# *Official* Smiles Benchmark Ranking Thread!



## Virssagòn

*Smiles Benchmark!* *(by SmileMan and Vistakid!)*


Like you can read in the title, I made my own benchmarking program. With much help from Vistakid!

So, a little information before you can start:

*Installation*

1.Download and install .NET Framework (at least 2.0)
2.Download the .zip file from the link given below
3.extract the .zip file to anywhere you want.
4.Run the exe

*download:* http://www.mediafire.com/?stsurxlw2i42z77

*!!You'll have to wait some time!!* If it doesn't occur after a minute, contact me!

*Features:*

- display of cpu usage
- display of ram usage
- benchmark with 4 passes

*Information*

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

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

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


*Known Bugs*

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

*The Results!*

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

*TOP 15*
1. bigfella (i7 2600K @ 5.1Ghz, 16Gb Gskill DDR3, *3.7950068*)
2. SmileMan (i7 2600k @ 4.625GHz, 16GB 1649MHz Kingstone hyperX, *3.9102237*)
3. Perkomate (i5 2500K @ 4.6Ghz, Corsair 2x2gig 1866mhz, *4.1023161*)
4. Vistakid (i5 2500K @ 4.3Ghz, 16Gb 1648Mhz RipJaws-X, *4.1922319*)
5. StrangleHold (AMD FX 8120 @ 4.2Ghz, 8Gb G.skill 2133@2000, *4.555208*)
6. robtheplod (i7 3770 @ 3.4Ghz, 32Gb ram, *4.6800083*)
7. MyCattMaxx ( AMD FX-4100 @ 3.6Ghz, 8Gb PC3 1333MHz, *4.9608086*)
8. jonnyp11 (Phenom II 960t x4 to x6 @ 3.8GHz, 8GB 1333MHz, *5.1692042*)
9. linkin (i5 2500K @stockspeed, G.Skill Ripjaws X at 1333MHz CAS9, *5.3173041*)
10. FuryRosewood (Phenom2 955, 4Gb x4 Crucial DDR3 1333mhz, *5.3313049*)
11. ScottAlot (i7-930 @stockspeed, "ram unknown", *6.1400085*)
12. SmileMan (i7 920 @stockspeed, 4gb dd3 ram, *6.2712111*)
13. Ankur (i7 2630QM, 4GB 1333MHz, *6.8573643*)
14. voyagerfan99 ( Core2Duo P8600 @ 2.4Ghz, 4GB Hynix RAM, *7.2696128*)
15. Jamesbonds1 ( intel core 2 Q6600 @ 2.4GHz, 4GB DDR2, *7.5600106*)


*TOP 15 INTEL*
1. bigfella (i7 2600K @ 5.1Ghz, 16Gb Gskill DDR3, *3.7950068*)
2. SmileMan (i7 2600k @ 4.625GHz, 16GB 1649MHz Kingstone hyperX, *3.9102237*)
3. Perkomate (i5 2500K @ 4.6Ghz, Corsair 2x2gig 1866mhz, *4.1023161*)
4. Vistakid (i5 2500K @ 4.3Ghz, 16Gb 1648Mhz RipJaws-X, *4.1922319*)
5. robtheplod (i7 3770 @ 3.4Ghz, 32Gb ram, *4.6800083*)
6. linkin (i5 2500K @stockspeed, G.Skill Ripjaws X at 1333MHz CAS9, *5.3173041*)
7. ScottAlot (i7-930 @stockspeed, "ram unknown", *6.1400085*)
8. SmileMan (i7 920 @stockspeed, 4gb dd3 ram,* 6.2712111*)
9. Ankur (i7 2630QM, 4GB 1333MHz, *6.8573643*)
10. voyagerfan99 ( Core2Duo P8600 @ 2.4Ghz, 4GB Hynix RAM, *7.2696128*)
11. Jamesbonds1 ( intel core 2 Q6600 @ 2.4GHz, 4GB DDR2, *7.5600106*)
12. MyCattMaxx ( Core2duo E6600 @ 2.4Ghz, 4GB 800MHz Micron PC2-6400, *7.5980321*)
13. wolfeking ( intel celeron G530 @ 2.4Ghz, 8GB DDR3 1600MHz, *7.7214417*)
...


*TOP 15 AMD*
1. StrangleHold (AMD FX 8120 @ 4.2Ghz, 8Gb G.skill 2133@2000, *4.555208*)
2. MyCattMaxx ( AMD FX-4100 @ 3.6Ghz, 8Gb PC3 1333MHz, *4.9608086*)
3. jonnyp11 (Phenom II 960t x4 to x6 @ 3.8GHz, 8GB 1333MHz, *5.1692042*)
4. FuryRosewood (Phenom2 955, 4Gb x4 Crucial DDR3 1333mhz, *5.3313049*)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.


*Preview:*






*Virusscans:*

Jotti


contact me or Vistakid on the forum with a pm!


*SmileMan & Vistakid*


----------



## spirit

The screenshot above is how well (or badly?  ) my rig performed with an overclocked i5 2500K (4.3GHz) and 16GB of 1648MHz RipJaws-X RAM.


----------



## Ankur

Here is mine  Intel i7-2630QM   4GB 1333MHz RAM


----------



## Virssagòn

Ankur said:


> Here is mine  Intel i7-2630QM



plz add your result like the description says...


----------



## Ankur

SmileMan said:


> plz add your result like the description says...


Okay Edited! Does that work?


----------



## Virssagòn

UPDATED! (I'll overclock my cpu now and beat you 2 )


----------



## Virssagòn

k, heres mine 
(couldn't get higher because of stock cooler )
SmileMan (i7 2600k @ 4.625GHz, 16GB 1649MHz Kingstone hyperX, 3.9102237)





beated


----------



## spirit

I'll get my Dad to run the program on his i7 3770 with 32GB of RAM and see how he does.  I'll also run it on the Core 2 Quad Q8300 some time.


----------



## Virssagòn

vistakid10 said:


> I'll get my Dad to run the program on his i7 3770 with 32GB of RAM and see how he does.  I'll also run it on the Core 2 Quad Q8300 some time.



my dad has an athlon 
But he is receiving a pc in a couple of days with the same cpu!! LOL xD
Gonna compete with you guy 
(but it's a non K though)


----------



## voyagerfan99

So what exactly does this benchmark?
This is my Latitude E6500 BTW
Core2Duo P8600 2.4Ghz/4GB Hynix RAM


----------



## Jamebonds1

It is in my class.  Thought i had give it try with computer at my college.  Bottom is 64X.  This computer is 4 GB DDR2, Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4 GHz, 7.5600106.  

PS. I play serect in class hehe.  I just had break time.


----------



## Virssagòn

voyagerfan99 said:


> So what exactly does this benchmark?
> This is my Latitude E6500 BTW



It benchmarks the cpu calculating speed. Like pi mod and that.
Plz add your results like I did above^^


----------



## jonnyp11

Got 6.61 secs, gonna overclock and maybe unlock real quick just for the hell of it, bench is so short that the temps don't have a chance to get high enough to do any damage, plus a few secs of high temps can't hurt that bad


----------



## voyagerfan99

Fixed. Don't know my RAM speed, and I'm too lazy to look it up a the moment.


----------



## Virssagòn

jonnyp11 said:


> Got 6.61 secs, gonna overclock and maybe unlock real quick just for the hell of it, bench is so short that the temps don't have a chance to get high enough to do any damage, plus a few secs of high temps can't hurt that bad



is it done with your rig in the sign?
Do I have to wait for your OC version?


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan.  You might want to ask member to put their user name on picture? As well as CPU z?


----------



## jonnyp11

SmileMan said:


> It benchmarks the cpu calculating speed. Like pi mod and that.
> Plz add your results like I did above^^



what do you mean results, that pick has the results, do you mean his specs (cpu & speed, ram, that stuffs)?


----------



## spirit

Yeah the temps don't go very high. I rust quickly ran the benchmark again and my CPU went up to 4.3GHz and I was getting mid 40-low 50s temps wise.  Load was around 40%.


----------



## Ankur

vistakid10 said:


> Yeah the temps don't go very high. I rust quickly ran the benchmark again and my CPU went up to 4.3GHz and I was getting mid 40-low 50s temps wise.  Load was around 40%.



Have you enabled speedstep? Does it remain stable when speedstep is on?


----------



## spirit

Ankur said:


> Have you enabled speedstep? Does it remain stable when speedstep is on?



Yeah SpeedStep is on and my system has been stable as a rock for months now. No blue screens, crashes, weird startup problems etc. All runs sweet!


----------



## Virssagòn

jonnyp11 said:


> what do you mean results, that pick has the results, do you mean his specs (cpu & speed, ram, that stuffs)?



yeah, just set it in your score like I did in the ranks. That would be easyer for me. cpu-z and name on the screen don't make it easyer 
If they just add it like in the ranks it would be easy shit, just 1 picture of the scores is enough.


----------



## Jamebonds1

I will try it at my home computer with overclocked i3


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> I will try it at my home computer with overclocked i3



yeah, you can see at the benchmarks from pi mod that it can be a whole bang in calculating benches .


----------



## Virssagòn

I'm now going to make some gpu benchmarks


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> I'm now going to make some gpu benchmarks



Make sure you assign a category to the Performance Monitors as otherwise it won't work. That's why the earlier versions crashed.


----------



## Virssagòn

vistakid10 said:


> Make sure you assign a category to the Performance Monitors as otherwise it won't work. That's why the earlier versions crashed.



k 
I'll send it to you if it doesn't seem to work xD
(gpu benches are diff )


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> yeah, you can see at the benchmarks from pi mod that it can be a whole bang in calculating benches .



Yeah. Problem is my RAM is 1.6 volt.


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> Yeah. Problem is my RAM is 1.6 volt.



thats no problem bro 
My kingstone hyperx 1600 always run on 1.6v, because it's his base voltage


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> k
> I'll send it to you if it doesn't seem to work xD
> (gpu benches are diff )



Yeah any probs lemme know and I'll sort 'em out again.


----------



## jonnyp11

Phenom II 960t x4 unlocked to x6 @ 3.8GHz (4 caused crashing during boot and i didn't want to got to 1.3 vcore as it was marked red so figured that wouldn't be good) RAM is 8GB's of 1333

I love how it is labeled the 1600t, and how in the bios the vcore is set to 1.2800 but it reads as 1.32


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> thats no problem bro
> My kingstone hyperx 1600 always run on 1.6v, because it's his base voltage



Yeah. I was think about gett 16 GB RAM G.SKILL 1600 or 1333.  Then I'm going built super fast computer like LGA 2011 if i can.


----------



## Virssagòn

jonnyp11 said:


> Phenom II 960t x4 unlocked to x6 @ 3.8GHz (4 caused crashing during boot and i didn't want to got to 1.3 vcore as it was marked red so figured that wouldn't be good) RAM is 8GB's of 1333
> 
> I love how it is labeled the 1600t, and how in the bios the vcore is set to 1.2800 but it reads as 1.32



nice scores! You are now number 3 in the top all and number 1 in amd top !


----------



## jonnyp11

the program doesn't seem to scale the best, i locked her back down, and set the overclock the 3.2Ghz with a 3.5 turbo (bios had the option so said why not, keep my idle temps down) and locked vcore to 1.2, and i still got a 5.6 sec score


----------



## Virssagòn

voyagerfan, could you make this sticky?


----------



## Virssagòn

jonnyp11 said:


> the program doesn't seem to scale the best, i locked her back down, and set the overclock the 3.2Ghz with a 3.5 turbo (bios had the option so said why not, keep my idle temps down) and locked vcore to 1.2, and i still got a 5.6 sec score



yeah, gonna make it harder...
But I need some good codes for it, to test more then only calc speed.
And it's measured in ticks, so ticks can make a BIG difference! I would think that your non-overclocked cpu got at least 5000 ticks more then the oc one...


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> yeah, gonna make it harder...
> But I need some good codes for it, to test more then only calc speed.



I'll look into it. I'll see if there's a way to make the benchmark any longer. This isn't a serious benchmarking application, it's just designed for a bit of fun.


----------



## jonnyp11

if it wouldn't literally burn a hole through my processor, i wish i could've tried intel burn test with it unlocked and all, i really should'a prime95'd it.


----------



## Virssagòn

vistakid10 said:


> I'll look into it. I'll see if there's a way to make the benchmark any longer. This isn't a serious benchmarking application, it's just designed for a bit of fun.



we have to wait, because then it's a whole new app...
But the ticks can make much difference like I said above^^


----------



## Ankur

SmileMan said:


> we have to wait, because then it's a whole new app...
> But the ticks can make much difference like I said above^^



You should put a textbox in it and print the CPU name, cores and other specs automatically that way you can make it more popular.


----------



## Virssagòn

Ankur said:


> You should put a textbox in it and print the CPU name, cores and other specs automatically that way you can make it more popular.



can't with VB I think 
It's a bit limited...


----------



## Virssagòn

SmileMan said:


> can't with VB I think
> It's a bit limited...



haha, found how to!!
Making the code now, I'll add it soon (it will not affect scores).


----------



## MyCattMaxx

Here is my bad boy Dell Optiplex 745.
Intel c2d E6600 @ 2.4Ghz, 4gigs Micron PC2-6400


----------



## Virssagòn

UPDATED!
ty for scores, I want someone who owns me !!


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> UPDATED!
> ty for scores, I want someone who owns me !!



I just benchmark my computer and it is .1 sec and overclock at 1000 GHZ CPU


----------



## Virssagòn

Wow, I see there is a big difference between the seconds now!
1. SmileMan (i7 2600k @ 4.625GHz, 16GB 1649MHz Kingstone hyperX, *3.9102237*)
2. Vistakid (i5 2500K @ 4.3Ghz, 16Gb 1648Mhz RipJaws-X, *4.1922319*)
3. jonnyp11 (Phenom II 960t x4 to x6 @ 3.8GHz, 8GB 1333MHz, *5.1692042*)
4. Ankur (i7 2630QM, 4GB 1333MHz, 6.8573643)
5. voyagerfan99 ( Core2Duo P8600 @ 2.4Ghz, 4GB Hynix RAM, *7.2696128*)
6. Jamesbonds1 ( intel core 2 Q6600 @ 2.4GHz, 4GB DDR2, *7.5600106*)
7. MyCattMaxx ( Core2duo E6600 @ 2.4Ghz, 4GB 800MHz Micron PC2-6400, *7.6540143*)


----------



## robtheplod

Here's mine (i7 3770 with 32GB of RAM)


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> I just benchmark my computer and it is .1 sec and overclock at 1000 GHZ CPU



post it then and benchmark again, can be a bug


----------



## Virssagòn

robtheplod said:


> Here's mine:



specs plz, and place your results like me in the ranks.


----------



## Virssagòn

ty for editing robtheplod 
Are you vistakids dad?


----------



## Virssagòn

Updated!


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> ty for editing robtheplod
> Are you vistakids dad?



yeah he is.


----------



## Virssagòn

my brothers pc 

SmileMan (i7 920 @stockspeed, 4gb dd3 ram, 6.2712111)


----------



## Virssagòn

jonnyp11 said:


> the program doesn't seem to scale the best, i locked her back down, and set the overclock the 3.2Ghz with a 3.5 turbo (bios had the option so said why not, keep my idle temps down) and locked vcore to 1.2, and i still got a 5.6 sec score



it scales good, my overclocked i7 2600k does 3.9 seconds, non-overclocked is 4.7 seconds...


----------



## spirit

We are currently changing it a bit so that it displays system information. New version should hopefully be up tomorrow!  It won't affect your scores though, so don't download the new benchmarking app and re-run the test if you've already done it.


----------



## wolfeking

but I do not trust the scores. The G530 in every other bench I have seen ties with a C2D @ 3GHz, and the 2.4 on the list here shows less time.


----------



## Jamebonds1

wolfeking said:


> but I do not trust the scores. The G530 in every other bench I have seen ties with a C2D @ 3GHz, and the 2.4 on the list here shows less time.



Weird.  It is near fast as Intel Core 2 qqqquuuaaaadddddd.


----------



## wolfeking

c2q is not that great anymore. Not to say I don't want one, in a laptop version, with something like a Quadro FX3700m or the like, but that is not worth it when you can get a i7 for the same price. 
But yea. If it is only giving .2 seconds or less with 2 more threads then it is poorly optimized and probably only reading 2 or 3 threads.


----------



## spirit

Jamebonds1 said:


> Weird.  It is near fast as Intel Core 2 qqqquuuaaaadddddd.


Hahaha 'Quuuuaaaddd'.  Now I've got everybody saying it. 



wolfeking said:


> c2q is not that great anymore. Not to say I don't want one, in a laptop version, with something like a Quadro FX3700m or the like, but that is not worth it when you can get a i7 for the same price.
> But yea. If it is only giving .2 seconds or less with 2 more threads then it is poorly optimized and probably only reading 2 or 3 threads.


The C2Q is still pretty good considering how old it is, but yeah I agree with you. They're still pretty expensive and an i7 would be a much smarter choice.

Yeah it probably doesn't read all the threads, but remember it's made in Visual Basic.NET and compared to something like C# or C++, VB.NET is fairly limited in what you can do, so enabling it to read all threads is tricky, if not impossible. I just ran the benchmark again to see which cores/threads it was reading from, seems like #1 and #2 are the most used, so I'd say it's only reading from 2 cores. 

I'll see if I can optimize it but it'd be pretty difficult I think. :/


----------



## wolfeking

don't worry about it. It is good for what it is, but as I was saying, it is not the best for comparing at all. 2 threads or more, it still should read processor performance accurately. As I said, mine should tie with a 3Ghz C2D and likewise if only reading 2 threads, a 3GHz C2Q, but it is behind.


----------



## spirit

wolfeking said:


> don't worry about it. It is good for what it is, but as I was saying, it is not the best for comparing at all. 2 threads or more, it still should read processor performance accurately. As I said, mine should tie with a 3Ghz C2D and likewise if only reading 2 threads, a 3GHz C2Q, but it is behind.



Yeah it's not going to be the best for comparison and yes your Celeron should tie with a C2D @ 3.0GHz. 

Interesting to note too how the 64-bit times are way faster than the 32-bit times. Not sure if it's just a glitch or what.

Still trying to get some code together which reads system information such as the OS version (easy to do), amount of RAM installed, CPU name/model/clockspeed (both harder) and possibly GPU (may not be necessary).


----------



## MyCattMaxx

wolfeking, the pic shows your cpu at 100%.
Turn off folding or whatever and try it again.


----------



## wolfeking

it makes no difference to speak of.


----------



## MyCattMaxx

Can I re-list?
Dell after a reboot.

Intel c2d E6600 @ 2.4Ghz, 4gigs Micron PC2-6400


----------



## MyCattMaxx

AMD FX-4100 stock clock 3.6Ghz, 8gigs PC3 1333Mhz
Interrupted my folding to get this one a reboot would probably yield a better time.


----------



## Jamebonds1

vistakid10 said:


> Hahaha 'Quuuuaaaddd'.  Now I've got everybody saying it.



Hahaha  I love when i say it.  Honest i can not speak very well because i'm a deaf.


----------



## jonnyp11

MyCattMaxx said:


> AMD FX-4100 stock clock 3.6Ghz, 8gigs PC3 1333Mhz
> Interrupted my folding to get this one a reboot would probably yield a better time.



yeah this bench is no where near reliable, a phenom should be faster at the same speeds, and mine was at 3.8 with 6 cores and was still slower than that  i liked being the fastest amd


----------



## MyCattMaxx

From what I understand, this test isn't using more than 2 cores if I read the thread right.
That is why my E6600 is hanging right there with the Q6600.


----------



## robtheplod

SmileMan said:


> ty for editing robtheplod
> Are you vistakids dad?



One very proud dad indeed!!


----------



## Virssagòn

robtheplod said:


> One very proud dad indeed!!



you stay number 3 atm


----------



## Virssagòn

jonnyp11 said:


> yeah this bench is no where near reliable, a phenom should be faster at the same speeds, and mine was at 3.8 with 6 cores and was still slower than that  i liked being the fastest amd



nope, bulldozers are faster normally...


----------



## Virssagòn

MyCattMaxx said:


> AMD FX-4100 stock clock 3.6Ghz, 8gigs PC3 1333Mhz
> Interrupted my folding to get this one a reboot would probably yield a better time.



nice scores!


----------



## Virssagòn

MyCattMaxx said:


> From what I understand, this test isn't using more than 2 cores if I read the thread right.
> That is why my E6600 is hanging right there with the Q6600.



I think it's because it are only calculation tests, then it don't have to use more then 2 cores...
But thats good for people without an 4-6-8 core! Then they can compete a bit with use 
But I see a big difference between my 2600k and the latest ones...
The Ticks can be very important because of the very short test.

UPDATED!

edit: my dad is getting over 9 seconds, he had a 2 core amd (athlon)...
So I want someone with an athlon 4x! I think cores up to 4 make sense.


----------



## Virssagòn

MyCattMaxx, I want to see your overclocked version!
Because my non-overclocked version is in the 4 seconds too!


----------



## spirit

Update: I have found a piece of code which could potentially make this benchmark multi-threaded.


----------



## Virssagòn

vistakid10 said:


> Update: I have found a piece of code which could potentially make this benchmark multi-threaded.



yeah, we are making the new version already!


----------



## spirit

Here's a preview of the new version. Now the benchmark retrieves your system information from the WMI, so you no longer need to post what CPU and how much RAM you have (however if your CPU is overclocked you will need to tell us what it is overclocked to). It retrieves this information as soon as it starts up. We are still working on the multi-threading. We've also given the benchmark new instructions so now the benchmarks lasts longer. Once we've got multi-threading (up to 8 threads) working, we will upload the new version.

This is what it looks like at the moment:


----------



## MyCattMaxx

SmileMan said:


> MyCattMaxx, I want to see your overclocked version!
> Because my non-overclocked version is in the 4 seconds too!


Can't do that.
Stock heat sink, plus I don't want to take the time away from folding to set it up.


----------



## Virssagòn

MyCattMaxx said:


> Can't do that.
> Stock heat sink, plus I don't want to take the time away from folding to set it up.



oh yes, but if you are worry about the heats. Np, because test is only 4 seconds


----------



## Gun

Mine's been testing for about 3 minutes now. Do I click 'benchmark' or do I wait for it to finnish?


----------



## Virssagòn

K, made the code for the new version. It will be multi-core intensive! (it was already multi-core intensive, but the calculations were not that big )
Now you'll feel the spirit of 4/more cores!!!
It will take a longer time to benchmark because of the new, heavy calculations.
Only 64bit systems will be running it because the 32bit version is a fail...

new features:

- info about your cpu, ram and OS
- new passes: special pass - normal pass - heavy pass - soft pass
- A better scaling program!
(- with old features init)

We'll release it soon! Hold your pc ready for deployement!

SmileMan & Vistakid10


----------



## Perkomate

I'm going to have to give this a go. Going for a shot at second-fastest Intel.
-edit-
wierd, it's saying that I'm taking 27 seconds. I'll try disabling speedstep.


----------



## Virssagòn

Perkomate said:


> I'm going to have to give this a go. Going for a shot at second-fastest Intel.
> -edit-
> wierd, it's saying that I'm taking 27 seconds. I'll try disabling speedstep.



you need to run the 64bit version!
you got nice ram!
speedstep doesn't do anything, had it on when I tested.
Make sure you got a 64bit system


----------



## Virssagòn

difference between temps from prime 95(torture test, max heating) and the smiles benchmark that will release in a day!
(voltages were the same, all cores used and cpu usages under 30% at the 2 tests.)


----------



## Perkomate

massive noob error on my part. Ran x64, and I got 4.1023161. Do you need a screenshot?


----------



## Virssagòn

Perkomate said:


> massive noob error on my part. Ran x64, and I got 4.1023161. Do you need a screenshot?



yeah


----------



## StrangleHold

This is at 4.2 ghz. Dont ask why, long story. Will run it at 4.5 ghz or higher or at stock later on.


----------



## ScottALot

No overclock, stock i7-930. Very consistent benchmark as it was close to your stock i7-920. I'll get this overclocked again later... too hot, damnit.


----------



## FuryRosewood

that doesnt make sense...i just ran it and it did a 5.4 on a phenom ii quad, a i7 should mop the floor with a Phenom ii quad


----------



## jonnyp11

FuryRosewood said:


> that doesnt make sense...i just ran it and it did a 5.4 on a phenom ii quad, a i7 should mop the floor with a Phenom ii quad



it's only dual-threaded apparently.


----------



## FuryRosewood

even dual threaded, it shouldnt matter, though the i7 920s clock is a little low...i guess thats whats going on, i still know a w3550 mops the floor with my 955 at 3.6ghz with his being at 3.06ghz.


----------



## Gun

How long do I wait till I click 'Benchmark'?


----------



## MyCattMaxx

You click on Benchmark to start the test.
No need to wait.


----------



## Okedokey

S3AnD3 said:


> Nice wallpaper. Although you probably should've cropped it so it was only the diaglog box you could see.



Everyone has basically complimented it.  If mods consider it a breach ill take it down immediately, but to be honest, there would be very few people on this server that would find it objectionable.  You cant see anything more than a beach volleyball player at the Olympics   Its also funny that each of you have re-posted the pic via quote  lol


To the OP:

If its only dual threaded, then make a version that runs 4  instances at once.  Surely one of you clever folk can make that happen??   Also make it run the workloads constantly for 30 seconds.  This is both more representative and statistically comparable.  As it stands the benchmark is a wild guess.  

On the positive, I think it is really impressive that such young people are so clever!


----------



## Okedokey

Also can we update the leaderboard please?

Bigfellla 3.79 seconds.

Btw good job lads, nice collaboration!  (i lol'd at the copyright).


----------



## Gun

Here's mine.




It's an Acer Aspire 5740. 

Intel Core i5 2.26 GHz I think.

4GB of RAM.


----------



## jonnyp11

S3AnD3 said:


> Here's mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's an Acer Aspire 5740.
> 
> Intel Core i5 2.26 GHz I think.
> 
> 4GB of RAM.



you ran the 32-bit version, run the 64 for a sub 10 sec time.

and bigfella, i think they said they're releasing the updated, better on tomorrow.


----------



## Okedokey

Something is wrong with the benchmark or your computer if it takes 10 times as long for an i5 to do it than an i7 or phenom.

This benchmark is invalid until it runs for 30 secs on at least 4 cores.


----------



## Gun

jonnyp11 said:


> you ran the 32-bit version, run the 64 for a sub 10 sec time.
> 
> and bigfella, i think they said they're releasing the updated, better on tomorrow.


But I have a 32-bit operating system...


----------



## Okedokey

jonnyp11 said:


> you ran the 32-bit version, run the 64 for a sub 10 sec time.
> 
> and bigfella, i think they said they're releasing the updated, better on tomorrow.



Posted at the same time 

Yeah ok, cool, thats good !!  Respect to the developers!


----------



## wolfeking

it should still work, maybe. hmm... Testing now, Ill let you know for sure.


edit, nvm, it don't work.


----------



## Okedokey

S3AnD3 said:


> But I have a 32-bit operating system...



Confirm your specs please, download PC Wizard (in my sig) and install it.  File Save as and save the text file.  Copy its contents here.


----------



## Gun

bigfellla said:


> Confirm your specs please, download PC Wizard (in my sig) and install it.  File Save as and save the text file.  Copy its contents here.



Wait...why do you want me to do this?


----------



## jonnyp11

he wants to confirm you're 32 bit, or he wants to steal all you CC's and identity


----------



## Gun

I am 32-bit. I haven't built my computer yet so I just bought this laptop with Windows 7 Home Premium 32-bit installed .

and when I try to use the 64-bit it says that my Operating System is not 64-bit.


----------



## FuryRosewood

5.3313049 Seconds


----------



## Perkomate

S3AnD3 said:


> and when I try to use the 64-bit it says that my Operating System is not 64-bit.



that's usually a good clue as to whether you use 32-bit 

In other news: 



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## linkin

Stock 2500K (Turbo Enabled) G.Skill Ripjaws X at 1333MHz CAS9


----------



## spirit

bigfellla said:


> To the OP:
> 
> If its only dual threaded, then make a version that runs 4  instances at once.  Surely one of you clever folk can make that happen??   Also make it run the workloads constantly for 30 seconds.  This is both more representative and statistically comparable.  As it stands the benchmark is a wild guess.
> 
> On the positive, I think it is really impressive that such young people are so clever!


Yeah we're working on a multi-threaded version! It should be up here for download sooner rather than later... keep your eyes peeled. Once we get that cracked (and we can get the benchmark running for longer) then we can start to this benchmark more as a comparison tool. At the moment it's a bit flawed in this respect. :/ 

I'm also looking into a Save button which will allow you to save your scores and the hardware you used as a text file, which could also be useful. 



bigfellla said:


> Also can we update the leaderboard please?
> 
> Bigfellla 3.79 seconds.
> 
> Btw good job lads, nice collaboration!  (i lol'd at the copyright).


I'll get SmileMan to update the leader board and thanks.  Haha yeah we don't want people nicking our work.  

If you'd like to try the newer version which displays your system information (OS, CPU and RAM), *download it here* (note: this version is not multi-threaded, that's coming in the next release.)


----------



## Virssagòn

bigfellla said:


> Everyone has basically complimented it.  If mods consider it a breach ill take it down immediately, but to be honest, there would be very few people on this server that would find it objectionable.  You cant see anything more than a beach volleyball player at the Olympics   Its also funny that each of you have re-posted the pic via quote  lol
> 
> 
> To the OP:
> 
> If its only dual threaded, then make a version that runs 4  instances at once.  Surely one of you clever folk can make that happen??   Also make it run the workloads constantly for 30 seconds.  This is both more representative and statistically comparable.  As it stands the benchmark is a wild guess.
> 
> On the positive, I think it is really impressive that such young people are so clever!




yeah, normally this is already multi-core intensive. Look to my i7 2600k @ 4.6 and Perkomate's i5 2500k @ 4.6. There is a difference from 1.5 second.

I'm working on the parallel-threading and poolthreading. If I got that working it will be an easy job for multi-cores.

the new version will last ~54 seconds with an i7 2600k at stockspeed. So it will be more scaled, intensive and sensitive for multi-cores.

UPDATED list!

Smile & vistakid


----------



## Okedokey

SmileMan said:


> yeah, normally this is already multi-core intensive. Look to my i7 2600k @ 4.6 and Perkomate's i5 2500k @ 4.6. There is a difference from 1.5 second.
> 
> I'm working on the parallel-threading and poolthreading. If I got that working it will be an easy job for multi-cores.
> 
> the new version will last ~54 seconds with an i7 2600k at stockspeed. So it will be more scaled, intensive and sensitive for multi-cores.
> 
> UPDATED list!
> 
> Smile & vistakid



So are you saying it is multithreaded?


----------



## spirit

bigfellla said:


> So are you saying it is multithreaded?



It sort of is at the moment; but we're giving the benchmark new instructions/code to take advantage of more cores.


----------



## Okedokey

vistakid10 said:


> It sort of is at the moment; but we're giving the benchmark new instructions/code to take advantage of more cores.



Ok, but make sure it understands the difference between cores and threads...


----------



## spirit

bigfellla said:


> Ok, but make sure it understands the difference between cores and threads...



Working on it as we speak. Also changed the UI a bit to make it look a bit snazzier.


----------



## Virssagòn

bigfellla said:


> Ok, but make sure it understands the difference between cores and threads...



yeah, it is already multi-core intensive, now we're making parallel-threading function thats gonna make it multi-threaded


current scores!!
congratz bigfella!


*TOP 15*
1. bigfella (i7 2600K @ 5.1Ghz, 16Gb Gskill DDR3, *3.7950068*)
2. SmileMan (i7 2600k @ 4.625GHz, 16GB 1649MHz Kingstone hyperX, *3.9102237*)
3. Perkomate (i5 2500K @ 4.6Ghz, Corsair 2x2gig 1866mhz, *4.1023161*)
4. Vistakid (i5 2500K @ 4.3Ghz, 16Gb 1648Mhz RipJaws-X, *4.1922319*)
5. StrangleHold (AMD FX 8120 @ 4.2Ghz, 8Gb G.skill 2133@2000, *4.555208*)
6. robtheplod (i7 3770 @ 3.4Ghz, 32Gb ram, *4.6800083*)
7. MyCattMaxx ( AMD FX-4100 @ 3.6Ghz, 8Gb PC3 1333MHz, *4.9608086*)
8. jonnyp11 (Phenom II 960t x4 to x6 @ 3.8GHz, 8GB 1333MHz, *5.1692042*)
9. linkin (i5 2500K @stockspeed, G.Skill Ripjaws X at 1333MHz CAS9, *5.3173041*)
10. FuryRosewood (Phenom2 955, 4Gb x4 Crucial DDR3 1333mhz, *5.3313049*)
11. ScottAlot (i7-930 @stockspeed, "ram unknown", *6.1400085*)
12. SmileMan (i7 920 @stockspeed, 4gb dd3 ram, *6.2712111*)
13. Ankur (i7 2630QM, 4GB 1333MHz, *6.8573643*)
14. voyagerfan99 ( Core2Duo P8600 @ 2.4Ghz, 4GB Hynix RAM, *7.2696128*)
15. Jamesbonds1 ( intel core 2 Q6600 @ 2.4GHz, 4GB DDR2, *7.5600106*)


*TOP 15 INTEL*
1. bigfella (i7 2600K @ 5.1Ghz, 16Gb Gskill DDR3, *3.7950068*)
2. SmileMan (i7 2600k @ 4.625GHz, 16GB 1649MHz Kingstone hyperX, *3.9102237*)
3. Perkomate (i5 2500K @ 4.6Ghz, Corsair 2x2gig 1866mhz, *4.1023161*)
4. Vistakid (i5 2500K @ 4.3Ghz, 16Gb 1648Mhz RipJaws-X, *4.1922319*)
5. robtheplod (i7 3770 @ 3.4Ghz, 32Gb ram, *4.6800083*)
6. linkin (i5 2500K @stockspeed, G.Skill Ripjaws X at 1333MHz CAS9, *5.3173041*)
7. ScottAlot (i7-930 @stockspeed, "ram unknown", *6.1400085*)
8. SmileMan (i7 920 @stockspeed, 4gb dd3 ram,* 6.2712111*)
9. Ankur (i7 2630QM, 4GB 1333MHz, *6.8573643*)
10. voyagerfan99 ( Core2Duo P8600 @ 2.4Ghz, 4GB Hynix RAM, *7.2696128*)
11. Jamesbonds1 ( intel core 2 Q6600 @ 2.4GHz, 4GB DDR2, *7.5600106*)
12. MyCattMaxx ( Core2duo E6600 @ 2.4Ghz, 4GB 800MHz Micron PC2-6400, *7.5980321*)
13. wolfeking ( intel celeron G530 @ 2.4Ghz, 8GB DDR3 1600MHz, *7.7214417*)
...


*TOP 15 AMD*
1. StrangleHold (AMD FX 8120 @ 4.2Ghz, 8Gb G.skill 2133@2000, *4.555208*)
2. MyCattMaxx ( AMD FX-4100 @ 3.6Ghz, 8Gb PC3 1333MHz, *4.9608086*)
3. jonnyp11 (Phenom II 960t x4 to x6 @ 3.8GHz, 8GB 1333MHz, *5.1692042*)
4. FuryRosewood (Phenom2 955, 4Gb x4 Crucial DDR3 1333mhz, *5.3313049*)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.


----------



## Perkomate

number 3 rep... it's interesting to see the difference between the 2600K and 2500K, even though they're close in clockspeed.


----------



## spirit

Yeah it is interesting. 

We've revamped the benchmark now with multi-threading support and a much longer benchmark. The new thread can be found here (Sorry for all the threads!) *http://www.computerforum.com/212578-official-smiles-benchmark-2-0-ranking-thread-new-version-p.html* there you go, benchmark away.

This thread can be locked/un-stickied now.


----------



## Jamebonds1

I would like to re-list my picture.  






I overclocked to 4.74 GHz

(4.74 GHz, 4 GB 1648 MHz, 3.8064066)


----------



## spirit

Could you use the new thread and benchmark please? (see link in the post above yours) Impressive that you got your i3 to 4.7GHz though. How stable is it?


----------



## Jamebonds1

vistakid10 said:


> Could you use the new thread and benchmark please? (see link in the post above yours) Impressive that you got your i3 to 4.7GHz though. How stable is it?



It is stable enough to take screenshot with snipping tool.  I just want to post my last picture in this thread but i will take new benchmark then new thread.  That's far as i can getting up to CPU's clockspeed and RAM's clockspeed.  

PS: It keep shut down due to not have power enough since i increase BCLK.


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> It is stable enough to take screenshot with snipping tool.  I just want to post my last picture in this thread but i will take new benchmark then new thread.  That's far as i can getting up to CPU's clockspeed and RAM's clockspeed.
> 
> PS: It keep shut down due to not have power enough since i increase BCLK.



got that problem too sometimes 
See that no powersaving tool is on


----------



## ScottALot

My RAM is Mushkin Redline 3x2GB 1600MHz CAS 6


----------

