

Anyways, I'm going to have to remember to run the test and aim to beat Calin's 6700k on the multithreaded score.


----------



## Intel_man

Eat it Skylakes! Grandpa Westmere/Gulftown can still compete.


----------



## Calin

@Intel_man But mine is faster overall


----------



## beers

Calin said:


> @Intel_man But mine is faster overall


Benches or it didn't happen


----------



## Darren

You guys got nothing on my CPU. In addition to playing _most _games maxed out it also is a fully functioning space heater.


----------



## Calin

@beers Check last page.
@Darren I loved my FX 8350. Sadly it died (because I was an idiot and ran it at 1.7v for fun) and I got this 6700k, much better in synthetic benchmarks and stuff like that but the only game I gained some extra FPS was GTA V.


----------



## beers

Calin said:


> @beers Check last page.


All I see is you getting whipped in the multithreaded score


----------



## Intel_man

Darren said:


> You guys got nothing on my CPU. In addition to playing _most _games maxed out it also is a fully functioning space heater.


I ran my w3690 on air with that score...

let's just say... it was way too hot for normal use.


Anyhow, not bad for a 5 year old westmere chip. I see no reason to upgrade to a newer socket/chipset anytime soon.


----------



## Calin

Intel_man said:


> I see no reason to upgrade to a newer socket/chipset anytime soon.


True. Unless you do a lot of things that require good single core performance


----------



## Darren

Calin said:


> @Darren I loved my FX 8350. Sadly it died (because I was an idiot and ran it at 1.7v for fun) and I got this 6700k, much better in synthetic benchmarks and stuff like that but the only game I gained some extra FPS was GTA V.



Holy shit, 1.7v? Mine's set at 1.3725, which is +.05 above my stock voltage, but HWMonitor usually has it at 1.38v and sometimes pushes it above 1.4v during some things. I usually see people recommending to keep them at or under 1.4v on anything other than water cooling. My 212+ keeps it under 60oC 99% of the time, even with my 390 right underneath it. 

I can definitely feel the 8320 holding me back in some games though, notably GTA V, Cities Skylines (<25 FPS when zoomed in), Just Cause 3, and a few others here and there. Overall though it's still kicking along and I've gotten way more than my money's worth out of it. It was a great CPU for me but it's single core performance is just brutal at times. Torchlight 2 even would drop to 20 FPS for a second or two if too much was going on. 



Calin said:


> True. Unless you do a lot of things that require good single core performance



*sobs*


----------



## Intel_man

Calin said:


> True. Unless you do a lot of things that require good single core performance


It's as fast as a similarily clocked 4790k in single thread performance, faster in both 4 thread and multithreaded performance. Like... why would I drop nearly $700 on a skylake platform to gain that 18% in single core performance. Not to mention it still smashes anything AMD has to offer... and my CPU is 5 years old. How's AMD still in business?


Besides, I like the X-series chipsets.


----------



## Darren

Intel_man said:


> It's as fast as a similarily clocked 4790k in single thread performance, faster in both 4 thread and multithreaded performance. Like... why would I drop nearly $700 on a skylake platform to gain that 18% in single core performance. Not to mention it still smashes anything AMD has to offer... and my CPU is 5 years old. How's AMD still in business?



I feel like you and I are going to joust a bit between AMD and Intel from time to time.  Incoming AMD data dump.

Up to the Phenom II chips AMD was relatively or equally competitive with Intel. The next chip, Bulldozer was a big change in direction from a design standpoint as they focused heavily on using multiple "real" cores (not threads like Intel) and at a high clock speed while not being terribly efficient. The single core performance was roughly on par or even a little lower than the Phenom's in some instances, but they did have incredible multithread performance considering the cost and when they came out. I think the 8120's were $200 or so when new.

Vishera followed and somewhat improved core performance but overall was just a minor refresh and AMD has been a budget option since. The real problem here is that AMD was expecting or hoping that high core count would be useful and viable sooner than it was. Intel stuck with quad cores for a long time, and still are really with their i5's and HT'd i7's. Programming for multiple cores is more intensive than fewer, and that coupled with Intel holding more market share gave little incentive for software to make much use of all 8 cores. Windows at the time also had some slight issues with managing extra cores (core parking I think it was) and didn't really have much performance benefit from them.

AMD's survived the past few years off of their APU's, which were decent budget . The PS4 and Xbone both are powered by custom AMD APU's, so that certainly helped keep them afloat. Also they've been making GPU's that compete or even beat Nvidia throughout all of that. Their stock has doubled since the start of 2016, Polaris is anticipated to increase their GPU market share (which is already going up), and Zen is coming out at the end of 2016. Zen, if rumors and some benchmarks hold true, will compete with Intel again in performance and price. The single core performance is supposed to be I think somewhere around Broadwell/Skylake while offering higher core and thread counts.

/endAMDfanboyism

I really am not terribly biased towards AMD products, believe it or not, I just respect them as a company and how they do business. Especially compared to Nvidia and Intel to a lesser degree. My first computer was on a budget and naturally had a Phenom II, a good choice at the time, and 5770 to match. I only got my 8320 since I couldn't afford a new board. That combined with my good GPU experiences with them just made me stick with them.

They definitely stumbled on the CPU front with Bulldozer/Vishera but to their credit they were just too ahead of the game in some regards. DirectX12 has made my mediocre old CPU breathe again and still hammer through new games with comfort. That combined with consoles moving to more cores has if anything made my CPU more viable now than it was a few years ago. GTA V runs better than GTA IV for me because it actually can *use *my processor to it's extent rather than half of it at the most. 

They do seem to get longevity for their products right at least. AMD cards have routinely increased in performance as they age compared to Nvidia's competition when they launched.

Hopefully they will be back in the CPU game in the next year. If not, I'm getting an Intel chip.

Edit: Sorry for the book, it just kinda kept going.


----------



## Intel_man

I do follow AMD's releases on processors and fully understand why people buy them. Most of the time, it comes down to price even on their Phenom II lineup. I know the Phenom II had a big following but let's face it, it was not a real performance winner. Great for it's price, but nothing to brag about? It seems to me, the last time AMD had a proud moment goes all the way back to their Athlon x64 which was a great processor for it's time.

You would think I'm an uber Intel fanboy, but I'm not. If AMD had the fastest processor on the market out right now and a chipset offering tons of features/expansion capability, I'd be running an AMD right now. As of right now though, I don't think I'll be swapping in my X58 for something else.

My computer history goes all the way back to when my dad bought his PC. A Pentium Pro and later to a Pentium 3. My first true computer had a Core 2 Duo E6300, before my current computer which started life with a Core i7 920. If you see the trend here, I usually wait for that "jump" in CPU performance before grabbing a replacement. So far, that hasn't really happened yet.

P.S. I have nothing against AMD's... I just poke fun at them for the sake of not putting out a processor that would make Intel piss their pants. I would do the same if it was reversed. Maybe have to change my name to AMD_man if that happens.


----------



## Darren

Intel_man said:


> I do follow AMD's releases on processors and fully understand why people buy them. Most of the time, it comes down to price even on their Phenom II lineup. I know the Phenom II had a big following but let's face it, it was not a real performance winner. Great for it's price, but nothing to brag about? It seems to me, the last time AMD had a proud moment goes all the way back to their Athlon x64 which was a great processor for it's time.
> 
> You would think I'm an uber Intel fanboy, but I'm not. If AMD had the fastest processor on the market out right now and a chipset offering tons of features/expansion capability, I'd be running an AMD right now. As of right now though, I don't think I'll be swapping in my X58 for something else.
> 
> My computer history goes all the way back to when my dad bought his PC. A Pentium Pro and later to a Pentium 3. My first true computer had a Core 2 Duo E6300, before my current computer which started life with a Core i7 920. If you see the trend here, I usually wait for that "jump" in CPU performance before grabbing a replacement. So far, that hasn't really happened yet.
> 
> P.S. I have nothing against AMD's... I just poke fun at them for the sake of not putting out a processor that would make Intel piss their pants. I would do the same if it was reversed. Maybe have to change my name to AMD_man if that happens.



I dumped all that info because I have no idea what most people know about them. Glad to see you're informed on both sides. You honestly sound a lot like how I feel about the whole situation, just with several years more exposure. I've had my own computer since I was 5 and every single one was an Intel and eventually also Nvidia. I'd heard of AMD but knew nothing about them and just dismissed them as the "off brand". When I built my first computer I was on a tight budget so of course ended up with them. I generally am vocal about them now, (particularly their GPU's) because I think they get way more hate than they deserve and overall misunderstood.

You're right, the Phenom's weren't top of the line, but they were capable of competing in terms of respectable performance at an affordable price without just being the throwaway bargain option. You could probably still game semi decently on a 1100T even. Bulldozer/Vishera just sucked because it was the wrong product at the wrong time and didn't improve on the right things. If they'd done that approach a year or too later with improved efficiency to boot then I think we'd see a very different CPU market now. I won the CoFo Forum Prize draw a few years ago and decided to spring for a CPU upgrade, which locked me at an 8320 in my AM3+ board. Had I not bought that then I'd probably be rocking a 4690K or similar by now.

Of course I'm also a student and was a kid when I built my Phenom rig and naturally on a budget. If I did more than gaming I probably would have ditched this thing a while back. That said, I spent $80 on a motherboard nearly 5 years ago and paired it with a $140 CPU 3 years ago that still lets me play whatever I want. Core efficiency or not, I'm not upset about that performance for the money. If I'd gone Intel at the time I'd probably be running an i3 Dual Core that wouldn't be able to keep up with an 8320 today.

I just hope they can seriously bring something to the table again. At least their GPU's have been good.  And I don't have anything really against Intel, just Nvidia a bit.


----------



## Intel_man

AMD GPU's are good... just very power hungry. Intel and Nvidia need to get off their high horse on their flagship products and lower the prices damnit!

However, even with the $/performance aspect, I'd go Intel, but not their consumer stuff. Which is why I went the X58 route and not the P55. Intel loves to screw with consumer level sockets and jump ship every 50 seconds and go to another socket. Atleast with the X-series chipset, they generally last longer and offer more CPU selection towards the end. This is exactly where I'm at right now. I spend more initially, but I can stretch out my hardware for much longer without being significantly slower than current stuff. My i7 920 was a 08' processor I bought in ~2010. Tbh, I could've stuck with it right now and still be a great processor, but I wanted something better. But rather than dropping nearly a grand on a X99 platform, I picked up a used Xeon W3690 (2011 release) for USD $160 and bam as good as new.

Seriously, that is the great thing about X-series chipset and the socket they support. There's bound to be a Xeon equivalent processor of an "Extreme" model that will be flooding the market after a few years of server use and you can grab them for the price of an AMD processor. I mean comon, I basically grabbed an used i7-990X for $160.


----------



## Calin

Well, when I had my 8350 I was a huge AMD fanboy... and I still am, I'd still pick a 8350 over an i5. If it wouldn't have died I would still be using it right now with 2 980 Tis instead of one.


----------



## RujoKinJal

holy shit i just learn a ton of information i will not use 
oh well at least i know now


----------



## Intel_man

I'd need a bigger case if I wanted to go liquid cooling. Then I'll definitely smash that 6700k's total score.


----------



## spirit

Intel_man said:


> IP.S. I have nothing against AMD's... I just poke fun at them for the sake of not putting out a processor that would make Intel piss their pants. I would do the same if it was reversed. Maybe have to change my name to AMD_man if that happens.


Like me. Hoping the new CPUs are better!


----------



## Origin Saint

Well I ran the test and have the screenshot ready, but I cannot submit my scores on the BlackHoleTec webpage.  Creating an account throws an exception: "Form process halted for suspicious activity.  It requires that cookies be enabled."  Made me feel like I was trying to hack into something .  Not sure what's up there, as cookies are enabled.  Anyway, here's the screenshot in the meantime:


----------



## Intel_man

Turns out, my W3690 OC's to 4.04 ghz on stock voltages.


----------



## Calin

Those icons, man!


----------



## Intel_man

Don't hate on my icons!


----------



## Calin

Anyway, nice score, @Intel_man but it didn't beat my i7 overall


----------



## Intel_man

The overall score is calculated by adding the three tests together. Each test is not directly related together, so the overall score doesn't really mean much. What you want to compare is the score in each test. With that said, my W3690 @4.6 whooped a 6700k in the multithreaded test. 6C/12T ftw!


----------



## beers

Intel_man said:


> With that said, my W3690 @4.6 whooped a 6700k in the multithreaded test.


I'd at least make it a fair game by testing against a 5930K


----------



## Intel_man

Yea but... no one here has one.


----------



## beers

Eat it nerds, Win7 on top of ESXi with an Athlon 5350.


----------



## Intel_man

I need to see if my dad's Pentium Pro still boots. If it does, it's going to be hilarious to see how bad the numbers are.


----------



## Calin

Intel_man said:


> The overall score is calculated by adding the three tests together. Each test is not directly related together, so the overall score doesn't really mean much. What you want to compare is the score in each test. With that said, my W3690 @4.6 whooped a 6700k in the multithreaded test. 6C/12T ftw!


You're an Intel fan. You should brag about your single core performance because that's where AMD sucks bad.


----------



## Intel_man

Correction, I'm an Intel man*. I'm a fan of performance in every aspect. Intel or AMD.


----------



## C4C

Intel_man said:


> Correction, I'm an Intel man*. I'm a fan of performance in every aspect. Intel or AMD.


----------



## spirit

Calin said:


> You're an Intel fan. You should brag about your single core performance because that's where AMD sucks bad.


Don't they just generally suck bad even when it comes to prices now that Vishera is 3.5 years old?  

(Don't kill me Darren! )


----------



## beers

spirit said:


> Don't they just generally suck bad even when it comes to prices now that Vishera is 3.5 years old?
> 
> (Don't kill me Darren! )



Psch, wait for the 'fire' sale once AM4 drops.  (pun intended)


----------



## spirit

beers said:


> Psch, wait for the 'fire' sale once AM4 drops.  (pun intended)


AM4 is gonna be life-changing for AMD fans, I'm sure!


----------



## Darren

spirit said:


> Don't they just generally suck bad even when it comes to prices now that Vishera is 3.5 years old?
> 
> (Don't kill me Darren! )



If you've bought a Vishera CPU in the past year or so, you've made a terrible mistake.



spirit said:


> AM4 is gonna be life-changing for AMD fans, I'm sure!



We can only hope.


----------



## spirit

Darren said:


> If you've bought a Vishera CPU in the past year or so, you've made a terrible mistake.


Unfortunately that's true. At the moment custom-built PCs are expensive because you have to buy Intel. At least when AM4 comes along we will have an alternative.


----------



## RujoKinJal

But, will the AM4 platform be enough to keep pace with intel?


----------



## beers

Darren said:


> We can only hope.









RujoKinJal said:


> But, will the AM4 platform be enough to keep pace with intel?


Probably depends what workload you're talking about.  FX can keep pace with modern i5s for highly threaded, integer specific workloads.  Anything else it comparatively falls on its face (especially old code and/or Skyrim, x87 runs horribly on that platform).


----------



## Intel_man

I just want AMD to perform well enough for Intel to drop their prices.


----------



## Intel_man

Wow, found an old screenshot of my i7 920 doing the BH benchmark. What a difference.  







vs W3690.


----------



## beers

Intel_man said:


> I just want AMD to perform well enough for Intel to drop their prices.


Wouldn't that mean AMD would jack up theirs?  It's depressing to me since they had like thousand dollar FX on socket 939 and 940.  If the new one is amazing we should totally get like a free pass from all the years that they've been sucking


----------



## Virssagòn

Just a little heads up for this thread. I've been working on a new edition for weeks now. A closed alpha testing phase will be held on CF.com alone for bug and stability testing. The new benchmark is far more reliable and stable than the previous one and should be ready for an alpha release in a couple of days. Stay tuned!


----------



## Intel_man

Oh hey, you're alive!


----------



## Darren

Virssagòn said:


> Just a little heads up for this thread. I've been working on a new edition for weeks now. An closed alpha testing phase will be held on CF.com alone for bug and stability testing. The new benchmark is far more reliable and stable than the previous one and should be ready for an alpha release in a couple of days. Stay tuned!


AWW yeah.


----------



## Origin Saint

Darren said:


> AWW yeah.


AWW yissss.

FTFY.


----------



## Intel_man




----------



## Darren

But.. but... he's laughing at Peter Parker for asking to be paid upfront.


----------



## Virssagòn

A sneak peek; tests will include:
- fixes for all bugs mentioned in this thread
- Compression Tests
- Prime Tests
- FP/Int Performance counters
- The 3 original divisions in score (Multi, Quad, Single - threaded)
- A stress test (will probably make this a premium feature, development time counts a lot of hours)
- ... More to come after the alpha

Until now, the benchmark itself is ready, but the design is not yet on point, as is the stress test.


----------



## voyagerfan99

What probably might be a good idea is to change the title of this thread to *STABLE* and create a new one titled *Alpha/Beta* whichever it is.


----------



## C4C

About time I got around to testing my rig.. 

Should probably get back to stability tests and bring my core voltage down


----------



## Jiniix

1.4v seems excessively high for a Skylake CPU, mate. 
If I recall correctly, Intel made some significant changes from Sandy/Ivy in terms of voltage. 
I recently built a PC with i7-6700K and did 4.5GHz with 1.25v


----------

