# |Official|Black Hole: Benchmark Ranking thread



## Virssagòn

Black Hole V1.1


*By SmileMan & Spirit*

Hey guys,
we finally made a stable and more advanced version of smiles benchmark.
It will be stable for both companies: Intel and AMD.

It's a multithreaded benchmark, so the more threads you got the better scores!

*Some Information:*

- 3 passes and one warming up round
- 1st pass: calculating with floating point maths, this is 8threaded
- 2nd pass: integer maths, 8threaded
- 3rd pass: Xtreme pass, 32threaded (integer maths)

*64x BIT ONLY!*

The test will last at least 1 minute, maybe 15 if you got a slow pc .
It can be unresponsible for a while, just let it do his thing then.
All other programs must be closed for best results.
The results you can post here like:   name ( cpu, ram, points )
I'll post the scores in one ranking table.

save your scores by clicking save scores.

The higher the scores, the better!

*Installing the benchmark:*

Not really difficult:
just download the zip file from *here*
extract the exe
And run it 

*Preview:*








*Scores:*

*Top 25:*








*Top 25 Intel:*



*Top 25 AMD:*


----------



## Virssagòn

some testers?  (I want to see amd eight-cores)


----------



## Pyotr

Sup?
AMD FX-8120 @ 4.1 GHz
G.Skill Sniper 8 GB @ (I think) 1866 MHz

I don't know if it will stand up well to anything, but here goes:
BRING IT!


----------



## spirit

Faster than my 2500K. Like the wallpaper by the way - my wallpaper is my avatar, gotta love the B-2.


----------



## Pyotr

I have a few wallpapers that switch around every 30 minutes. That one just happened to be up. It could as well have been My Little Pony or Gurren Lagann wallpapers. 

Why is your warm-up test faster than mine? What does it do?


----------



## spirit

Pyotr said:


> Why is your warm-up test faster than mine? What does it do?


Not sure, Smile wrote this particular release completely on his own.


----------



## Virssagòn

Pyotr said:


> I have a few wallpapers that switch around every 30 minutes. That one just happened to be up. It could as well have been My Little Pony or Gurren Lagann wallpapers.
> 
> Why is your warm-up test faster than mine? What does it do?



yeh, everything can flicker. The app is really intensive.
The warming up is 16threaded, it changes if you do it another time (the bench).
It makes the start ready from the 32threaded Xtreme pass.
That was the only solution to make it stable on 1 score.

BTW: nice scores, I'm getting a little bit more but it will beat every i5 and some i7's.


----------



## Pyotr

Fo' shure! Just wait until I manage to bring it to 4.5 GHz.  Which at this rate will be roughly never because I'm stuck playing games instead.


----------



## Virssagòn

This is what I get for the moment 

SmileMan ( i7 2600k @ stockspeed, 16GB DDR3 1600, 8600.545 )


----------



## Virssagòn

my second rig:






sry pyotr...
You got this pc almost


----------



## Pyotr

Creators shouldn't be able to highscore their creations! 

If warm-up is just warm-up, is it not counted for the average time then?


----------



## Virssagòn

Pyotr said:


> Creators shouldn't be able to highscore their creations!
> 
> If warm-up is just warm-up, is it not counted for the average time then?



it isn't ye


----------



## Virssagòn

now OC to 4.2ghz:


----------



## Virssagòn

Wanna see how a six core amd scores. Does someone have an fx 6100? And someone an 1100T?
So I can see which one is the best.


----------



## Virssagòn

http://www.computerforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=5211&stc=1&d=1344012660

my dads pc...
you get better scores with more ram.


----------



## spirit

An original quad-core CPU - Q8300 @ stock.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> An original quad-core CPU - Q8300 @ stock.



nice


----------



## claptonman




----------



## wolfeking

okay, stupid question time. Is it better on this one to have a higher score, or is lower better like the original smiles test?


----------



## Pyotr

Higher is better, since people with better times have higher scores.


----------



## Virssagòn

Pyotr said:


> Higher is better, since people with better times have higher scores.



like he said  ^^


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> okay, stupid question time. Is it better on this one to have a higher score, or is lower better like the original smiles test?



nice scores btw.


----------



## wolfeking

okay. 
And I think based on my score and your score at 4.3, that increasing the FSB and faster RAM increases score, yes? Cause yours (siggy guesswork) is 108 x 39 and 1780 and you scored higher than 100 x 43 and 1866. just guessing though. Ill rerun soon with my timings down at 9-9-9-24 instead of 9-11-11-24 and see if that does anything. 
Can't blame vista this time, we are both on 7 pro.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> okay.
> And I think based on my score and your score at 4.3, that increasing the FSB and faster RAM increases score, yes? Cause yours (siggy guesswork) is 108 x 39 and 1780 and you scored higher than 100 x 43 and 1866. just guessing though. Ill rerun soon with my timings down at 9-9-9-24 instead of 9-11-11-24 and see if that does anything.
> Can't blame vista this time, we are both on 7 pro.



I ran 100x42 with 16gb 1600Mhz.
You got 8gb ram, the ram helps the cpu through this. 
I got 16gb ram, so I got a little advantage.


----------



## wolfeking

ah, okay.  Learning whats going on this time.   

I think then I should go and get 2 8GB dimms and beat you. muhahaha. lolz.  Im doing good as is though.  

I am seriously upgrading my RAM and getting a SSD soon (like as soon as it can be shipped here) so Ill rerun then and see how it does with 16GB @ 1866 9-9-9-24 2T and 43 x 100. should score better then.


----------



## Virssagòn

current stats:


----------



## Virssagòn

another pc from me (laptop)


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> current stats:



Excel FTW!  Nice chart though.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Excel FTW!  Nice chart though.



ty lol!


----------



## Pyotr

You should sort on highest at the top though.


----------



## Virssagòn

Pyotr said:


> You should sort on highest at the top though.



no, I want to be orginal


----------



## Pyotr

Should we still run it twice?


----------



## Virssagòn

Pyotr said:


> Should we still run it twice?



Only the warming up will change, so no, you don't need to run it twice.
Thats the problem we fixed (with other problems too).


----------



## Virssagòn

a contest:

- best intel user
- best amd user

I don't know the reward, but you'll get one .


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> ah, okay.  Learning whats going on this time.
> 
> I think then I should go and get 2 8GB dimms and beat you. muhahaha. lolz.  Im doing good as is though.
> 
> I am seriously upgrading my RAM and getting a SSD soon (like as soon as it can be shipped here) so Ill rerun then and see how it does with 16GB @ 1866 9-9-9-24 2T and 43 x 100. should score better then.



Buy the one I got, its fast cheap and you can trust the brand.


----------



## wolfeking

I had to put off the memory for the SSD. But it will come soon enough.  Going with Gamer 2 just like is in here. Its only $44 for 8GB so a total of $88 for 16GB that will be in here then.  I would use hyperx but it is too much for too little.


----------



## FuryRosewood

Stock 3820, probably if i bumped it it might do better, but from what i see, overclocking has very insignificant impact on the score...


----------



## StrangleHold

4.5ghz. and DDR3 2133 4gb.


----------



## Ocean Spray

Well actually from my estimation, an i5 2500k isn't far off from i7 2600k because the price gap is too big for i7 to be better overall.

Its nearly $80 more for an i7 on MicroCenter.


----------



## Virssagòn

StrangleHold said:


> 4.5ghz. and DDR3 2133 4gb.



Interesting scores!


----------



## Virssagòn

Current score!

The amd eight-core does his job!


----------



## Laquer Head

My i7 3770K o,c'ed at 5.0Ghz gets 8566.705 and a stock i7 3770 gets higher??

Dont understand the scores at all--plus this thing still freezes!!


----------



## Laquer Head

8309.723 on my laptop...

http://imageshack.us/f/684/screener11.jpg/


----------



## AntimatterAsh

*Its a virus.*

I tried to open the link to try it, and it redirected to this. Its not the genuine security essentials. Its a JPEG that redirects to a website. It just reloaded to this as soon as I went on the page.


----------



## spirit

I'll upload it somewhere else if you like and send you the link.


----------



## AntimatterAsh

spirit said:


> I'll upload it somewhere else if you like and send you the link.



Cheers. It asks for Catchapa code then opens like 5 pop ups every 10 seconds then crashes IE. Just email me it


----------



## spirit

Here you go (and anybody else having troubles with the other link)

http://www.2shared.com/file/mNsqdWta/Black_Vole_v11.html?


----------



## Shane

Benchmark wont run for me,Keeps on crashing even when i run as admin.

Ive tried loads of times,even waited like 10 mins. :/


----------



## spirit

Which link did you download it from? Also when it did it crash?


----------



## Shane

Never mind,Now it working after i restarted. 






i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz.


----------



## spirit

Nice score Shane! You scored higher than my 2500K @ 4.3


----------



## AntimatterAsh

Nevakonaza said:


> Never mind,Now it working after i restarted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz.



I have had this problem. It just freezes and overheats my laptop


----------



## spirit

You need to wait for the benchmark to complete. It looks as it's frozen, but it's not and it will run your CPU to 100% load for several minutes.


----------



## Pyotr

How much does RAM SPEED affect it, really? There is a 600 point gap between my 4.2GHz 8120 with 8GB RAM @1866MHz and Strangehold's 4.5GHz 8120 with "only" 4GB 2133 MHz RAM. I'm thinking a lot.  I didn't see any difference in score myself between 4.1 and 4.3GHz, which is why I'm wondering.


----------



## spirit

Not sure. RAM speed could affect the score, it's mainly an app to test CPU performance though more than RAM performance, though faster RAM could possibly help improve your score.


----------



## AntimatterAsh

spirit said:


> You need to wait for the benchmark to complete. It looks as it's frozen, but it's not and it will run your CPU to 100% load for several minutes.



I have left it running since you last posted to me around 45 minutes ago and it is still frozen. I only installed the OS last week too!


----------



## wolfeking

if your talking about your DV6 it is going to take a very long time to complete. Maybe hours. Its a very slow processor.


----------



## spirit

Might have accidentally sent you the bad version which freezes, Smile and I beta tested loads of different exe files yesterday and most of them crashed.

Here's one which should work http://www.2shared.com/file/f7qmEZc3/Black_Vole_v11.html try that.

What processor are you using Ecliptic? I doubt it would take hours to complete, but if it's  slower than a decent dual-core it's going to take an awful long time I'm afraid.

Wouldn't really recommend this application on a a laptop either.


----------



## AntimatterAsh

spirit said:


> Might have accidentally sent you the bad version which freezes, Smile and I beta tested loads of different exe files yesterday and most of them crashed.
> 
> Here's one which should work http://www.2shared.com/file/f7qmEZc3/Black_Vole_v11.html try that.
> 
> What processor are you using Ecliptic? I doubt it would take hours to complete, but if it's  slower than a decent dual-core it's going to take an awful long time I'm afraid.
> 
> Wouldn't really recommend this application on a a laptop either.



Its an AMD Dual Core! I would be slightly annoyed if it takes hours to complete. Its the 2010SA edition. Its only three years old.


----------



## spirit

Which AMD dual-core? Athlon? Turion?


----------



## Virssagòn

Pyotr said:


> How much does RAM SPEED affect it, really? There is a 600 point gap between my 4.2GHz 8120 with 8GB RAM @1866MHz and Strangehold's 4.5GHz 8120 with "only" 4GB 2133 MHz RAM. I'm thinking a lot.  I didn't see any difference in score myself between 4.1 and 4.3GHz, which is why I'm wondering.



the speed doesn't affect much, if you got MANY ram. You'll get better.


----------



## Virssagòn

Nevakonaza said:


> Never mind,Now it working after i restarted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz.



wow, very nice scores for a i5!


----------



## Virssagòn

Pyotr said:


> How much does RAM SPEED affect it, really? There is a 600 point gap between my 4.2GHz 8120 with 8GB RAM @1866MHz and Strangehold's 4.5GHz 8120 with "only" 4GB 2133 MHz RAM. I'm thinking a lot.  I didn't see any difference in score myself between 4.1 and 4.3GHz, which is why I'm wondering.



I really don't know why, but maybe does he got a better motherboard to OC?


----------



## AntimatterAsh

spirit said:


> Which AMD dual-core? Athlon? Turion?



Athlon I think... I dont know... hold on I will check... Nope... its a Vision.


----------



## Virssagòn

EclipticShell said:


> Athlon I think... I dont know... hold on I will check... Nope... its a Vision.



just start the app and you can see what cpu you got.


----------



## AntimatterAsh

SmileMan said:


> just start the app and you can see what cpu you got.



I am on my netbbook at the moment  But there is a AMD Vision sticker on it so...


----------



## wolfeking

That is not the processor that is the package. It would be like saying you have a 1.73 GHz Centrino. It is probably an athlon.  Your in windows 7, so right click on computer and select properties. It will be the 5th line down. It will tell you the name model and speed.


----------



## AntimatterAsh

wolfeking said:


> That is not the processor that is the package. It would be like saying you have a 1.73 GHz Centrino. It is probably an athlon.  Your in windows 7, so right click on computer and select properties. It will be the 5th line down. It will tell you the name model and speed.



Just booted up my laptop, I will connect to it through Remote Desktop when it Boots up since I am watching the Olympics downstairs currently


----------



## AntimatterAsh

wolfeking said:


> That is not the processor that is the package. It would be like saying you have a 1.73 GHz Centrino. It is probably an athlon.  Your in windows 7, so right click on computer and select properties. It will be the 5th line down. It will tell you the name model and speed.



Small resoloution due to RDC on a netbook but...


----------



## Virssagòn

I think you'll have to wait more then 30 min with that cpu


----------



## wolfeking

It will definitely take a while on that. Its weak, and will run hot during the benchmark.


----------



## spirit

Ehh I wouldn't run our app on that, it would take a while. :/

Here's an interesting observation though - Vista vs 7.






Vista Ult. x64 vs 7 Ult. x64 - mind you though it was a fresh install of Windows 7 and had not been updated at all, only SP1 had been installed.


----------



## wolfeking

so if I am seeing that right, vista is faster?  I knew I liked it for a reason.


----------



## AntimatterAsh

Maybe I will treat myself to a new desktop after I have set up the home server. Meh... It works for me anyway.


----------



## spirit

wolfeking said:


> so if I am seeing that right, vista is faster?  I knew I liked it for a reason.



Yeah Vista was faster at SmilesApp too...

It's weird.


----------



## Virssagòn

there is not that much difference, but ok


----------



## KasperL

*Here's mine.*

Okay so Smileman has been asking(demanding!) me to run this test. Here is the result.


----------



## Virssagòn

KasperL said:


> Okay so Smileman has been asking(demanding!) me to run this test. Here is the result.



NICE scores!
Even in stock you own me


----------



## Virssagòn

current scores!

congratz KasperL!


----------



## spirit

Poor old Q8300 is stone dead last.


----------



## wolfeking

seems RAM speed can affect it a lot. That and 200 MHz, but I think RAM did it.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> seems RAM speed can affect it a lot. That and 200 MHz, but I think RAM did it.



You beat kasper with 2 points ;p


----------



## wolfeking

yea. And I got to find out wtf is up with my RAM. I set it to 2133 but I just noticed that during the bench it was at 1866. So, retest in a bit and hopefully running it up to 4.7GHz and 2133.


----------



## wolfeking

stability!!!!!!!!   

first run 




second run 




(BSOD) 

third run for stability 





RAM maxxed out at 1866 MHz.  Will lower the CAS timings later and see if that helps, but I doubt it.  For now I am setting it back to 4.3 for safety.


----------



## Pyotr

Just a note about something that has had me a bit confused: My 8025 points was at 4.1GHz, not 4.2.  I test it at 4.3 now, and it gives me a stable 8033 points. Not worth a screenshot unless someone beats me by very little, but still.


----------



## wolfeking

jason, it sure does affect the score, but not as much as I rekoned. 





vs


----------



## Virssagòn

The cpu stays the most important component in this test. You can increase the score with your RAM speed a bit.


----------



## AntimatterAsh

would black hole run on my netbook? Its a packardbell dot 510p Intel Atom Quadcore n570 1gb  ram,


----------



## spirit

wolfeking said:


> jason, it sure does affect the score, but not as much as I rekoned.


Not a massive difference really. 



EclipticShell said:


> would black hole run on my netbook? Its a packardbell dot 510p Intel Atom Quadcore n570 1gb  ram,


You can try it, there's no guarantee though.


----------



## Virssagòn

EclipticShell said:


> would black hole run on my netbook? Its a packardbell dot 510p Intel Atom Quadcore n570 1gb  ram,



yep, It will. But Let your netbook do his job until it says benchmark complete.
It can last for minimum an hour. You also need 64 bit if you want to run it.

Current scores:

(the ranking table is getting bigger )


----------



## spirit

Anybody reckon they can go beyond 9000?


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Anybody reckon they can go beyond 9000?



If kasperL would OC his cpu and his ram he could


----------



## spirit

Hmm I wonder if anybody here has an i7 Extreme we can test this on - I have a friend who may. It would probably be a 1366 i7 Extreme though.


----------



## Virssagòn

I saw not that much difference when I OC my ram...

now ran it on 4.3ghz with my ram on 824 mhz


----------



## Laquer Head

Good Grief///

I guess I'm gonna have to put the 2600K back in at 5.2GHZ to get top score...

I dont get how a stock 3770 is beating my o.ced 3770K

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/5783/screencap4x.jpg


----------



## Virssagòn

Laquer Head said:


> Good Grief///
> 
> I guess I'm gonna have to put the 2600K back in at 5.2GHZ to get top score...
> 
> I dont get how a stock 3770 is beating my o.ced 3770K
> 
> http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/5783/screencap4x.jpg



you sure you got a stable oc?
Try running it in stock. (my dad has everything stock, settings too)

it's weird, because the other 2 ivy bridges are doing great job.


----------



## Darren




----------



## spirit

Ah... maybe the Q8300 is faster than your Phenom after all. 

In every other benchmark the Phenom would own it though.


----------



## Darren

Yeah my score doesn't seem all that great...


----------



## spirit

Hmmm I still find weird my Core 2 Quad beats it though.


----------



## Virssagòn

Denther said:


> Yeah my score doesn't seem all that great...



try running second time
twice after eachother, some cpu's have that problem.
Don't run any program while benching.
also ram could improve your score.


----------



## Pyotr

I'm telling you, there is something weird with it!


----------



## Laquer Head

Okay, finally broke 8900

http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/5089/screencap6.jpg


----------



## Laquer Head

One thing I've noticed with 2 different CPU's, is it sure doesnt like working when you try to go 5GHZ +...


----------



## Virssagòn

Laquer Head said:


> One thing I've noticed with 2 different CPU's, is it sure doesnt like working when you try to go 5GHZ +...



I think everything above it will be unstable... Idk, but its not a problem with the app, because it blocks nothing.


----------



## wolfeking

SmileMan said:


> also ram could improve your score.


I still don't understand why. when running the program im only using about 2GB, so unless it is just giving points away from more ram then adding more ram should not do anything.


----------



## wolfeking

spirit said:


> Anybody reckon they can go beyond 9000?


let me get a water cooler and 16GB of 2133 and I will almost guarantee it.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> let me get a water cooler and 16GB of 2133 and I will almost guarantee it.



You gonna spend that much for just getting over 9000 ?


----------



## wolfeking

not really. I want faster RAM as is because my render times went down when I OCd to 1866, so I could get the fastest times with 2133. I think that is the fastest that my board supports.  

Water cooler is just to bring temps down some more. I am stable at 4.7 right now, but it is 77* average on average load temps. I want to bring it down, and hit 5GHz too.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> not really. I want faster RAM as is because my render times went down when I OCd to 1866, so I could get the fastest times with 2133. I think that is the fastest that my board supports.
> 
> Water cooler is just to bring temps down some more. I am stable at 4.7 right now, but it is 77* average on average load temps. I want to bring it down, and hit 5GHz too.



I can't give you the trust that you'll hit the 9000. Because cpu's got oc limits from where it will not increase performance anymore...


----------



## wolfeking

well I am already at 8850, so faster RAM and a bit higher clock will get there most likely. If not, it will still definitely be either the top score or 2nd best.    

And not to knock the knowledge, but that does not make any sense at all.  If you make it stable and faster, performance goes up. 5GHz does more work than 4.5GHz every time, unless it is not stable.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> well I am already at 8850, so faster RAM and a bit higher clock will get there most likely. If not, it will still definitely be either the top score or 2nd best.
> 
> And not to knock the knowledge, but that does not make any sense at all.  If you make it stable and faster, performance goes up. 5GHz does more work than 4.5GHz every time, unless it is not stable.



Yep, but up to 5ghz will be more difficult to get it stable. (Tried it with stock cooler, ran prime, saw my temperature going above 90 ;p)

But I got my fingers crossed for you.


----------



## wolfeking

SmileMan said:


> (Tried it with stock cooler, ran prime, saw my temperature going above 90 ;p)
> 
> But I got my fingers crossed for you.


there is your issue number 1. 

It should be easy enough. I will try a run at 1866 with 5ghz and see what I can get later.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> there is your issue number 1.
> 
> It should be easy enough. I will try a run at 1866 with 5ghz and see what I can get later.



Yeh, still considering to take the h60 or the antec kuhler 620


----------



## wolfeking

Im going with the H series when I get it. It looks to be easier to install than the antec coolers.


----------



## Virssagòn

With which one you wanna go?
(I want the h80, but I don't wanna pay that much)


----------



## wolfeking

probably either H80 or H100.  Not sure yet. Depends on if I go for a new motherboard with it or if I just grab RAM and a cooler.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> probably either H80 or H100.  Not sure yet. Depends on if I go for a new motherboard with it or if I just grab RAM and a cooler.



I read that there is almost no difference between these. Like 2-3 maybe 4 degrees..


----------



## wolfeking

That is mainly, as long as memory serves right, because they have about the same area. The 80 is double thick, but still only a 120. The 100 is single thick but double fan.  Either should do, but I still like the idea of 2 fans for top exhaust.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> That is mainly, as long as memory serves right, because they have about the same area. The 80 is double thick, but still only a 120. The 100 is single thick but double fan.  Either should do, but I still like the idea of 2 fans for top exhaust.



Yeah, it has his advantages.
The fans are loud have I heard, but if you are like me, I don't give attention to that.


----------



## wolfeking

I run the 480 ay 100% fan all the time, so sound don't bother me. Then again, some different fans could be quieter, yes?


----------



## FuryRosewood

id get the h80, both of those have fan controllers, and when their on moderate speed, their pretty quiet....no issues here with mine...plus im running a stand fan right now..


----------



## Virssagòn

Current scores!

Some are close to the 9000!!


----------



## Virssagòn

Hey guys,
I want to make a performance/price table.
But then I need for many cpu's the stock speed scores.

greetz smile.


----------



## spirit

If you want I can quickly put my 2500K and RAM back to stock speeds and test for you?


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> If you want I can quickly put my 2500K and RAM back to stock speeds and test for you?



yeh, I gonna base myself on many scores. So there is a stable score.
ty!


----------



## spirit

OK I'll do it for you now.


----------



## spirit

2500K @ stock w/ 16GB RipJaws-X 1600MHz @ stock.






Big difference between 3.3GHz and 4.3GHz.

Below is the score @ 4.3


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> 2500K @ stock w/ 16GB RipJaws-X 1600MHz @ stock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big difference between 3.3GHz and 4.3GHz.
> 
> Below is the score @ 4.3



yeh, added to my excel map


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> yeh, added to my excel map



Woohoo!


----------



## salvage-this

[/URL]


----------



## Virssagòn

salvage-this said:


> [/URL]



nice scores!
I'll update soon.


----------



## salvage-this

Thanks.  To be honest, I am surprised at how well my system is doing compared to the newer hardware with a higher OC.


----------



## spirit

salvage-this said:


> Thanks.  To be honest, I am surprised at how well my system is doing compared to the newer hardware with a higher OC.



Yeah but although you're running older hardware, the 930 is still a very strong chip, it's not by any means 'slow' lol.


----------



## Virssagòn

salvage-this said:


> Thanks.  To be honest, I am surprised at how well my system is doing compared to the newer hardware with a higher OC.



this is a multithreaded benchmark. So cpu's with more threads do better.
and your OC is high for that chip, so you made it as fast as a modern chip.


----------



## Virssagòn

Current Scores!

Laquer Head is still leading the top!


----------



## spirit

You forgot Denther's score - Phenom II X4 955.


----------



## wolfeking

SmileMan said:


> Laquer Head is still leading the top!


He will probably keep it for a while too. Im running 4.1GHz right now, but I can say for sure that I tap out on this board at 4.7 to 4.8 depending on the day.  New build with a new cooler should clock better.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> You forgot Denther's score - Phenom II X4 955.



I'm waiting until he test it twice for stability...
It can't be that he only gets 5000.


----------



## Jamebonds1

I see it here  I'm going see what my computer get.


----------



## wolfeking

Its not going to be great. your running 1333 RAM and a dual core and so far everyone running here is on at least quad cores.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> Its not going to be great. your running 1333 RAM and a dual core and so far everyone running here is on at least quad cores.



ram doesn't make that much sens, maybe 100-150 points max. And that i3 has 4 threads.
If he can clock it to 5ghz, it will be a decend score I think.


----------



## Ramodkk




----------



## wolfeking

SmileMan said:


> ram doesn't make that much sens, maybe 100-150 points max. And that i3 has 4 threads.
> If he can clock it to 5ghz, it will be a decend score I think.


plain and simple he wont hit 4GHz, let along 5GHz. It is a sandy bridge i3. 100 MHz, maybe 150MHz is all your going to get.


----------



## spirit

wolfeking said:


> plain and simple he wont hit 4GHz, let along 5GHz. It is a sandy bridge i3. 100 MHz, maybe 150MHz is all your going to get.



^ Exactly. You cannot really overclock an i3 at all, they are not multiplier unlocked.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> ^ Exactly. You cannot really overclock an i3 at all, they are not multiplier unlocked.



haha, hmm I see, he had an i3 once oc to 5ghz. But not the one he has now...


----------



## wolfeking

the issue is not with it being an i3, the issue is with it being a sandy bridge processor. They become unstable very easily when playing with the baseclock.  108 baseclock is about the max anyone will get. That would put him at 3500 MHz MAX.


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> haha, hmm I see, he had an i3 once oc to 5ghz. But not the one he has now...



That was a Clarkdale i3. It wasn't a stable overclock though, and it was done using software, not through the BIOS.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> That was a Clarkdale i3. It wasn't a stable overclock though, and it was done using software, not through the BIOS.



But he slashed a great score in my app with it.


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> But he slashed a great score in my app with it.



He did but it wasn't an overclock he'd be able to keep really. I can't remember how high he had his voltage in order to get it to boot at 5.0GHz, but it was pretty high IIRC and we all know that more voltage = more heat.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> He did but it wasn't an overclock he'd be able to keep really. I can't remember how high he had his voltage in order to get it to boot at 5.0GHz, but it was pretty high IIRC and we all know that more voltage = more heat.



yep, I know >:S
He had in the 1.5 for voltage


----------



## Jamebonds1

wolfeking said:


> Its not going to be great. your running 1333 RAM and a dual core and so far everyone running here is on at least quad cores.





SmileMan said:


> ram doesn't make that much sens, maybe 100-150 points max. And that i3 has 4 threads.
> If he can clock it to 5ghz, it will be a decend score I think.



Upgrade from 1333 to 1600 MHz didn't make biggest different.  Not really worth it, wasted money.  It would only increase by 1 to 3 FPS from upgrade RAM.  It is sad that my two stable RAM is gone   I have other two RAM and it is unstable while overclocked to 1500 MHz.  



SmileMan said:


> haha, hmm I see, he had an i3 once oc to 5ghz. But not the one he has now...





spirit said:


> That was a Clarkdale i3. It wasn't a stable overclock though, and it was done using software, not through the BIOS.





spirit said:


> He did but it wasn't an overclock he'd be able to keep really. I can't remember how high he had his voltage in order to get it to boot at 5.0GHz, but it was pretty high IIRC and we all know that more voltage = more heat.





SmileMan said:


> yep, I know >:S
> He had in the 1.5 for voltage



Actually it is 1.6 volt to getting my overclocked to 5 ghz.  That was i3 540, not i3 2120

I had changed base clock but it was crashed.  It can be due to insufficient voltage for base clock.   

PS, i think i put wrong RAM slot, my two RAM installed and is current single channel.


----------



## mx344

Ill try this on my rig later tonight


----------



## Virssagòn

mx344 said:


> Ill try this on my rig later tonight



nice!


----------



## Laquer Head

SmileMan said:


> ...Laquer Head is still leading the top!





wolfeking said:


> He will probably keep it for a while too. Im running 4.1GHz right now, but I can say for sure that I tap out on this board at 4.7 to 4.8 depending on the day.  New build with a new cooler should clock better.



I know I can score higher, but the app will not run through if I clock past 4.9GHZ.. it just stops working.

I tried a ton of settings and voltges..etc but 5.0+ will not work..


----------



## wolfeking

hmm... I'm going to try 5GHz at 1.5V right now and see if I can run the app. If it don't then there may be an issue with the app. It is interesting to see that you can't. So I guess what I am saying is I am going to try and reproduce the problem and see what happens.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> hmm... I'm going to try 5GHz at 1.5V right now and see if I can run the app. If it don't then there may be an issue with the app. It is interesting to see that you can't. So I guess what I am saying is I am going to try and reproduce the problem and see what happens.



I hope you got your new cooler then?


----------



## wolfeking

nope. And it won't boot at that voltage.  So I said screw it its at stock now till my SSd comes in


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> nope. And it won't boot at that voltage.  So I said screw it its at stock now till my SSd comes in



I got one already


----------



## wolfeking

big deal.  I still think I throwed away $100 by getting it. They are not that great, and probably never will be. But it can be good enough in a time savings of waiting for it to reboot after it does its ASrock blue screen issue.


----------



## spirit

wolfeking said:


> big deal.  I still think I throwed away $100 by getting it. They are not that great, and probably never will be. But it can be good enough in a time savings of waiting for it to reboot after it does its ASrock blue screen issue.



SSDs not great and never will be? 

You will never want to go back to a regular HDD once you've tried one on 6GB/s.


----------



## wolfeking

You say that now.  I will probably end up back on a HDD in a couple of weeks. Your talking about it being fast. Big deal. At least my HDD will still have its stock speed 10 years from now and I will still be able to use whatever OS I want to on it. 

SSDs, while meant to be well, is just another try by microsoft to kill everything except windows 7. And thanks to that is a reason why I probably will not use it for more than a month at most.


----------



## spirit

wolfeking said:


> SSDs, while meant to be well, is just another try by microsoft to kill everything except windows 7. And thanks to that is a reason why I probably will not use it for more than a month at most.


No. 

It's just when Windows Vista was the latest OS SSDs were so expensive there was no point really enhancing the OS in any way to work on SSDs because nobody had them as they just so expensive. However, when Windows 7 came out, the prices of SSDs started to drop, so Microsoft made Windows 7 run better on SSDs, chances are Windows 8 will run even better on SSDs. 

It's like complaining that Windows 98 does not run well on multi-core processors or the fact that it does not run on over 1GB of RAM, it's a pointless complaint because when the OS was released nobody had 1GB of RAM and multi-core processors just didn't exist.

Windows Vista will run just fine on an SSD, as will XP, it's just you won't be be able to use TRIM - big deal really. I certainly know Vista runs fine on an SDD because I used Vista on my SSD for two weeks or so, worked fine.


----------



## wolfeking

And without trim a bit down the road and your spending yet another $100 to replace a drive.  Its a waste of money. It always will be, and it has been. That is not going to change no matter what yall say.


----------



## spirit

wolfeking said:


> And without trim a bit down the road and your spending yet another $100 to replace a drive.  Its a waste of money. It always will be, and it has been. That is not going to change no matter what yall say.


The drive will be fine without TRIM.

An SSD will still be working long after your mechanical HDD has clicked away into the "HDD graveyard". Mean time between failures for SSDs is decades and decades in most cases, if not centuries sometimes.


----------



## wolfeking

So they say. No one has had a SSD for decades to test the theory. There is no way that they even tested the SATA6 drives for the 1mil+ hours that they claim. The interface and controllers have not existed for that long.     

If its fine without it them wtf do we need it? A selling point for OSX, Ubuntu 10 and windows 7? or does it actually do something?      Even without it, its still a waste of $100 that could easily be put into a 1,5TB drive.


----------



## spirit

wolfeking said:


> So they say. No one has had a SSD for decades to test the theory. There is no way that they even tested the SATA6 drives for the 1mil+ hours that they claim. The interface and controllers have not existed for that long.
> 
> If its fine without it them wtf do we need it? A selling point for OSX, Ubuntu 10 and windows 7? or does it actually do something?      Even without it, its still a waste of $100 that could easily be put into a 1,5TB drive.



OK very true but if you're a speed freak like myself and most of us here are an SSD is the best way to increase your computer's performance. SSDs are not a selling point for operating systems, the later operating systems are just enhanced so they can use them more efficiently. 

If you'd rather a 1.5TB drive that's fine, but it's true that SSDs will last longer than a conventional hard drive because they are solid state, thus have no moving parts, it's true that they are faster, it's also true that they are getting cheaper, faster and larger. Honestly they're the future - no denying it, and the technology is only going to get better. 

On the other hand, hard drives may get better too, but I kind of doubt that now really. 

Have you ever used an SSD before?


----------



## wolfeking

several, and never saw the point over boot time. And its a good reason why I should not be on the internet after a full day of exercise and such. Cause it results in wasting money. 

Either you misread it, or I said it wrong. I was not saying the SSD is the selling point. I was saying if they work without TRIM just fine, then whats the use of TRIM?  The way yall talk, and the manufacturers, if you don't use trim then your hurting the drive.  Fine enough, I am going to run XP and Vista on it. And It will fail soon. That is a guarenteed.  

We will see how they run. I doubt that there will be anything they offer over HDDs other than speed, and speed is not everything.  Computers are going internet only, so it will only be a couple of years before a ipod is the most powerful thing you can use without renting supercomputer space.  That is the future, not SSDs and quantum processors and point to point RAM.


----------



## spirit

wolfeking said:


> The way yall talk, and the manufacturers, if you don't use trim then your hurting the drive.  Fine enough, I am going to run XP and Vista on it. And It will fail soon. That is a guarenteed.


I used my SSD without TRIM and on a SATA 3GB/s connection, worked fine, just not as fast as on a 6GB/s connection, but that was to do with the SATA connection, not TRIM. 

The drive will not fail soon. Simple as that. I'm not saying at all that if you don't use TRIM the "drive will fail very soon", I'm saying that TRIM helps keep the drive running in as best as shape as possible, but it is not essential at all. 



			
				wolfeking said:
			
		

> We will see how they run. I doubt that there will be anything they offer over HDDs other than speed, and speed is not everything.  Computers are going internet only, so it will only be a couple of years before a ipod is the most powerful thing you can use without renting supercomputer space.  That is the future, not SSDs and quantum processors and point to point RAM.


Your computer will run a bit cooler and if using on a laptop then your battery life should increase, and don't forget SSDs are lighter too. I know the heat and the weight of the drives doesn't affect the desktop market at all really, but for the laptop world and the mobile world, it does affect it.

I agree with you, we are going into the cloud - sad but true. Maybe I was wrong saying "SSDs are the future", the future is undecided.

Lets leave it at that.


----------



## wolfeking

whatever. I still say I wasted a good bit of money on it. I should have bought some RAM, or a bigger HDD and been done. Chances are that the motherboard will kill it anyway. But again, w/e.  I think we have successfully derailed enough.


----------



## Virssagòn

let's go back on topic after 2 pages


----------



## wolfeking

I would, but stock 2600k is POS scoring. lol.


----------



## Jamebonds1

Longest OT lol but i have my Hard drive on 6/sec SATAIII mode.


----------



## Pyotr

I'm going to try and get myself to 4.5 GHz again tomorrow, see if I get anywhere close to top AMD processor.. I have my doubts, although getting stable at 4.5 might prove difficult as hell.


----------



## wolfeking

4.5 should not be hard on that processor.


----------



## Jamebonds1

Pyotr said:


> I'm going to try and get myself to 4.5 GHz again tomorrow, see if I get anywhere close to top AMD processor.. I have my doubts, although getting stable at 4.5 might prove difficult as hell.



Let hope you getting up to 4.5 since your RAM is that highest speed clock.


----------



## Darren

So do I not even make the top scores? I demand to be put in last!


----------



## Pyotr

wolfeking said:


> 4.5 should not be hard on that processor.


It shouldn't, and I have proper cooling for it, but last time I tried I couldn't get it stable at all. :/ Not sure if I need slightly more voltage since it DID boot, or if maybe my motherboard just doesn't handle all that amazing power very well.

Denther, as Smile said, run the test again. He doesn't believe you only get 5k points.


----------



## wolfeking

if it did boot then you needed more volts.  If it bluescreens when overclocking there is a good post to decode them over at OCN. 


> Originally Posted by coolhandluke41;12335363
> I think this may be helpful for some of you,found this on XS
> 
> The OverClockers BSOD code list
> BSOD codes for overclocking
> 0x101 = increase vcore
> 0x124 = increase/decrease vcore or QPI/VTT...have to test to see which one it is
> 0x0A = unstable RAM/IMC, increase QPI first, if that doesn't work increase vcore
> 0x1E = increase vcore
> 0x3B = increase vcore
> 0x3D = increase vcore
> 0xD1 = QPI/VTT, increase/decrease as necessary, can also be unstable Ram, raise Ram voltage
> 0x9C = QPI/VTT most likely, but increasing vcore has helped in some instances
> 0x50 = RAM timings/Frequency or uncore multi unstable, increase RAM voltage or adjust QPI/VTT, or lower uncore if you're higher than 2x
> 0x109 = Not enough or too Much memory voltage
> 0x116 = Low IOH (NB) voltage, GPU issue (most common when running multi-GPU/overclocking GPU)
> 0x7E = Corrupted OS file, possibly from overclocking. Run sfc /scannow and chkdsk /r
> 
> and for all of you with GB mobos you should read this;
> http://www.overclock.net/intel-general/910467-ultimate-sandy-bridge-oc-guide-p67a.html


http://www.overclock.net/t/968053/o...voltages-temps-bios-templates-inc-spreadsheet


----------



## Pyotr

I'm just not sure how far I can push that voltage safely. Don't want to ruin my stuff.


----------



## wolfeking

1.5V is about the most you want to do at any point. Temps are directly related to your voltage so watch them close.


----------



## claptonman

wolfeking said:


> if it did boot then you needed more volts.  If it bluescreens when overclocking there is a good post to decode them over at OCN.
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/968053/o...voltages-temps-bios-templates-inc-spreadsheet



"0x109 = Not enough or too Much memory voltage"

That's helpful...


----------



## wolfeking

well its more helpful than not knowing which voltage is at issue.


----------



## Jamebonds1

wolfeking said:


> well its more helpful than not knowing which voltage is at issue.



Your motherboard have LED debug so it should be show a error code for voltage issue?

PS.  I think I know what is wrong with my overclock.  Old BIOS F7 version on my motherboard is unstable for overclock and CPU support issue.  I updated to F11, it is stable CPU support and overclock now.


----------



## wolfeking

Jamebonds1 said:


> Your motherboard have LED debug so it should be show a error code for voltage issue?


Not really. That only works if it is an issue that will not allow POST. After that the debug shows nothing at all.


----------



## Virssagòn

Denther said:


> So do I not even make the top scores? I demand to be put in last!



yeah, I think it's an issue, try running it twice again for stability. And see what happens.
I'm not gonna put you behind the intel quaaaad


----------



## spirit

wolfeking said:


> 4.5 should not be hard on that processor.


Yeah that's I think too, especially with his cooling. I think his board is the limitation though, I don't think it's stable at a 4.5GHz OC. My board isn't stable with my 2500K @ 4.5. 



SmileMan said:


> yeah, I think it's an issue, try running it twice again for stability. And see what happens.
> I'm not gonna put you behind the intel quaaaad


The X4 955 should be faster than a Q8300.


----------



## Pyotr

spirit said:


> Yeah that's I think too, especially with his cooling. I think his board is the limitation though, I don't think it's stable at a 4.5GHz OC. My board isn't stable with my 2500K @ 4.5.


Running the benchmark clocked to 4.4 right now. No idea if it'll work.
Two things bug me though: The fluctuations in CPU-Z when it comes to core speed are still there, and they still go both above and below the actual set clock. Not sure if it affects stability or not, but it's very bothersome.
And someone else with an 8120 only clocked a little higher got sooo much higher score than I did.  Must beat it!


----------



## Virssagòn

Pyotr said:


> Running the benchmark clocked to 4.4 right now. No idea if it'll work.
> Two things bug me though: The fluctuations in CPU-Z when it comes to core speed are still there, and they still go both above and below the actual set clock. Not sure if it affects stability or not, but it's very bothersome.
> And someone else with an 8120 only clocked a little higher got sooo much higher score than I did.  Must beat it!



Eum... I think it's not the clockspeed now. You'll not get much higher, you are limited for some reason. Maybe your mobo, maybe something else.


----------



## Pyotr

I don't know though. If I were to believe CPU-Z, my CPU is not running at full speed at any point during the benchmark. I'm not saying I'll ever beat anything, but I personally (and possibly wrongly, but we will see ) think I can get a few more points from it.
I did manage to get stable at 4.5, but only managed 8045 points anyway. I will work on it during the week and see if I can fix it.


----------



## Virssagòn

I'm getting my new cooler and gonna beat you all!! 
Found one which cools better then the h60 for less money .


----------



## spirit

Pyotr, have you tried updating your BIOS?


----------



## Pyotr

No, I probably should. Might try that tomorrow.


----------



## Virssagòn

Current scores:

that i5 is coming close, great for a 4threaded cpu!


----------



## Pyotr

Can you bump me up a bit please? 





4.2GHz, RAM at 1866.  Stability achieved! Updating BIOS worked amazing wonders, thanks for the tip!


----------



## FuryRosewood

cant wait to see what happens when accurate numbers can be given, still some of the things i see dont scale at all to me


----------



## StrangleHold

FuryRosewood said:


> cant wait to see what happens when accurate numbers can be given, still some of the things i see dont scale at all to me


 
What do you mean by accurate numbers? What isnt scaling well?


----------



## FuryRosewood

the numbers do not scale with processor performance, id expect there to be a bigger gap between intel/amd, but thats me. looking at passmark scores there is a sizeable gap, however with this, theres hardly any gap at all.


----------



## wolfeking

not only that, but there is at least one instance of the same processor (2600k) at the same clocks (4.3) scoring 140ish different with only 8GB difference in RAM, which should not matter as it is only using about 1GB extra and not filling up 8GB as is.


----------



## StrangleHold

FuryRosewood said:


> the numbers do not scale with processor performance, id expect there to be a bigger gap between intel/amd, but thats me. looking at passmark scores there is a sizeable gap, however with this, theres hardly any gap at all.


 
Dont see how that is. There is only three AMD to judge from. This thing runs alot of threads and the AMDs have either 6 or 8 cores vs. the Intels HT. Looks pretty normal. I guess unless people just want the AMDs to be at the bottom for psychological reasons.


----------



## FuryRosewood

theres a 1000 point spread between a stock i7 3820 and a phenom ii 8150...theres far less than that here however everyone is overclocking, would like to see some figures that compare clocked/overclocked...overclocking can corrupt data.


----------



## wolfeking

Update in a minute with a stock 2600k. Lets see how it runs.






stock 2600k turbo on, and RAM at 1333 (stock settings)


----------



## Jamebonds1

People meet my new friend motherboard 

i3 2120, 1333 MHz RAM DDR3, 111.2905954


----------



## StrangleHold

Jamebonds1 said:


> People meet my new friend motherboard
> 
> i3 2120, 1333 MHz RAM DDR3, 111.2905954


 
Easy Tunes says your 2120 is a (ES) Sample. Where is shoud say Intel(R) Core(TM) i3 2120 CPU @ 3.3hz.


----------



## Virssagòn

FuryRosewood said:


> cant wait to see what happens when accurate numbers can be given, still some of the things i see dont scale at all to me



Thats because passmark does not test multithreaded only. In the next version there will be a score per core/thread, and thats where the amd will fail.
But here, the eight core only has 100-500 points difference.

I also made it more then the processors his own threads, so you can improve your score with better ram performance.
As example, my stock i7 2600k scores 8600. wolfekins ~8500, thats the difference in ram.

The per core/thread test will be cpu performance only.

scores with the same cpu from the same person will be replaced by the best score.


----------



## Jamebonds1

StrangleHold said:


> Easy Tunes says your 2120 is a (ES) Sample. Where is shoud say Intel(R) Core(TM) i3 2120 CPU @ 3.3hz.



ES?  where do it say?


----------



## wolfeking

specification line.


----------



## Jamebonds1

wolfeking said:


> specification line.



Hmm... do you know what ES mean?


----------



## wolfeking

Engineering Sample.  Its like a floor model.  But it should not have been sold to you if it is a ES model. Unless you work for intel.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> Engineering Sample.  Its like a floor model.  But it should not have been sold to you if it is a ES model. Unless you work for intel.



lol, what are you trying to say us jamebonds1?


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> lol, what are you trying to say us jamebonds1?



Huh?  :/


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> Huh?  :/



you undercover intel spy :O xD


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> you undercover intel spy :O xD



Lol, no i'm not spy   I'm not sure what is going on but i will try with CPU z.


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> Lol, no i'm not spy   I'm not sure what is going on but i will try with CPU z.



It was a joke man


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> It was a joke man



I know. I'm joke back


----------



## Virssagòn

here it is, current scores!! (wolfekins stock is added to my excel map )


----------



## spirit

I'm pretty sad that my Core 2 Quad got beaten by a little i3. 

To be honest I was expecting though, in some cases an i3 2100 is actually faster than a QX9770 according to Anandtech CPU Bech.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> I'm pretty sad that my Core 2 Quad got beaten by a little i3.
> 
> To be honest I was expecting though, in some cases an i3 2100 is actually faster than a QX9770 according to Anandtech CPU Bech.



so, why are you complaining? 

ps: wow, went to megabyte!!


----------



## Okedokey

Update scores pls


----------



## Jamebonds1

Lol.  It was just a game to show off CPU


----------



## Virssagòn

bigfellla said:


> Update scores pls



He gots the 5+ running laquer head!!


----------



## Jamebonds1

bigfellla said:


> Update scores pls



Nice! You getting top now


----------



## spirit

Ah Bigfella, so close to 9,000! If you could get it another few MHz...  joking of course, 5.1 is very high!


----------



## Virssagòn

current scores!

congratz bigfella.
But still no one above the 9000, if bigfella oc his ram, he could I think!


----------



## Okedokey

Thats just at 5GHz mate.  I could probably get higher, but need better cooling


----------



## Virssagòn

I wanna see what an amd eight core @ 5ghz does .


----------



## Virssagòn

bigfellla said:


> Thats just at 5GHz mate.  I could probably get higher, but need better cooling



you did this with that h2o 620 cooling???
Thats really crazy!


----------



## spirit

bigfellla said:


> Thats just at 5GHz mate.  I could probably get higher, but need better cooling



Hahaha, yeah, cooling is everybody's bottleneck sadly. 

We need the guy with the 3930K to overclock his chip and see what he scores.


----------



## wolfeking

Maybe if this is going to come down to a numbers war, then I can get a 3930k and a 2011 board and see what it would do at 4.5 or so. Should break 10k with that.


----------



## Okedokey

wolfeking said:


> Maybe if this is going to come down to a numbers war, then I can get a 3930k and a 2011 board and see what it would do at 4.5 or so. Should break 10k with that.



Doubt it


----------



## Okedokey

Yeah im going to install a 2 x 120mm rad and dedicate it to the CPU, then i reckon 5.5 on my mobo is possible


----------



## wolfeking

if you look at the graph, it only needs about 1200 points on top of the base score. if what they keep saying about memory is true (remains to be seen unless it arbitrarily hands out points for more memory) then setting it up to 32 GB should gain quite a bit of it.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> Maybe if this is going to come down to a numbers war, then I can get a 3930k and a 2011 board and see what it would do at 4.5 or so. Should break 10k with that.



haha xD, I think you can max get 500 points more with overclocking.


----------



## spirit

wolfeking said:


> Maybe if this is going to come down to a numbers war, then I can get a 3930k and a 2011 board and see what it would do at 4.5 or so. Should break 10k with that.



I would sincerely hope an OC'ed 3930K would get way higher than 9,000 and hopefully onto 10,000. If not, then a 3960X all the way.  

Still need to ask a friend of mine if he has an i7 Extreme he can test this on, I'm pretty sure he may have one but I'm not promising anything.


----------



## Virssagòn

so the max you can get is 700 points more then stock. If you overclock your cpu and your ram.


----------



## Okedokey

I would postulate that a 2600K is about 15% slower than a 3930K at stock.  The 2600K has a better OC headroom though, so I would doubt if you see a 5% increase.  That means it may get 9,050 - 9,100 is my guess.

Also by the time you add the additional platform cost and cpu cost over a 2600K, i reckon a kick-ass watercooling system and a 2600K ocd at 5.4GHz or similar would be cheaper and faster.


----------



## Virssagòn

bigfellla said:


> I would postulate that a 2600K is about 15% slower than a 3930K at stock.  The 2600K has a better OC headroom though, so I would doubt if you see a 5% increase.  That means it may get 9,050 - 9,100 is my guess.



yeah, But I think over 5ghz will not gain much points.
I would play safe with your cooler, because the benchmark is running 4-5min.
what temps did you got when running?


----------



## Okedokey

SmileMan said:


> yeah, But I think over 5ghz will not gain much points.
> I would play safe with your cooler, because the benchmark is running 4-5min.
> what temps did you got when running?



Low 70s


----------



## wolfeking

bigfellla said:


> I would postulate that a 2600K is about 15% slower than a 3930K at stock.


Well, on this particular program it is tieing the 2600k @ 4.7 with it at stock. So pushing it up would get it above the 2600k top end fairly quickly.  even 4.0 or 4.2 or the like would still score very well.


----------



## spirit

bigfellla said:


> Yeah im going to install a 2 x 120mm rad and dedicate it to the CPU, then i reckon 5.5 on my mobo is possible



Bloody hell - 5.5GHz? That's all I have to say. That's over a 2.0GHz overclock!


----------



## Okedokey

wolfeking said:


> Well, on this particular program it is tieing the 2600k @ 4.7 with it at stock. So pushing it up would get it above the 2600k top end fairly quickly.  even 4.0 or 4.2 or the like would still score very well.



That logic doesn't necessarily hold truth.  These things are not linear, in fact temp and power is exponential.  Either way, id like to see what it can do, but the i was under the impression that the 3930k runs away thermally...


----------



## wolfeking

It might be 2 months before I get it, but I think I am going to try this. Worse case scenario is that it may end up adding 50% to my folding scores.  Very curious as to what it can do on air.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> It might be 2 months before I get it, but I think I am going to try this. Worse case scenario is that it may end up adding 50% to my folding scores.  Very curious as to what it can do on air.



I found some nice aircoolers which are better then some watercoolers, but nobody answers in my thread :'(


----------



## wolfeking

you have to wait for someone that knows coolers. I do not. I can only tell you if it will fit.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> you have to wait for someone that knows coolers. I do not. I can only tell you if it will fit.



k, does that silver arrow fit when I raise the fan above the ram?


----------



## mx344

It freezes on me? anyone had this problem


----------



## Virssagòn

mx344 said:


> It freezes on me? anyone had this problem



Yes it can freeze, but you must wait at least 6-8min. It seems like it  is frozen, but it's doing his job.
If your scores aren't that great, you must run it for a second time (on some cpu's).


----------



## spirit

mx344 said:


> It freezes on me? anyone had this problem



Yeah that's a perfectly normal occurance. After you hit the 'benchmark' button a warning dialogue will come up saying the application may appear to freeze/not respond but actually it is benching your CPU.


----------



## mx344

SmileMan said:


> Yes it can freeze, but you must wait at least 6-8min. It seems like it  is frozen, but it's doing his job.
> If your scores aren't that great, you must run it for a second time (on some cpu's).



got it, i only did it for like 3 minutes


----------



## Virssagòn

mx344 said:


> got it, i only did it for like 3 minutes



post your scores then, if the score is bad. Run it a second time.


----------



## mx344

heres mine 
would it go up from 2gigs to 4 gigs of ram? mine should be coming in soon


----------



## Virssagòn

mx344 said:


> heres mine
> would it go up from 2gigs to 4 gigs of ram? mine should be coming in soon



yeah, I think a bit. Maybe 50, 100 max. But the speed of the ram helps also.
Nice scores for a quad core! Are these stock speeds?


----------



## StrangleHold

SmileMan said:


> I wanna see what an amd eight core @ 5ghz does .


 
I'll do a suicide run later to see how close to 5ghz. I can get.


----------



## mx344

SmileMan said:


> yeah, I think a bit. Maybe 50, 100 max. But the speed of the ram helps also.
> Nice scores for a quad core! Are these stock speeds?



unlocked 
6 cores @3.43ghz


----------



## Virssagòn

mx344 said:


> unlocked
> 6 cores @3.43ghz



so stock lol , You are scoring better then an oc fx 6100


----------



## Okedokey

StrangleHold said:


> I'll do a suicide run later to see how close to 5ghz. I can get.



hurry up!


----------



## Okedokey

SmileMan said:


> so stock lol , You are scoring better then an oc fx 6100



that doesn't suprise me, my toaster could score better than faildozer


----------



## Virssagòn

bigfellla said:


> that doesn't suprise me, my toaster could score better than faildozer



haha lol, it costs also not that much as a toaster


----------



## Virssagòn

Current scores!


----------



## Virssagòn

I gonna get the silver arrow and pown you all 
It cools better then the h2o 920! see here


----------



## Okedokey

SmileMan said:


> I gonna get the silver arrow and pown you all
> It cools better then the h2o 920! see here



Id be very sceptical of 1 test on that site.  Not bad though.  I would like to see 4 fans on the 920 though, it would own the silver arrow.  Or put the same two fans on the 920, that may be the key issue.


----------



## Virssagòn

bigfellla said:


> Id be very sceptical of 1 test on that site.  Not bad though.  I would like to see 4 fans on the 920 though, it would own the silver arrow.



Jep, but his price is now very low. Under 60 euro! while the price from the 920 is now 99 euro.
I just didn't want to spend all that money on a watercooler, there are good aircoolers this time which beat watercoolers.


----------



## Virssagòn

I'm now making the new version. I got already a prototype.
But I need a name, because I don't like the name now.

this is a preview of the next version:






we'll wait 1-2 weeks for release.
So you can get your topscores with the current version!

smile


----------



## Okedokey

Recommendation, 

too much info, just give a score, and thats it.  The rest is meaningless.


----------



## Virssagòn

bigfellla said:


> Recommendation,
> 
> too much info, just give a score, and thats it.  The rest is meaningless.



K, I'm open for recommendations!
what info would you delete?


----------



## Okedokey

SmileMan said:


> K, I'm open for recommendations!
> what info would you delete?



Everything, just run it and give a score at the end.


----------



## spirit

bigfellla said:


> Everything, just run it and give a score at the end.



Yeah I agree. Let it calculate the scores, but just not show them. Either hide the TextBoxes or remove the code:



		Code:
	

TextBox2.Text="<result here>"


For example, or use:



		Code:
	

TextBox2.Hide()


That way you can have a button which the user can press if they want to see all the scores which just uses the .Show() code.

I'll make a new background soon, probably over the weekend if I'm around.


----------



## Virssagòn

bigfellla said:


> Everything, just run it and give a score at the end.



I can't let it go automatically. Thats the problem why there is a warming up.
When I let it do automatically, the threads will be running while the singlethreaded is doing his job. That will make it unstable.
So I need to make it manually...
You meant that no?


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Yeah I agree. Let it calculate the scores, but just not show them. Either hide the TextBoxes or remove the code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> TextBox2.Text="<result here>"
> 
> 
> For example, or use:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> TextBox2.Hide()
> 
> 
> That way you can have a button which the user can press if they want to see all the scores which just uses the .Show() code.
> 
> I'll make a new background soon, probably over the weekend if I'm around.




aah ok, I got something in mind how to.


----------



## Virssagòn

You mean like just 1 score per test?


----------



## FuryRosewood

one score per test is good i think that would be fine


----------



## Virssagòn

FuryRosewood said:


> one score per test is good i think that would be fine



I gonna release a snapshot today, just for tests and advice. It will be not official, so the current version stays official here for a week or 2.


----------



## Okedokey

Hey man dont just take my word for it, im just one guy...


----------



## Laquer Head

So this is what I don't get...I run it well past 5GHZ, with Ram OC'ed and the score goes down??





By laquerhead at 2012-08-05


----------



## Okedokey

Laquer Head said:


> So this is what I don't get...I run it well past 5GHZ, with Ram OC'ed and the score goes down??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By laquerhead at 2012-08-05



even slower then?


----------



## StrangleHold

That is odd, unless between the two runs you had more processes running in the background for some reason. Small things can make a difference, program tries to update, anti virus starts scanning blah blah blah.


----------



## Laquer Head

bigfellla said:


> even slower then?



My second place score at 4.9GHZ.



StrangleHold said:


> That is odd, unless between the two runs you had more processes running in the background for some reason. Small things can make a difference, program tries to update, anti virus starts scanning blah blah blah.



Yah, I hear you.

I still think there is something screwy with this benchmark though..way too many inconsistencies.


----------



## wolfeking

Laquer Head said:


> I still think there is something screwy with this benchmark though..way too many inconsistencies.


Kind of agree. There are plenty of instances that just don't add up. 

I would also love to see someone run a 2600k HT on @ 4.3 with 8GB @ 1600 9-9-9-24 just to see how the same setup would score against itself. I would be willing to bet that none of them would score the same.


----------



## Okedokey

This is actually a know issue.  Many OCs in the past are slower due to the way instruction set works.  Not the first time.  In the past 4.8 is slower than 4.7 ghz but 4.85 is faster.

Try loosing the timing on the ram


----------



## wolfeking

bigfellla said:


> Try loosing the timing on the ram


Why loose the timing? It could affect the score, and that is the stock timing of this RAM @ 1600.


----------



## Laquer Head

I guess at the end of the day these types of benches are more for fun than anything..

My computer is insanely fast and does all I need and more--I dont need a benchmark to tell me that!


----------



## Okedokey

wolfeking said:


> Why loose the timing? It could affect the score, and that is the stock timing of this RAM @ 1600.



Timing and frequency are two different things my padwan.


----------



## wolfeking

whats a padwan?   and noted. So it would not affect the score at all?


----------



## spirit

I know there are inconsistencies and issues but remember this was written in VB.NET which is really a very limited language. There's only so much you can do without having to write the whole thing in C# or C++ and learn a whole new language.


----------



## Okedokey

Score updating required


----------



## Laquer Head

spirit said:


> I know there are inconsistencies and issues but remember this was written in VB.NET which is really a very limited language. There's only so much you can do without having to write the whole thing in C# or C++ and learn a whole new language.



Don't take this the wrong way, you have much more skill than I do with programs.. however,

Releasing something with known and admitted issues, inconsistencies, and freezing issues gives your program very little legitimacy.

Enough people have posted results, some with multiple results and there is more than just a few issues.

I know, as stated earlier, that its all for fun and friendly competition, but that aside, its pretty much a useless benchmark until it is actually smooth and accurate.

Until then, its completely pointless and irrelevant.

Sorry, but its like Microsoft releasing an incomplete version of windows--at least your not charging for using it though


----------



## Okedokey

Laquer Head said:


> Don't take this the wrong way, you have much more skill than I do with programs.. however,
> 
> Releasing something with known and admitted issues, inconsistencies, and freezing issues gives your program very little legitimacy.
> 
> Enough people have posted results, some with multiple results and there is more than just a few issues.
> 
> I know, as stated earlier, that its all for fun and friendly competition, but that aside, its pretty much a useless benchmark until it is actually smooth and accurate.
> 
> Until then, its completely pointless and irrelevant.
> 
> Sorry, but its like Microsoft releasing an incomplete version of windows--at least your not charging for using it though



No evidence for what you're saying at all.  As i increase the clock speed of the cpu, the bench responds.  You just cannot compete, thus your issue 

Score update:


----------



## Okedokey

I am sure if the guys were to take the results and chart them by CPU, clock speed and score you will find there is a strong correlation.   If you then compared the scores across cpus you will find an equally strong correlation.  No benchmark is perfect.  I have found a fairly linear response to the bench.

This also correlates to this bench http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/551?vs=287

where the 2600K is the very similar to a 3770k even with a lower clockspeed. Given that im running 5.2GHz to your 4.9GHz this justifies the lead.  Nothing unsual there.

But if your sig is correct, post your results for 5.262GHz and we can see like for like in terms of clock speed.  I still think ill win 

Either way im winning!!  plus i have the best desktop background yet again yay!


----------



## Darren

I ran it again. First time got 5332 then second time got  5032. I didn't take a picture first time since I figured it would be the same or better...?

Edit: 3rd try gave me 3631. It hates me/AMD.


----------



## wolfeking

bigfellla said:


> I am sure if the guys were to take the results and chart them by CPU, clock speed and score you will find there is a strong correlation.   If you then compared the scores across cpus you will find an equally strong correlation.  No benchmark is perfect.  I have found a fairly linear response to the bench.



Ill do a graph based on his graph in a bit when I find a graph program that suits what I want to make.


----------



## Laquer Head

bigfellla said:


> I am sure if the guys were to take the results and chart them by CPU, clock speed and score you will find there is a strong correlation.   If you then compared the scores across cpus you will find an equally strong correlation.  No benchmark is perfect.  I have found a fairly linear response to the bench.
> 
> This also correlates to this bench http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/551?vs=287
> 
> where the 2600K is the very similar to a 3770k even with a lower clockspeed. Given that im running 5.2GHz to your 4.9GHz this justifies the lead.  Nothing unsual there.
> 
> But if your sig is correct, post your results for 5.262GHz and we can see like for like in terms of clock speed.  I still think ill win
> 
> Either way im winning!!  plus i have the best desktop background yet again yay!



I will fully admit, the 5.262Ghz oc in my sig is not a stable oc for benching!

It is the max I've been able to hit and boot with..but that's why I have no benches using it. 

The highest I can stabily boot, and bench with is the screenshot I've posted at 5.150Ghz

--I just feel that the bench produces random results and doesn't appear to increase as you would expect with step by step increases.

At the end of the day, I really don't care that much--just saying my opinion and thats that..


----------



## Virssagòn

Laquer Head said:


> I will fully admit, the 5.262Ghz oc in my sig is not a stable oc for benching!
> 
> It is the max I've been able to hit and boot with..but that's why I have no benches using it.
> 
> The highest I can stabily boot, and bench with is the screenshot I've posted at 5.150Ghz
> 
> --I just feel that the bench produces random results and doesn't appear to increase as you would expect with step by step increases.
> 
> At the end of the day, I really don't care that much--just saying my opinion and thats that..



Man, it freezes because it lets your cpu run at 100%...
If click any program then it will freeze, it's using all the cpu's strengt.
Sure you'll get slower times when you OC to high and it's unstable.

BTW: I got my new cooler!!!
idling @ 25-26°C
stressed 20min 100% @ 37-39°C 
Gonna own you all tomorrow


----------



## Darren

SmileMan, any idea what's up with mine?


----------



## Okedokey

SmileMan said:


> Man, it freezes because it lets your cpu run at 100%...
> If click any program then it will freeze, it's using all the cpu's strengt.
> Sure you'll get slower times when you OC to high and it's unstable.
> 
> BTW: I got my new cooler!!!
> idling @ 25-26°C
> stressed 20min 100% @ 37-39°C
> Gonna own you all tomorrow



Thats what im trying to say too Laquer mate.  

Overclocking although very technical is still a degree of a blackart.

Sure its pretty predictable and easy to do, but every chip is different.  This happens becuase of the slightest differences in the lithography accuracies, silicon wager consistency (yeild).  You chip is also quite different to mine. 

 To be honest im outta touch with cpus, does yours have the 3D transistor architecuture?

But either way, there has been many examples (this happens more often in graphics cards), where a higher frequency means lower bench.  This means the bottleneck is elsewhere essentially.

I would also look at your motherboard.  I think the frequency and stability of other motherboard components.  Make sure the chipsets are cool, touch them when you're overclocked.  What voltages?


----------



## Okedokey

wolfeking said:


> Ill do a graph based on his graph in a bit when I find a graph program that suits what I want to make.



Cool!


----------



## Okedokey




----------



## Virssagòn

bigfellla said:


>



Nice!!
The scores and preview version will be posted soon!


----------



## Virssagòn

Current scores!
Bigfella has almost 9000!







also a preview version of the next one:
download here
I need another name, but I can't find one...
If you know a nice name, say it!


----------



## wolfeking

smile, why oh why could you not just zip it like last time? I don't got nothing to open a .rar and I am probably not going to go looking for it either.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> smile, why oh why could you not just zip it like last time? I don't got nothing to open a .rar and I am probably not going to go looking for it either.



I'll do it for you my friend 

edit: I updated it to zip


----------



## Okedokey

I would recommend posting the leaderboard about 25% smaller


----------



## Virssagòn

bigfellla said:


> I would recommend posting the leaderboard about 25% smaller



next time ok?


----------



## wolfeking

SmileMan said:


> I'll do it for you my friend
> 
> edit: I updated it to zip



thanks.  Scores here.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> thanks.  Scores here.



Nice scores!!
I'll post mine this evening, I'm very busy today...


----------



## Okedokey




----------



## spirit

Bigfella, I like the design style of the new graphs, and thanks for taking the time to do the other graph regarding the correlation between clockspeed and scores too. Much appreciated! 

I see a new version has been released - I'll try it out!


----------



## Okedokey

spirit said:


> Bigfella, I like the design style of the new graphs, and thanks for taking the time to do the other graph regarding the correlation between clockspeed and scores too. Much appreciated!
> 
> I see a new version has been released - I'll try it out!



Thanks man, i was going to try and make the same cpus the same colour, but then i cbf.

With this new version... 

Boys why not just the display the score in the same metric as before?  If  you continue to change it, the whole things becomes meaningless


----------



## spirit

I agree with you Bigfella - Smile wrote this one as I out pretty much all day yesterday. 

OK so here are my scores - i5 2500K oc'ed to 4.3GHz as per the usual. 






One thing I did notice was when you run the Single-Threaded test it spreads the load out between each core, it is not maxing out one thread/core like it presumably should be doing. The Multi-Threaded bench maxed all cores out though. 

As for name suggestions - Viper Bench, Fury Bench? Something like that?


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> I agree with you Bigfella - Smile wrote this one as I out pretty much all day yesterday.
> 
> OK so here are my scores - i5 2500K oc'ed to 4.3GHz as per the usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I did notice was when you run the Single-Threaded test it spreads the load out between each core, it is not maxing out one thread/core like it presumably should be doing. The Multi-Threaded bench maxed all cores out though.
> 
> As for name suggestions - Viper Bench, Fury Bench? Something like that?



Thats normal, every cpu spread his work over the cores.
But that doesn't matter in scores I noticed.

Bigfella, I'm working on a design which I gonna use almost forever if it's done.
The metric is just the same as the previous, only the design is a bit different.
I reduced all the information by putting it in a menu.
And I like it now more as before. But thanks for your suggestion.

ty, btw, nice benchmark table. But maybe let the score start at 4500 points or something so you can see the difference.
Also a nice idea to give the same color to the same cpu!


----------



## wolfeking

SmileMan said:


> The metric is just the same as the previous, only the design is a bit different.


BS!  The metric is not the same.  Running for 9k is not the same thing as running for 300,000.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> BS!  The metric is not the same.  Running for 9k is not the same thing as running for 300,000.



aah, I thought you were meaning the metric of the benchmark itself 
I'll try to give it same results as before. But I fixed the score system from previous version, because if you had a too slow cpu, you had 0 points. Now thats fixed, but this is only the preview version. The v1.1 is still the official one.


----------



## wolfeking

I know its a preview. We are trying to help you make it better.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> I know its a preview. We are trying to help you make it better.



yeah, thanks for that. But you like the design already?
I placed all info in the menu so it doesn't looks too informatif


----------



## Virssagòn

Here it is fixed version, let's say preview 2 
http://www.mediafire.com/?sxj133gk0cyytfl


----------



## Virssagòn

hey guys!
Here is my first score of my war now!
just powned the intel six core


----------



## Virssagòn

current scores!

I just got no bronze, have to clock a bit higher. But I'll do it tomorrow .


----------



## Darren

You should check the code on Phenom II's. Mine keeps getting different results with no changes in my computer. It's been as low as 3000 and up to 5300. I did it twice this morning and got 49xx each time.


----------



## Virssagòn

Denther said:


> You should check the code on Phenom II's. Mine keeps getting different results with no changes in my computer. It's been as low as 3000 and up to 5300. I did it twice this morning and got 49xx each time.



hmm, yeah. I asked someone already to test his phenom 955, but he doesn't respond. But I see the other phenom in the benchmark is doing well....

btw: I have upped my ram a bit and got 10 points more again


----------



## Virssagòn

sorry guys for the metric again, I thought I fixed it but it's much more sensitive then I mentioned.
Here are my scores with the fixed version of the preview.


----------



## spirit

So I guess we'll all be aiming for 15,000 now? I got 8640 with the newest release.


----------



## StrangleHold

What benchmark are we suppost to be running? Think this is kinda getting out of hand with different benchmarks and knowing which one to run. Needs to be (one) thread with (one) benchmark to keep everything straight. I would talk to a Mod and see about deleting this and the other threads and start a new one with one benchmark. Starting to give me a headache


----------



## Virssagòn

StrangleHold said:


> What benchmark are we suppost to be running? Think this is kinda getting out of hand with different benchmarks and knowing which one to run. Needs to be (one) thread with (one) benchmark to keep everything straight. I would talk to a Mod and see about deleting this and the other threads and start a new one with one benchmark. Starting to give me a headache



You are just supposed to run the current one, the one I make score tables from.
I just placed a download for a preview version. So you guys can test it and suggest me things before I release it. And no, I'll ask the mod when the next version is totally made to delete this. You don't need to ask that for me...


----------



## StrangleHold

SmileMan said:


> . And no, I'll ask the mod when the next version is totally made to delete this. You don't need to ask that for me...


 
No, I wasnt going to ask. Thats up to you. Its just kinda getting confusing. Not picking on you, just trying to figure it out.


----------



## Okedokey

StrangleHold said:


> No, I wasnt going to ask. Thats up to you. Its just kinda getting confusing. Not picking on you, just trying to figure it out.



100% agreed.  

You boys are doing a great job, but by changing the scale you present the results on so often, we have no comparative data.  That’s a critical thing for a benchmark. Data.

By changing the scale each time you are making all other data unusable. 

Its not that hard, just compare the times for each task from the previous version, work out a coefficient and then apply it to *only *the presentation part of the score (e.g. calibration).

Or tell me to bugger off 

You doing great, but just don't forget the data!!!!


----------



## Laquer Head

Legitimacy Fail!!


----------



## Virssagòn

Code for the multithreaded benchmark is the same. But the code had a bug, when a too slow cpu did the benchmark you would get zero. So thats what I fixed, but now the code seems much more sensitive.

what I'm planning to do with the next version:

- starting with a fresh new name (you all must help me with the name...)
- starting with a fresh new design (like you saw already)
- adding singlethreaded benchmark
- adding stability test
- starting with a new metric for the scores (because there was a bug)

And that will not change for a long time.

I hope you have enough information now.

current running: black hole v1.1! (who gets the 9000?)


----------



## Okedokey

Unless the scale is the same, i give up, makes everything else a waste of time.


----------



## spirit

bigfellla said:


> You boys are doing a great job, but by changing the scale you present the results on so often, we have no comparative data.  That’s a critical thing for a benchmark. Data.
> 
> By changing the scale each time you are making all other data unusable.



I agree. Btw I tend to work on the design of the app and SmileMan the coding, I did a small bit of the coding though.

I do agree the metric/scores need to be the same throughout and we need to keep everything in a single thread here.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> I agree. Btw I tend to work on the design of the app and SmileMan the coding, I did a small bit of the coding though.
> 
> I do agree the metric/scores need to be the same throughout and we need to keep everything in a single thread here.



K, but you really don't know how difficult that is...


----------



## spirit

But the problem is that if the scores are different the benchmark becomes a bit useless as it gets difficult to compare scores. :/


----------



## Virssagòn

bigfellla said:


> Unless the scale is the same, i give up, makes everything else a waste of time.



But I can't make it the same because without the bug the score is much more sensitive. The new metric will stay for a very long time, years...
sorry, but I didn't solve how to. I think it's more important that the bug doesn't exist anymore then doing it with the bug and the same metric.
Thanks for your advice, but I gonna use that in next version. This version and the next has no link, I just delete this one in my mind.


----------



## AlienMenace

Okay I get it now Smileman, I ran this thing 4 times now and this is the best result yet for my AMD Phenom II x4 955.







This is stock speed. With 6gb of Ram.
In a couple of Months I will be putting together a new computer. AMD FX-8120.

Alienmenace


----------



## Pyotr

AlienMenace said:


> In a couple of Months I will be putting together a new computer. AMD FX-8120.


In a couple of months Piledriver should be out.


----------



## AlienMenace

Already have the 8120, getting the new case and the other 8gb of ram at the end of Month.


----------



## Virssagòn

AlienMenace said:


> Okay I get it now Smileman, I ran this thing 4 times now and this is the best result yet for my AMD Phenom II x4 955.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is stock speed. With 6gb of Ram.
> In a couple of Months I will be putting together a new computer. AMD FX-8120.
> 
> Alienmenace



This solves the problem of the phenom. This are very good scores! (for 4 threads). So there's no problem with phenoms!


----------



## tech savvy

Single-threaded






Multi-threaded


----------



## Darren

AlienMenace said:


> Okay I get it now Smileman, I ran this thing 4 times now and this is the best result yet for my AMD Phenom II x4 955.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is stock speed. With 6gb of Ram.
> In a couple of Months I will be putting together a new computer. AMD FX-8120.
> 
> Alienmenace



I wonder why it's working for you and not me. You seemed to have used the same version. (1.1) RAM issue?


----------



## Jamebonds1

Denther said:


> I wonder why it's working for you and not me. You seemed to have used the same version. (1.1) RAM issue?



RAM and AMD isn't always work well together but Patient have better AMD RAM version they have.


----------



## spirit

Jamebonds1 said:


> RAM and AMD isn't always work well together but Patient have better AMD RAM version they have.



What??


----------



## Jamebonds1

spirit said:


> What??



I mean not all RAM is work well with AMD CPU, but Patient RAM have AMD version and it work well with AMD CPU.


----------



## spirit

I think the problem is with Denther's score is either he doesn't have enough RAM (don't see how having 2GBs more RAM though would affect the score by hundreds if not thousands of points though) or there's some other service or process which was running in the background which affected the score. Not sure though.


----------



## Jamebonds1

spirit said:


> I think the problem is with Denther's score is either he doesn't have enough RAM (don't see how having 2GBs more RAM though would affect the score by hundreds if not thousands of points though) or there's some other service or process which was running in the background which affected the score. Not sure though.



Or by too many bad startup program.  I had work a lot with msconfig command on my friend's computer.  I never let startup is Adobe, iTunes update, quicktime, and MS office.


----------



## spirit

Jamebonds1 said:


> Or by too many bad startup program.  I had work a lot with msconfig command on my friend's computer.  I never let startup is Adobe, iTunes update, quicktime, and MS office.



Yeah so basically stuff running that doesn't need to be. 

Still not entirely sure why his scores are so low compared to the other X4 955, but what I said in my last post is my best guess.


----------



## Virssagòn

SHIT!
I still not beat the 3th place ;P


----------



## spirit

4.6GHz? You were at 4.9 before weren't you?


----------



## Virssagòn

current scores!


----------



## Virssagòn

guys, update.
I couldn't get higher with this mobo lol...
here is 4.7ghz!


----------



## spirit

I'm gonna try a higher OC on my board one day, lets see what this 2500K is made of!


----------



## Virssagòn

Current scores!


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> I'm gonna try a higher OC on my board one day, lets see what this 2500K is made of!



haha, nice! competing with the i5 3570k?


----------



## Ramodkk

Pretty happy being the top i5


----------



## Virssagòn

ramodkk said:


> Pretty happy being the top i5



yeah, the new generation i5's seems to do better in multithreaded


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> haha, nice! competing with the i5 3570k?



Actually I may not bother, IIRC I had issues at 4.5 and I don't want to damage my hardware. I don't wanna hurt my PC, it's ma' baby!  

Don't know if my cooler would be any good beyond 4.5 really...


----------



## tech savvy

SmileMan, did I not place, or do I have the wrong benchmark? Because the benchmark im using looks different from the others?


----------



## Virssagòn

tech savvy said:


> SmileMan, did I not place, or do I have the wrong benchmark? Because the benchmark im using looks different from the others?



You downloaded the preview version from the next version. Look the first page for the current version.


----------



## Okedokey

Im confused, there is like 3 benchmarks, multiple scores this thread is getting outta control.


----------



## tech savvy

Okay, here's my score.


----------



## Virssagòn

bigfellla said:


> Im confused, there is like 3 benchmarks, multiple scores this thread is getting outta control.



There is 1!
Just forget what I posted man about that preview version...

I liked your score tables... 
Plz make some, you wanted to make the same cpu the same color?


----------



## Virssagòn

tech savvy said:


> Okay, here's my score.



nice scores!


----------



## KasperL

Oh hell yeah. Top place again!


----------



## Virssagòn

KasperL said:


> Oh hell yeah. Top place again!



woow, shit man! 
Nice scores, you ditched the 9000!!!
congratz!


----------



## Virssagòn

Current scores!







new top 5!

1. KasperL
2. Bigfella
3. LaquerHead
4. SmileMan
5. Wolfekin


----------



## mx344

Yay for the Phenom 2  moving up the ladder lol.




Ill see how High I can overclock it


----------



## Virssagòn

mx344 said:


> Yay for the Phenom 2  moving up the ladder lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ill see how High I can overclock it



nice scores! You are competing with the i5's!


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> nice scores! You are competing with the i5's!



Why's my i5's score so low compared to the others here?


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Why's my i5's score so low compared to the others here?



idk, what speed does your ram have? And the 3th gen i5's are better in multithreaded like I mention it in the scores. The other 2nd gen i5 has a higher oc...


----------



## spirit

RAM is at 1648MHz.


----------



## AlienMenace

Hi Smileman;

I couldn't capture screen shot for some reason. But I ran your program in Windows XP Pro x64 and got the score of 6528.78. I thought maybe different Windows programs might make a difference. I don't have a clue why my gets higher scores than Denther.
Maybe, that I have 2 extra gb. But he has faster memory than me. Well, who knows.
I really like Windows 8 over xp x64 now. A lot faster booting and running the programs.

Have a nice Day!
Alienmenace


----------



## spirit

Yeah there's not much difference between running the program on OSes, see some tests I did below.






Same hardware, just different operating systems.


----------



## wolfeking

It still makes me happy that Vista beats 7.


----------



## spirit

wolfeking said:


> It still makes me happy that Vista beats 7.



Haha yeah, don't know why that is but hey. I don't have Vista on that machine anymore to test it anyway.


----------



## Virssagòn

In 5 days the next version will be out, you can win these awards:

- 9000
- Winner
- 2nd place
- 3th place
- Highest OC
- Last Place
- Best Intel
- Best AMD
- Best tester
- Top 10

I hope you can get one of these!!

Developpers smile and spirit.


----------



## spirit

I tried running the benchmark in Safe Mode and I got a score of 6200, then in the ordinary desktop environment I got like 7600? I really don't know why my scores for the 2500K are lower than a 2550K and a 3570K? There isn't much difference between the 2500K and the 2550K, certainly not hundreds of points worth. :/


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> I tried running the benchmark in Safe Mode and I got a score of 6200, then in the ordinary desktop environment I got like 7600? I really don't know why my scores for the 2500K are lower than a 2550K and a 3570K? There isn't much difference between the 2500K and the 2550K, certainly not hundreds of points worth. :/



Yeah, I really don't know...


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> Yeah, I really don't know...


Oh well, doesn't bother me, it's not the end of the world.


----------



## Pyotr

SmileMan said:


> In 5 days the next version will be out, you can win these awards:
> 
> - junk
> - junk
> - junk
> - junk
> - Last Place


Prepare the price, that one is mine even if I have to put my RAMs to 166 MHz and downclock to snail pace!


----------



## spirit

You mean you want to get last place? That's reserved for my Athlon 64 3700+ with 1GB DDR RAM when I finally get round to running this bench on that system.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> You mean you want to get last place? That's reserved for my Athlon 64 3700+ with 1GB DDR RAM when I finally get round to running this bench on that system.



Too low times will get a bug, tried it on my.old athlon. That's fixed on the next version.
You can get top 10!


----------



## spirit

Top 10 slowest?


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Top 10 slowest?



We could make a price SLOW, but I think it's not really a price ;p.
Or a price "no score" if your time is too much ;p.

The award you can post it in your sig.


----------



## spirit

Prize you mean, not 'price'? 

I'll have to put 64-bit Windows onto that machine and give it a run. I'll post back in 30 years time when it's done.


----------



## Virssagòn

It did take 2,5 hours for me. It's the same cpu I think;p


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> It did take 2,5 hours for me. It's the same cpu I think;p



Hmmm - 2.5 hours and your Athlon is faster than mine I think. Not sure if I can keep the machine running for 2.5 hours at max CPU load and temps.


----------



## Okedokey

KasperL said:


> Oh hell yeah. Top place again!



Not to be a pain, but that very low res image with no notepad is hardly an entry?  Consider posting again please.


----------



## spirit

bigfellla said:


> Not to be a pain, but that very low res image with no notepad is hardly an entry?  Consider posting again please.



^ @Kasper upload the image to somewhere like Photobucket and use the 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 tags to embed the photo - don't attach the image otherwise it ends up really small like that.


----------



## Virssagòn

bigfellla said:


> Not to be a pain, but that very low res image with no notepad is hardly an entry?  Consider posting again please.



Yeh, couldn't see the right clockspeed I think...
He said 4.2ghz because I helped him oc, but on that image it's really hard to see it


----------



## Virssagòn

Hey guys, what do you think about the name?
PowerMark or PithMark?


----------



## Pyotr

Black Hole Mark!


----------



## Virssagòn

Pyotr said:


> Black Hole Mark!



Haha, idk...
I don't like the name, I want something official xD.
You got another idea?


----------



## spirit

If we change the name does that mean we'd need yet another new thread?


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> If we change the name does that mean we'd need yet another new thread?



No like I said to you in skype I'll try to change the title...


----------



## Okedokey

We need another thread.  Start from scratch with the final version. Stay that way for 6 months, then update.  Its getting unwieldy.


----------



## spirit

bigfellla said:


> We need another thread.  Start from scratch with the final version. Stay that way for 6 months, then update.  Its getting unwieldy.



Ok.


----------



## Virssagòn

bigfellla said:


> We need another thread.  Start from scratch with the final version. Stay that way for 6 months, then update.  Its getting unwieldy.



Ok, sorry. We are beginning developpers . We'll do that.


----------



## Okedokey

SmileMan said:


> Ok, sorry. We are beginning developpers . We'll do that.



No apologies needed mate, you're doing a good job,both of you.


----------



## Virssagòn

bigfellla said:


> No apologies needed mate, you're doing a good job,both of you.



Thanks, I think you can already be sure you got the award from highest overclock .


----------



## Okedokey

SmileMan said:


> Thanks, I think you can already be sure you got the award from highest overclock .



Nah, i think ive been pipped   I had it booting at 5.3GHz yesterday.  Couldn't be bothered running the test.  You should set up a VM Server and have a 'send results' function.  It could then return a html file with everyone's score as a comparison.  Ian may help?


----------



## Virssagòn

bigfellla said:


> Nah, i think ive been pipped   I had it booting at 5.3GHz yesterday.  Couldn't be bothered running the test.  You should set up a VM Server and have a 'send results' function.  It could then return a html file with everyone's score as a comparison.  Ian may help?



Yeah, I had the same idea! But... I don't know how to do that. I got a small server up and running now with an athlon and 4 gigs of ram. Should it be enough to import and export data? (athlon 64 3700+ I think)
Or should I use my other old pc with a pentium dual?


----------



## Okedokey

I would just use whatever you have.


----------



## Virssagòn

bigfellla said:


> I would just use whatever you have.



I don't know how to do it, thats the problem xD.
You know how?


----------



## Virssagòn

You can get a title if you got one of the awards. That will be tomorrow!


----------



## salvage-this




----------



## Virssagòn

Nice scores!


----------



## Virssagòn

*Current Scores:*








*Awards:*

*Last Place*




*Denther &  Spirit*







*Highest OC*




*Bigfella*







*Best Testers*




*Bigfella, Spirit and Wolfeking*






*Top 10*




*KasperL - Bigfella - LaquerHead - SmileMan x2 - wolfeking - salvage-this x2 - ramodkk - StrangeHold*






*9000P*




*KasperL*






*Best Intel*




*KasperL*






*Best AMD*




*StrangeHold*






*3th Place*




*Laquer Head*






*2nd Place*




*Bigfella*






*Winner!*




*KasperL*


*Congratz to all winning testers!!! And all other testers too!*

*You can put your award in your sign!*


----------



## Okedokey

Lol well done!!!!!

Congrats KasperL!! Cool thread!


----------



## Virssagòn

bigfellla said:


> Lol well done!!!!!
> 
> Congrats KasperL!! Cool thread!



I'm not a pro in things like this  (making awards lol)
Need a designer for that xD


----------



## Virssagòn

bigfellla said:


> Lol well done!!!!!
> 
> Congrats KasperL!! Cool thread!



You also well done with your prices!


----------



## Jamebonds1

What about Fastest Dual Core award?


----------



## spirit

Good to see the QUUUAADDDD came stone dead last and I got an award for it.


----------



## Jamebonds1

spirit said:


> Good to see the QUUUAADDDD came stone dead last and I got an award for it.



Lol.  I always love to say QQQUUUUUAAAAADDDDDDD


----------



## KasperL

bigfellla said:


> Lol well done!!!!!
> 
> Congrats KasperL!! Cool thread!



Thank's mate Big gratz to you too. 

I finally won something in life! :-D

Also, last but certainly not least, thanks Smileman for this awesome program, and for all the help with OC'ing.


----------



## Virssagòn

KasperL said:


> Thank's mate Big gratz to you too.
> 
> I finally won something in life! :-D
> 
> Also, last but certainly not least, thanks Smileman for this awesome program, and for all the help with OC'ing.



Np bro! Thanks.


----------



## Jamebonds1

When will have new version of your benchmark Smile?


----------



## spirit

Here http://www.computerforum.com/214343-black-hole-v2.html


----------



## Virssagòn

Haha xD. Didn't see that? It's the same name


----------

