# Black Hole - Benchmark (OLD Version)



## Virssagòn

*Black Hole V4.1 Pre-release!*

*Test the newest beta! You can find it here: http://www.computerforum.com/216232-discussion-beta-testing-thread-black-hole.html*

*If you support Black Hole, please copy and paste the following into your signature!*:


		PHP:
	

[center][i][size="2"]Let the beast run! Benchmark your system. [URL="http://www.computerforum.com/215772-black-hole-benchmark.html"]You can do it here![/URL][/size][/i][/center][i][size="2"][/size][/i][size="2"][/size]


*What's new?*
- Database, online score saving
- Better scaling between different generations of cpu's
- Ram latency and speed more sensitive in scores (you can get even higher scores lowering your latencys and speeding up your ram!)
- New smart calculations to measure the pure processing power of your pc.
- Score-scaling is different (making it more sensitive)

*Why Pre-release?*
- Website in make
- Trying to make a code to measure the turbo clock of the cpu, not the base clock.
- looking for improvements

*Download: http://www.mediafire.com/?o95hwwcebg3jv7v*

*I'll try to update scores (that I receive in database) every week.*


*Preview 4.1*








Scores:

















*older*

*Preview (v3.2):*








*Features:*

*- Free ram use, not limited anymore (it uses not more then 2.6gb though...)
- Stable scores @multithreaded and singlethreaded.
- Working with multipliers.
- Detecting logical cores of your cpu and use this in the benchmark.
- affinity added, 4cores will not try to run more then they can.
- Added more threads; 4threads working on the singlethreaded bench, 16 on the multithreaded.
- Testing core stability by an higher thread rate.
- Base application had a clean from all known bugs for now.
- Score scale is went 2/10 bigger...
- multithreaded and singlethreaded more equal to get the most accurate scores in performance.
- NEW AWESOME BACKGROUND!!! (From spirit!) 


- This version is the base/start from many updates, updates will not affect the scores.*


*Some Information:*

*Multithreaded
2 passes @ 16 threads
- 1st pass: integer maths
- 2nd pass: Xtreme pass

Singlethreaded
2 passes
- 1st pass: integer maths
- 2nd pass: floating point maths

Floating Point Maths

1 pass with floating point maths


The tests will last at least 3 minutes to run the 3.
It can be unresponsible for a while, just let it do his thing then.
All other programs must be closed for best results.
I'll post the scores in one ranking table.
You must run the 3 tests for getting the final score!

The higher the scores, the better!
*

*Rules:*

*1. Before posting your results, take an image from your scores and cpu-z opened (like above)
2. Post comments and other stuff in 1 formal post, I'll contact you with a pm later on.
3. You can post MAX 3 cpu's, if you post the same cpu but oc, I'll update the slowest one.*


*Download:*

*The benchmark is 64bit windows only.
You need at least  XP or higher (didn't test older ones, but I doubt it should work properly)
Application requires at least 2Gb ram for best performance.
Cpu's from 1 to 16 logical cores are supported.

Mirror 1 (64bit): http://www.mediafire.com/?4hv78m59c7v4579
Mirror 2 (64bit): http://www.2shared.com/file/rDF0fQ3G/Black_Hole_V32.html
Mirror 3 (.ZIP 64bit): http://www.mediafire.com/?zznrrz6vo7t012w
32 AND 64 bit version: http://www.2shared.com/file/Fc5sQNn6/Black_Hole_V32.html


--> extract files wherever you want it and just run the exe file.*


*Black Hole V3.2!*








*Black Hole V3!*











*BLACK HOLE V2*

*Here is an overview of all the tests from Black Hole v2:*







*Thank you all for testing!*


*Smile & Spirit*


----------



## Ankur

I did not get the small window for system configuration.
RAM 4 GB 1333MHz


----------



## Virssagòn

Ankur said:


> I did not get the small window for system configuration.
> RAM 4 GB 1333MHz



Nice scores!


----------



## Ankur

SmileMan said:


> Nice scores!


Yea thanks, I like how intel mobile CPUs perform.
Why don't you put a loading bar while the software is benchmarking? It shows "not responding" when the process is going on.


----------



## Virssagòn

Ankur said:


> Yea thanks, I like how intel mobile CPUs perform.
> Why don't you put a loading bar while the software is benchmarking? It shows "not responding" when the process is going on.



Yep, next update (that doesn't affect scores) will include backgroundworkers so it'll not be unresponsible anymore while benchmarking. But I'm busy figuring out the things atm. Your pc will slow down very hard while running multithreaded though.


----------



## Virssagòn

Some other tests from me:

Athlon 64 X2 5000+ (And yes, I go for the last place award )








i7 920 stock







Will start the scoretable soon!


----------



## Ankur

Nice, my score is so close to the i7 920.
You should also start soon, a GPU benchmark


----------



## Virssagòn

Ankur said:


> Nice, my score is so close to the i7 920.
> You should also start soon, a GPU benchmark



Yeh, I was thinking of that too. But now I'm busy enough with this.


----------



## Virssagòn

I'm taking the lead, oc'ed my cpu a bit. My mobo is too bad that his max is 4.8ghz (I ran 4.7 though)






definitely, the 1st gen cpu's of intel are at very low clock speed. If they had an higher speed they would easy get in the 1200-1300P I think...


----------



## Virssagòn

Current scores: (sorry for the design )


----------



## linkin




----------



## Virssagòn

Scores:


----------



## Jamebonds1

Benchmark didn't work on my dual core


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> Benchmark didn't work on my dual core



What did it say? plz, so I can fix it.


----------



## Jamebonds1

I3-2120 3.47 GHz


----------



## 87dtna

Well I only have a small 92mm 2 heatpipe cooler now so it was throttling a little bit on the multithreaded test but here are the results-






If I had a better cooler I could get well over 5ghz but oh well.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> Well I only have a small 92mm 2 heatpipe cooler now so it was throttling a little bit on the multithreaded test but here are the results-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I had a better cooler I could get well over 5ghz but oh well.



nice scores though!
I really recommend mine, 64° C max in 4.7ghz. But I can't get higher because of my board... :'(


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> I3-2120 3.47 GHz



wooohoo! nice 
The singlethreaded gets you up to the top!


----------



## Virssagòn

Update of the scores!


----------



## 87dtna

SmileMan said:


> nice scores though!
> I really recommend mine, 64° C max in 4.7ghz. But I can't get higher because of my board... :'(




Meh I don't care too much.  I have a small micro ATX case and won't even fit 120mm coolers.  I thought about going back to full ATX but honestly I run 4.5ghz daily which is overkill for my needs and this little cooler never gets over 65c while gaming.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> Meh I don't care too much.  I have a small micro ATX case and won't even fit 120mm coolers.  I thought about going back to full ATX but honestly I run 4.5ghz daily which is overkill for my needs and this little cooler never gets over 65c while gaming.



k, no problem, just a recommendation


----------



## salvage-this




----------



## 87dtna

thats mean


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> thats mean



Yep, like I said. This version is more stable then the previous one. The same cpu's will get very close scores on the same clock.


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:
			
		

> New Features:
> 
> - Free ram use, not limited anymore (it uses not more then 2.6gb though...)
> - Stable scores @multithreaded and singlethreaded.
> - Working with multipliers.
> - Detecting logical cores of your cpu and use this in the benchmark.
> - affinity added, 4cores will not try to run more then they can.
> - Added more threads; 4threads working on the singlethreaded bench, 16 on the multithreaded.
> - Testing core stability by an higher thread rate.
> - Base application had a clean from all known bugs for now.
> - Score scale is went 2/10 bigger...
> - multithreaded and singlethreaded more equal to get the most accurate scores in performance.
> 
> 
> - This version is the base/start from many updates, updates will not affect the scores.



You forgot to mention the awesome addition of the new background image which I took the other night. 

I have already tested the betas for this on my 2500K @ 4.3GHz and I scored 1,348 I think. Will test again tomorrow. I'll also test it out on the Q8300 and the 3700+ and come last again!


----------



## salvage-this

87dtna said:


> thats mean



  I still wish I could use use your settings.  I can't seem to OC mine as well as yours can


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> You forgot to mention the awesome addition of the new background image which I took the other night.
> 
> I have already tested the betas for this on my 2500K @ 4.3GHz and I scored 1,348 I think. Will test again tomorrow. I'll also test it out on the Q8300 and the 3700+ and come last again!



Haha, nice!
Thnx btw, will add that directly! ;p
(Eum, didn't I mentioned somewhere?)


----------



## claptonman

Nice program. All cores were 100% on the first test and only one core had 100% on the single-threaded.


----------



## Virssagòn

claptonman said:


> Nice program. All cores were 100% on the first test and only one core had 100% on the single-threaded.



Thanks.
Your scores seem to be more believable then with the previous version. Pretty nice scores!


----------



## FuryRosewood

Ran it just a few minutes ago


----------



## spirit

This older quad-core stacks up well to the newer processors I think. Especially the FX-6100, which it is only 100 or so points behind.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> This older quad-core stacks up well to the newer processors I think. Especially the FX-6100, which it is only 100 or so points behind.



pfff, I just updated the scores... And what do I see! fk, again update lol.


----------



## Virssagòn

Voila, Update:


----------



## spirit

To be honest I have my doubts that an FX-6100 is much better than this C2Q. I wouldn't bother updating the whole program just to make the Q8300 come out a lot worse. The Q8300 is a stronger processor than most people think.

It's a 'Core 2 Quad' btw.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> To be honest I have my doubts that an FX-6100 is much better than this C2Q. I wouldn't bother updating the whole program just to make the Q8300 come out a lot worse. The Q8300 is a stronger processor than most people think.
> 
> It's a 'Core 2 Quad' btw.



Fu you, not gonna update until there is another test


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> Fu you, not gonna update until there is another test



 Got the Athlon all fried up and I'm going to run the bench on it.


----------



## spirit




----------



## Virssagòn

An update...
congrtz spirit


----------



## spirit

Haha thanks on the congrats for being the slowest.  Had to run it with the side panel off to ensure my system didn't fry!


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Haha thanks on the congrats for being the slowest.  Had to run it with the side panel off to ensure my system didn't fry!



Haha, Got my cpu now on 4.8ghz. Weird, normally it shuts down after a blue screen, this time is different. I'll test it directly!


----------



## spirit

Once I've got Hot Pursuit installed I'll give the 2500K another run and post up. Then I will have tested all my PCs which can run 64-bit.


----------



## Virssagòn

Watch this!!!
woopwoop yeh xD, never above 69°C
I love my cooler 
Who want to compete lol


----------



## Virssagòn

Update:


----------



## spirit

Looks like a very stable bench, I get this score every time!


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Looks like a very stable bench, I get this score every time!



Also very nice! This time you'll have to wait until next score... Because I'm busy now


----------



## Turbo10

Mines a bit shit


----------



## Virssagòn

Turbo10 said:


> Mines a bit shit



NO totally not! I expected less!
You are better then an overclocked fx6100, i7 2630QM, i3 2120,... and almost as good as an i7 920!
Wow, I love that Core2Quad!


----------



## Turbo10

SmileMan said:


> NO totally not! I expected less!
> You are better then an overclocked fx6100, i7 2630QM, i3 2120,... and almost as good as an i7 920!
> Wow, I love that Core2Quad!



I have a funny feeling that im not even clocked at 3.4GHz, i think i put it down to 3.2 for stability D: Which in that case is an awesome score for my good old Q6600 ;D


----------



## Virssagòn

Turbo10 said:


> Mines a bit shit



Is it oc'ed?

Edit: could you check your clock?


----------



## Turbo10

SmileMan said:


> Is it oc'ed?
> 
> Edit: could you check your clock?



Yup just checked, its at 3.2GHz ill need to change my sig haha


----------



## Virssagòn

Turbo10 said:


> Yup just checked, its at 3.2GHz ill need to change my sig haha



Is that stock speed or oc too?


----------



## Virssagòn

Update of the scores!


----------



## 87dtna

spirit said:


> This older quad-core stacks up well to the newer processors I think. Especially the FX-6100, which it is only 100 or so points behind.



Why the hell is your Vcore 1.77v?????  Holy shit balls dude your temps must be insane and you are killing that chip quickly!

Plus the multiplier is underclocked, the stock multi is 7.5 which would give you 2.5ghz.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> Why the hell is your Vcore 1.77v?????  Holy shit balls dude your temps must be insane and you are killing that chip quickly!
> 
> Plus the multiplier is underclocked, the stock multi is 7.5 which would give you 2.5ghz.



Lol, didn't see that xD.
That's why it gets so hot. He said, he had to remove the sidepanel to calm the temperature. Would do that too .
man, unbelievable that he could run that 

Edit: but I think the multiplier is just went down because of a power saving tool (like speedstep now).


----------



## Turbo10

SmileMan said:


> Is that stock speed or oc too?



Nah stock speed 2.4GHz i think, 3.2GHz OC


----------



## Turbo10

Thought id add a CPUZ shot too


----------



## 87dtna

Wifes PC, doesn't even beat an I3 how sad...mostly because of the single threaded test though it spanks Phenom II like a read headed step child.


----------



## Okedokey

Stock everything


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> Wifes PC, doesn't even beat an I3 how sad...mostly because of the single threaded test though it spanks Phenom II like a read headed step child.



The i3 has 4 threads, that's as much as your phenom. But for that phenom it's pretty nice.


----------



## Virssagòn

bigfellla said:


> Stock everything



Really stock? could you post again with a cpu-z opened. Because it's weird you score that much better then an i7 3820...


----------



## spirit

87dtna said:


> Why the hell is your Vcore 1.77v?????  Holy shit balls dude your temps must be insane and you are killing that chip quickly!
> 
> Plus the multiplier is underclocked, the stock multi is 7.5 which would give you 2.5ghz.



It's running at stock. Nothing regarding voltages and multipliers has ever been changed in the BIOS. Temps aren't that bad, hits about 70C at full load with a stock cooler which is dusty as hell, idles about 40-45C. Normal temps for a quad-core on the stock cooler, my i5 760 did the same. 

@Smile, it's the Athlon rig which I have to run the benchmark with the side panel off.


----------



## 87dtna

SmileMan said:


> The i3 has 4 threads, that's as much as your phenom. But for that phenom it's pretty nice.



The Phenom beats the I3 in multithreaded because it has 4 true cores though.  The single threaded test was just so much better thats why it still won overall.  Hyper threading on a dual core puts it about the same strength as having 3 true cores (when it comes to multithreaded benches).


----------



## spirit

Turbo10 said:


> I have a funny feeling that im not even clocked at 3.4GHz, i think i put it down to 3.2 for stability D: Which in that case is an awesome score for my good old Q6600 ;D



Gotta love Core 2 QUUUAADDDs.  I really wish I had a Q6xxx or a Q9xxx/Q9x5x chip, would be great for overclocking.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> The Phenom beats the I3 in multithreaded because it has 4 true cores though.  The single threaded test was just so much better thats why it still won overall.  Hyper threading on a dual core puts it about the same strength as having 3 true cores (when it comes to multithreaded benches).



Oh, and why does the i7 score better then an fx eight-core then? (I mean in all multithreaded benches).


----------



## 87dtna

Because the FX isn't a true 8 core either.  It's AMD's scam, it has 4 ''modules'' with hyperthreading and for some reason they call them all cores.  The FX4100 has 2 modules, and the 6100 has 3 modules.  Thats why an I3 still spanks a 4100.


----------



## wolfeking

second place please. 



















and first place will come when I get it stable at 5GHz, maybe 4.9GHz.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> Because the FX isn't a true 8 core either.  It's AMD's scam, it has 4 ''modules'' with hyperthreading and for some reason they call them all cores.



No, intel is the only company that uses and can use hyperthreading. I know about that lie of amd, they got 4 modules, where each module includes 2 integer 'cores' but shares FPU, cache, and fetch/decode logic. It's another way then intel does it.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> second place please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and first place will come when I get it stable at 5GHz, maybe 4.9GHz.



multiplier seems to be more effective at this bench.
I'm waiting until bigfella posts his scores WITH cpu-z.


----------



## wolfeking

how the speed is achieved will not matter a bit. It will still process the same amount of data per second no matter if you used the BCLK or the multi.


----------



## 87dtna

SmileMan said:


> No, intel is the only company that uses and can use hyperthreading. I know about that lie of amd, they got 4 modules, where each module includes 2 integer 'cores' but shares FPU, cache, and fetch/decode logic. It's another way then intel does it.



Yes it's just AMD's version of HT.

You asked why and I7 scores higher, I told you


----------



## Jamebonds1

87dtna said:


> Wifes PC, doesn't even beat an I3 how sad...mostly because of the single threaded test though it spanks Phenom II like a read headed step child.



Lol.  i3 is only 130 dollar as i paid for my computer.  I overclock a bit.


----------



## Jamebonds1

87dtna said:


> Why the hell is your Vcore 1.77v?????  Holy shit balls dude your temps must be insane and you are killing that chip quickly!
> 
> Plus the multiplier is underclocked, the stock multi is 7.5 which would give you 2.5ghz.



It is normally that old CPU have 1.7 volt.  First computer CPU need have 5 volt i think.


----------



## Jamebonds1

spirit said:


> This older quad-core stacks up well to the newer processors I think. Especially the FX-6100, which it is only 100 or so points behind.



The fastest BLCK is 750 MHz.  I just saw on hwbot.org


----------



## Virssagòn

Dad's pc: (i7 3770 @ stock)





Update of scoreboard; I need bigfella to test again with cpu-z opened.


----------



## 87dtna

Jamebonds1 said:


> It is normally that old CPU have 1.7 volt.  First computer CPU need have 5 volt i think.



No dude, Q8xxx core 2 quads are 45nm, thats 1.30-1.40 range stock.  1.77 is super high.



Jamebonds1 said:


> Lol.  i3 is only 130 dollar as i paid for my computer.  I overclock a bit.




Well actually I only paid $70 for this Phenom II 830.


----------



## spirit

87dtna said:


> No dude, Q8xxx core 2 quads are 45nm, thats 1.30-1.40 range stock.  1.77 is super high.


I'm going to try and lower it in the BIOS, thanks for the heads up!


----------



## spirit

Just tried looking in my BIOS for some sort of voltage control setting. As my board is very low-end and not for overclocking at all I can't change the voltage manually I don't think so. Couldn't find anything in the BIOS.


----------



## Virssagòn

The i7 870 from a friend scored 968, pretty good.


----------



## 87dtna

Does your board have the latest bios installed?  Installing the latest firmware might fix it.


----------



## spirit

87dtna said:


> Does your board have the latest bios installed?  Installing the latest firmware might fix it.



I very much doubt it has the latest BIOS, I'll have to update it. Not sure if it will add any overclocking or voltage control features though, it's a G31-based board - ASUS P5KPL I think. 

I find it odd how it's running at 1.7v (according to CPU-Z) yet the temperatures are fine and it would have been running at that voltage for the past 3 years or so with no issues at all.


----------



## johnb35

With 8gb memory installed.


----------



## Darren

4GB RAM 1600MHz


----------



## swchoi89

Is mine too low? (CPU at 4.2GHZ)


----------



## wolfeking

I don't think so. You are doing pretty good actually.


----------



## voyagerfan99




----------



## Darren

Are the 955 and 965 the same chip with a factory OC on the 965?


----------



## FuryRosewood

Bumped multi to the max and ran it, results were what i expected


----------



## Jamebonds1

spirit said:


> Just tried looking in my BIOS for some sort of voltage control setting. As my board is very low-end and not for overclocking at all I can't change the voltage manually I don't think so. Couldn't find anything in the BIOS.



Do you use overclock program?  Such as voltage control?


----------



## voyagerfan99

Denther said:


> Are the 955 and 965 the same chip with a factory OC on the 965?



The Phenom II X4 965 125W C3 revision does have an advantage over the Phenom II X4 955 125 C3, and that is it is binned higher and can overclock better. The Phenom II X4 965 140W and 125W C2 had no real advantages over the 955, but with the C3 revision, I believe they do. Yes, it will run slightly cooler at 3.4GHz than the 955 at 3.4GHz, but the difference won't be noticeable at those speeds, once you near 3.8GHz and above, then you'll begin to feel the difference.


----------



## StrangleHold




----------



## 87dtna

What CPU?


----------



## spirit

Jamebonds1 said:


> Do you use overclock program?  Such as voltage control?



No I always try to use the BIOS if I can. I don't want to overclock my Q8300, I want to try and lower the voltage a bit.


----------



## Virssagòn

If the phenom was clocked to 4,2ghz, could he beat the [email protected],3ghz? I think so, because only 100mhz made a difference from 40p!!


----------



## Virssagòn

Score update:


----------



## 87dtna

Anyone here have a Phenom hex core?  I'm interested to see the results.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> Anyone here have a Phenom hex core?  I'm interested to see the results.



Yeah, me too! And I'm also interested in an oc'd phenom and an oc'd 1st gen intel ;p.


----------



## voyagerfan99

I think I should attempt some more OC when I get the chance.


----------



## Virssagòn

voyagerfan99 said:


> I think I should attempt some more OC when I get the chance.



That'd be nice. Does a phenom oc well? I've never had an amd apart from my athlon 64


----------



## voyagerfan99

It's supposed to. I just haven't done much because my system was unstable (faulty RAM) for the longest time.


----------



## Virssagòn

voyagerfan99 said:


> It's supposed to. I just haven't done much because my system was unstable (faulty RAM) for the longest time.



But now you got your ram changed?


----------



## spirit

If you want to see how a proper dual-core performs against all the quads here, I can ask my Grandad to test the benchmark on his Pentium Dual-Core and post results back. 

Good to see the Athlon is still stone-dead last!


----------



## voyagerfan99

SmileMan said:


> But now you got your ram changed?



Yeah I've been stable for two or three months.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> If you want to see how a proper dual-core performs against all the quads here, I can ask my Grandad to test the benchmark on his Pentium Dual-Core and post results back.
> 
> Good to see the Athlon is still stone-dead last!



Yeah! Would be nice.
my granny also has 2 pc's, sad they're both 32bit...


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> Yeah! Would be nice.
> my granny also has 2 pc's, sad they're both 32bit...



I think Grandad has an E6500 and I recently upgraded his machine to Windows 7 x64 so it should run fine.


----------



## wolfeking

SmileMan said:


> Yeah, me too! And I'm also interested in an oc'd phenom and an oc'd 1st gen intel ;p.


What are you referring to with first gen intel? Because that would be a 4004, and I don't think you will hot 1MHz if it is possible at all to run them. Also good luck with 64 bit as it is a 4 bit processor. Would be interested to see a linux machine running on it though.  

Maybe you mean core 2, or the 1156/1366 core series?


----------



## Virssagòn

I'm meaning first gen i5 - i7, because they're on much slower clock speed. I want to see them on the same speed as the 2nd and 3rd gens.


----------



## wolfeking

I would be interested to see a P55 based i7 quad running at the same speed as the 2600 and 3770 to see how it compares.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> I would be interested to see a P55 based i7 quad running at the same speed as the 2600 and 3770 to see how it compares.



yeah.

I heard you were planning to buy a 1366 socket cpu?


----------



## wolfeking

I do not know what I am going to do right now.  My CPU is up for sale with the graphics card.  If it sells, then good, I will go to something else.  Right now I am debating between a monitor, a new GPU, or a new board to OC my 2600k again.


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> I'm meaning first gen i5 - i7, because they're on much slower clock speed. I want to see them on the same speed as the 2nd and 3rd gens.



If we had made this benchmark about 10 months ago I could have told you how it ran on an 1156 i5 760! 

Here is what my Grandad got on his E6500 @ stock.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> If we had made this benchmark about 10 months ago I could have told you how it ran on an 1156 i5 760!
> 
> Here is what my Grandad got on his E6500 @ stock.



pretty good, in comparison with quad cores and amd 64 X2


----------



## 87dtna

A stock e6500 scores 643 and a phenom ii quad at 3.5ghz only scores 734?  Thats a little bogus....i mean i'm an intel fan and even i think thats bs.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> A stock e6500 scores 643 and a phenom ii quad at 3.5ghz only scores 734?  Thats a little bogus....i mean i'm an intel fan and even i think thats bs.



yeh, you have to look to the singlethreaded. The phenom is beaten there...
That's a big point were amd has to work on.


----------



## spirit

I predicted that the score would be about 600-700 for the E6500 in the email which I sent Grandad. Looks like I predicted correctly!


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> I predicted that the score would be about 600-700 for the E6500 in the email which I sent Grandad. Looks like I predicted correctly!



though, the multithreaded is pretty bad


----------



## Virssagòn

Hmm, if I see it correctly. The floating point maths with all amd's is really bad in comparison with the intels. With the next version I'll scale integer maths higher.

Look at these;
















And then the dual core:






really weird...

That explains why amd scored that low always. (but intels will still score better when I would remove the floating point though...)

Damn! I thought I made it much better... Now I'll need to update in a month or something. Because now there are too much tests already :S


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> though, the multithreaded is pretty bad



It is only a low end dual-core after all. It would be interesting to see if somebody had a higher end dual core such as an E8400 or an E8500 or maybe even something like an X6800 to try this out on. It would be interesting to compare scores to the E6500.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> It is only a low end dual-core after all. It would be interesting to see if somebody had a higher end dual core, such as an E8400 or maybe even something like an X6800, to try this out on.



We gonna release the awards shortly, so we can update that floating point. Amd's get backed by that.


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> We gonna release the awards shortly, so we can update that floating point. Amd's get backed by that.



Give it a bit longer man, this was only released the other day!


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Give it a bit longer man, this was only released the other day!



Yeah, I'll give it a go for a month and a bit. So we can find more bugs then this one. After this month I can fix the bugs. Sorry amd, but floating point is not your best side!


----------



## spirit

This bench certainly seems a lot more stable than the last one. Ran the bench again tonight and got 1348 again.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> This bench certainly seems a lot more stable than the last one. Ran the bench again tonight and got 1348 again.



yeh, but I have to scale every test the same. That's what I gonna do in a month. It's not all this bench, it's just amd that gets beaten in floating point.


----------



## Virssagòn

score update:


----------



## 87dtna

SmileMan said:


> yeh, you have to look to the singlethreaded. The phenom is beaten there...
> That's a big point were amd has to work on.



It's still not accurate.  Clock for clock the Phenom II is around the same as core 2 architecture, with some core 2 being a little faster BUT not a pentium dual core which is stripped of it's cache.  Now take that into account, and then take into account my Phenom II was almost 600 MHZ faster, there's absolutely no way that a pentium dual core at 2.9ghz is faster than a Phenom II at 3.5ghz.

Now here's a semi accurate example, E6300 VS a 955-

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/94?vs=88

Thats only a 400mhz speed difference, my Phenom II was nearly 600mhz faster....yet even at only 400mhz faster the Phenom II pulls way ahead over the pentium dual core in single threaded benches.  

There's simply no way a Pentium dual core at 2.9ghz should be even close as fast as Phenom II at 3.5ghz, let alone beat the Phenom II thats just nuts.


Edit- Take a look, a Q8300 at stock 2.5ghz is pulling a 720 and my Phenom II at 3.5ghz is at 734.  Absolutely no way.  Q8xxx is around the exact same speed clock for clock as Phenom II, but I was 1 entire ghz faster!  Q9xxx's are slightly faster than Phenom II but nothing ground breaking like nehalem and sandy bridge.  So, in the real world, my Phenom II at 3.5ghz would be ~25% faster than a Q8300 at 2.5ghz, so roughly it should be around 900 points on your bench.  And that sounds about right since a Q6600 at 3.2ghz is scoring 877 points, and Phenom II is easily as fast as kentsfield core 2 architecture.


----------



## Virssagòn

Plz read what I posted above, amd is scoring extremely bad at the floating point maths. In the next version I gonna fix that part. 
If you want I can fix it now. But there are already too much tests to begin again while it's just released.


----------



## 87dtna

haha OK well I wasn't following what was posted after I only replied to your next post after my last one.


----------



## 87dtna

The only bench that seems truly un biased AMD VS intel I've found is Wprime.


----------



## spirit

87dtna said:
			
		

> Q9xxx's are slightly faster than Phenom II


Depends which Phenom II and which Q9xxx chip you're talking about. I make the 965 BE to be roughly the same speed as the Q9650, but if you compare the 965 BE to the Q9300, the 965 BE is the clear winner. In some cases the 965 BE is quite a bit faster than the Q9300.


----------



## 87dtna

spirit said:


> Depends which Phenom II and which Q9xxx chip you're talking about. I make the 965 BE to be roughly the same speed as the Q9650, but if you compare the 965 BE to the Q9300, the 965 BE is the clear winner. In some cases the 965 BE is quite a bit faster than the Q9300.



Clock for clock man, don't take my quote out of context.  Phenom II is roughly the same as Q8xxx clock for clock, Q9xxx's are all faster.  Q9x5x's are even faster yet.


----------



## spirit

Anybody here got an E8400 or something they can try this on? I want to see how it does compared to the rest of the processors here.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> The only bench that seems truly un biased AMD VS intel I've found is Wprime.



It all depends on the floating point maths. But I've to include it, because it's a part of the calculations a cpu must do. Without that a phenom would be almost the same as an i7 920...


----------



## 87dtna

spirit said:


> Anybody here got an E8400 or something they can try this on? I want to see how it does compared to the rest of the processors here.





It would be slightly faster than the E6500, all it has is more cache it's virtually the same CPU.  I would ball park that it would come up around 675.


----------



## spirit

87dtna said:


> It would be slightly faster than the E6500, all it has is more cache it's virtually the same CPU.  I would ball park that it would come up around 675.



Ah ok.


----------



## 87dtna

SmileMan said:


> It all depends on the floating point maths. But I've to include it, because it's a part of the calculations a cpu must do. Without that a phenom would be almost the same as an i7 920...



A phenom II at 3.5ghz should actually be pretty much the same as a stock I7 920 in the single threaded bench while the I7 would still win in multithreaded because of HT.  So a stock 920 scored a 923 on your bench, this all still makes sense that a Phenom II at 3.5ghz should score close to 900.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> A phenom II at 3.5ghz should actually be pretty much the same as a stock I7 920 in the single threaded bench while the I7 would still win in multithreaded because of HT.  So a stock 920 scored a 923 on your bench, this all still makes sense that a Phenom II at 3.5ghz should score close to 900.



Ok, I'll scale the floating point maths lower then the integer maths.
Pfff, I want to release it again lol. I released it too early :'(


----------



## 87dtna

Meh yeah it's a trial and error thing.  Hard to set it up without results.


----------



## spirit

How does an i7 870 beat an i7 920 when both are at stock speed?


----------



## Jamebonds1

spirit said:


> How does an i7 870 beat an i7 920 when both are at stock speed?



i7 920 is quad like i7 870.  i7 920 isn't really fastest as i7 870 since it is low class for LGA 1336.


----------



## 87dtna

spirit said:


> How does an i7 870 beat an i7 920 when both are at stock speed?



Lynnfield is faster than bloomfield, this is mainly due to a faster uncore speed (The "uncore" refers to PCIe controller, memory controller, DMI/QPI and the L3 cache).  Uncore runs at 2.40GHz on the 870 and only 2.13GHz on the 920.  But thats not the only speed differences because an I5 750 is actually faster than an I7 920 in single threaded apps and the I5 has 2.13ghz uncore.  So Intel had to have done something to increase performance.  Lynnfield is newer than bloomfield, perhaps they improved something on the architecture.

But with that said, the 870 is clocked at 2.93ghz and the 920 is at 2.66ghz stock. 



Jamebonds1 said:


> i7 920 is quad like i7 870.  i7 920 isn't really fastest as i7 870 since it is low class for LGA 1336.



Thanks for your worthless post, you've said nothing that makes any sense nor has any truth to it.


----------



## Jamebonds1

87dtna said:


> Thanks for your worthless post, you've said nothing that makes any sense nor has any truth to it.



This is pretty interest and no I never lied to anyone in forum internet before.  http://hwbot.org/compare/processors#1938_1,1741_1-7,9


----------



## Virssagòn

Made the amd fix, the phenom II X4 965 scores 772 now and the i7 920, 844. It seems to be more believable now.


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> Made the amd fix, the phenom II X4 965 scores 772 now and the i7 920, 844. It seems to be more believable now.


I tried my Q8300 with the updated one too (Smile sent it to me) and it scored something like 720. i5 2500K @ 4.3 scored 1264.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> I tried my Q8300 with the updated one too (Smile sent it to me) and it scored something like 720. i5 2500K @ 4.3 scored 1264.



Yep, now waiting until I get anwer from other amd owners.


*AWARDS OVER A WEEK!!*

after awards, V3.2 will release as amd fix.


----------



## claptonman

V3.2 is very good.


----------



## Virssagòn

claptonman said:


> V3.2 is very good.



Yeah, I've almost totally removed the floating point part. So amd will score much better.


----------



## Virssagòn

I trew AMD back in the battle by giving more points on the integer maths (which you need most of all).
Now a stock i7 920 scores 844 while the FX6100 @4.3ghz scores 1036!!


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> I trew AMD back in the battle by giving more points on the integer maths (which you need most of all).
> Now a stock i7 920 scores 844 while the FX6100 @4.3ghz scores 1036!!



Trouble is though, is an FX-6100 actually that much faster than an i7 920? Anandtech don't have the FX-6100 to compare against the 920, but they do have the 8150 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/47?vs=434 the 6100 would be slower than the 8150.

Edit: opps sorry didn't see the FX was overclocked.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Trouble is though, is an FX-6100 actually that much faster than an i7 920? Anandtech don't have the FX-6100 to compare against the 920, but they do have the 8150 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/47?vs=434 the 6100 would be slower than the 8150.
> 
> Edit: opps sorry didn't see the FX was overclocked.



yeh I'll maybe add an extra score for floating point maths. Because it's important too.


----------



## spirit

What does the 6100 score at stock?


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> What does the 6100 score at stock?



Idk, I'll ask claptonman


----------



## Virssagòn

Send me a message if you want to help me out with the next version. (to test it)


----------



## KasperL

Tested your program Smile. Now gimme that first place again!


----------



## Virssagòn

Update scores!!


----------



## jon76

*AMD Phenomx6 1090T*

Here's my benchmark
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/URL]  Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/IMG]


----------



## Virssagòn

jon76 said:


> Here's my benchmark



Nice! could you test the version I sent you too?

Looks like the phenom II hexacore scores better then the bulldozer one.


----------



## jon76

My benchmark results with v3.2 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/URL]  Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/IMG]


----------



## Virssagòn

Nice^
I think the new version can release soon, since the results seem believable to me


----------



## 87dtna

Where's the 3.2 download?


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> Where's the 3.2 download?



I sent him in PM, but he posted it here. It was meant for pm only btw...
Friday/Saturday it's awardstime, Sunday v3.2 will be released.


----------



## 87dtna

Can you send it to me so I can retest my Phenom II?


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> Can you send it to me so I can retest my Phenom II?



Sure, it's not yet the definitive one. (Gonna scale multithreaded lower, singlethreaded higher and floating higher. But not by much)


----------



## spirit

Thinking of possibly creating a "beta-testing thread" for Black Hole where people can download the latest betas/pre-releases and post their scores from beta versions in that thread to avoid confusion. Here we seem to have a mix of scores from the current release and some pre-releases. We can also get feedback from the testers in the beta thread and sort out any issues there. 

What do you think?


----------



## jon76

SmileMan said:


> I sent him in PM, but he posted it here. It was meant for pm only btw...
> Friday/Saturday it's awardstime, Sunday v3.2 will be released.



Sorry, I didn't even realise, I don't think there is anyway to remove it either is there?


----------



## kdfresh09

here is my score.  i certain i could do better but im good with this score.


----------



## wolfeking

Was going for lowest score, but for what its worth a t7100 in single core mode is faster than a 3700+.


----------



## FuryRosewood

probably could beat that but id be cheating, taking a TL-60 and sticking it in power saving mode, 800 mhz dual core you think? Dont have access to that chip however so cant do that, its back in ohio.


----------



## jonnyp11

FuryRosewood said:


> probably could beat that but id be cheating, taking a TL-60 and sticking it in power saving mode, 800 mhz dual core you think? Dont have access to that chip however so cant do that, its back in ohio.



can easilly lock 3 cores and stick this at 500mhz or 1ghz, or just throw together the old athlon xp 2400+ single sh1t


----------



## wolfeking

Athlon XP will not run it (assuming it is still 64 bit only). 

And I rekon I could beat it if I locked it down to single core and then used the power limiter in Ubuntu (assuming 12 still has it) to lock it to 800MHz (lowest setting I think) and then ran it in a Vbox. But that is a lot more work than I want to do right now. Though it would be very possible to do it.


----------



## spirit

Time to underclock the 3700+ I think!


----------



## wolfeking

underclocking is dangerous. Remember that before you take the risk.


----------



## spirit

wolfeking said:


> underclocking is dangerous. Remember that before you take the risk.



Yeah... it's an old machine I don't really use anymore, so it doesn't bother me. I'll find a way to make it run slower.


----------



## wolfeking

do as you wish.   
I am currently trying to run it at 800MHz single core, but I am having a bit of trouble getting vbox to install.


----------



## jonnyp11

how is underclocking dangerous? as long as you keep it undervolted i see no reason for damage.


----------



## wolfeking

Because most people do it wrong by underclocking before undervolting.  lower your volts first and you will be fine. Lower them till your current clocks are unstable, then lower your speeds by 200-400 MHz or so, then rinse and repeat.


----------



## spirit

wolfeking said:


> Because most people do it wrong by underclocking before undervolting.  lower your volts first and you will be fine. Lower them till your current clocks are unstable, then lower your speeds by 200-400 MHz or so, then rinse and repeat.



Cheers for the tip. I'll maybe have a go tonight. Not sure if the motherboard allows overclocking/underclocking or not - I've never looked to be honest.


----------



## StrangleHold

Underclocking is not dangerous at all. The only way would be if you dropped your voltage to low and it locked up or blue screened and you ended up with file corruption. As far as hardware, none at all. You can leave your voltage at default and if you can get the processor running at 100mhz, no hardware problem at all what so ever.


----------



## FuryRosewood

underclocking is basically the premise of Cool and Quiet and Speedstep. Not dangerous at all. Setting my processor to 800 mhz is as simple as telling windows to run at its max efficiency setting. It just doesn't clock up to the maximum speed.


----------



## wolfeking

StrangleHold said:


> Underclocking is not dangerous at all. The only way would be if you dropped your voltage to low and it locked up or blue screened and you ended up with file corruption. As far as hardware, none at all. You can leave your voltage at default and if you can get the processor running at 100mhz, no hardware problem at all what so ever.


I am calling BS, because running my G530 @ 800MHz (for another project) at the stock 1.1V fried the processor.  

If you notice and watch it in CPUz, cool n' quiet and speed step scale voltage with speed. They do not just drop speed.  And on most systems, it is not worth the programming they put into it to get it to work. Like on my D630, the T7100 at idle clocks down to 1.2GHz and drops the voltage by .1. So power savings and heat do not drop much at all.   But it is just fine at .500V at 800MHz dual core mode when using the power saver applet in ubuntu.


----------



## spirit

I probably won't even bother to underclock it. Too busy at the moment and it runs slow enough at stock anyway.


----------



## StrangleHold

wolfeking said:


> I am calling BS, because running my G530 @ 800MHz (for another project) at the stock 1.1V fried the processor.
> 
> If you notice and watch it in CPUz, cool n' quiet and speed step scale voltage with speed. They do not just drop speed. And on most systems, it is not worth the programming they put into it to get it to work. Like on my D630, the T7100 at idle clocks down to 1.2GHz and drops the voltage by .1. So power savings and heat do not drop much at all. But it is just fine at .500V at 800MHz dual core mode when using the power saver applet in ubuntu.


 
You can call BS all you want. Running a G530 with 1.1V at any mhz is not the reason your processor stopped working. (1.1V at 800mhz or at 5ghz. is 1.1V period). A G530 with 1.1V would run cooler at 800 mhz. then it would at 2.4ghz. If your processor stopped working it had nothing to do with the voltage being at 1.1V.

Show me anywhere on the internet that a stock voltage processor was as you call it, burned up running underclocked!


----------



## wolfeking

1.1V was the stock setting, or at least what CPUz claimed was stock settings.


----------



## StrangleHold

It doesnt matter at all. Any processor running stock voltage being underclocked is not going to be burned up. Overclocking and raising voltage is a different story, the high voltage can fry a processor or heat as in burning it up. But underclocking a processor with stock voltage is not going to harm a processor at all. The only reason to lower the voltage would be just trying to save on wattage. The lower voltage would drop wattage alot more then just lowering the mhz.


----------



## wolfeking

maybe you are right, but I find it hardly coincidental that I underclocked it on stock volts and it just happens to never boot again. Tested on 2 boards which boot fine with the 2600k at stock settings.


----------



## FuryRosewood

wolfeking said:


> I am calling BS, because running my G530 @ 800MHz (for another project) at the stock 1.1V fried the processor.
> 
> If you notice and watch it in CPUz, cool n' quiet and speed step scale voltage with speed. They do not just drop speed.  And on most systems, it is not worth the programming they put into it to get it to work. Like on my D630, the T7100 at idle clocks down to 1.2GHz and drops the voltage by .1. So power savings and heat do not drop much at all.   But it is just fine at .500V at 800MHz dual core mode when using the power saver applet in ubuntu.




I undervolted my TL-60 till it bluescreened then bumped it up one unit. Voltage drops only cause instability. Overvolting can kill a chip though due to excess heat. Yes you have to scale with speed, thats kinda a duh thing. But you can undervolt without issues.


----------



## kdfresh09

here is mine forum.  i could go higher on my core clock, like up to 4.8Ghz at 1.4V, but im not sure if i should run the chip that high...but here is my benchmark score.


----------



## FuryRosewood

i wouldnt bother, for such a gain you wouldnt see much in performance increase


----------



## kdfresh09

if i run it at 4.8Ghz, i get 1567 points, so an increase of 30 points for a 100mhz gain, and the cost of higher voltage, and a little more heat.  im wondering if 1.4V  would be safe to run as a 24/7 overclock?


----------



## spirit

Very nice score, KD! 

Not sure if 1.4v would be a safe 24/7 OC, seems a tad too high.


----------



## kdfresh09

yeah thats what i was thinkning tooso i just have it at 1.33v running 4.7Ghz.  runs pretty good, and thanks for the comment on my score.  waiting to get the charts updated.


----------



## spirit

An updated version should be coming out soon, leaderboard will probably be updated then.


----------



## tech savvy

Mine:


----------



## Virssagòn

FuryRosewood said:


> i wouldnt bother, for such a gain you wouldnt see much in performance increase



You WILL get a pretty good increase, looking to my 2600k:

4.7ghz








4.8ghz






From 1545 to 1629 points lol. That's a pretty big improvement though?


----------



## Virssagòn

Update scores!


----------



## CrayonMuncher

Cant get it stable at 4.00 ghz

Edit: got it stable at 4.00ghz look below.


----------



## Virssagòn

CrayonMuncher said:


> Cant get it stable at 4.00 ghz



Nice scores!
Next version will be better for AMD, so you'd score pretty high.


----------



## CrayonMuncher

Yay got it stable at 4.00ghz:


----------



## jon76

Oh dear, that doesn't look pleasing, mine is right down the list


----------



## Virssagòn

jon76 said:


> Oh dear, that doesn't look pleasing, mine is right down the list



Just because the points aren't fixed. You'll be better with next one.


----------



## jon76

I was thinking it could be partly because some are overclocked aren't they?


----------



## spirit

Yeah, is your 1090T at stock? Overclocking does actually help quite a lot in this benchmark.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Yeah, is your 1090T at stock? Overclocking does actually help quite a lot in this benchmark.



Yes, but I'll recommend him to run the beta. I found the bug in the floating point maths.


----------



## tech savvy

CrayonMuncher said:


> Yay got it stable at 4.00ghz:



Wow, [email protected] Is your Vcore set on auto, or manual? Does all Phenom's use that much vcore, or is it just your chip?


----------



## jon76

SmileMan said:


> Just because the points aren't fixed. You'll be better with next one.



Excellent, looking forward to it


----------



## jon76

spirit said:


> Yeah, is your 1090T at stock? Overclocking does actually help quite a lot in this benchmark.



Yeah, I have never overclocked and don't want to risk my cpu as I can't afford another, also the most demanding game I play on my pc is civ on full graphics so I am doubting I would need to, I think my current graphics card would probably struggle with anything much more anyway, I was thinking civ 5 and skyrim, but I want them on full graphics so I think it's time for a gpu upgrade


----------



## CrayonMuncher

tech savvy said:


> Wow, [email protected] Is your Vcore set on auto, or manual? Does all Phenom's use that much vcore, or is it just your chip?



It was actually set 1.450 (needed to get it stable at 4.00ghz) , up from 1.425 which is what it defaults too at stock speeds, might try and push it lower tbh but it runs fine with ok temps

Edit at stock it runs at 1.408v, I had manually set it to 1.424 but I was software occing at the time and turbo v advised it was set at 1.450v. The phenom seems to run at stock between 1.392v and up at stock speeds. now running prime @ 3.8ghz and voltage default voltage is shown as 1.376 and fans on max

Apparently these phenoms can be pushed beyond 1.55v (that figure is the max recommended by amd(


----------



## spirit

jon76 said:


> Excellent, looking forward to it



If you want to run the beta of the next release, download it here http://www.mediafire.com/?6z1gt92sodc68fc and post your scores in this thread http://www.computerforum.com/216232-discussion-beta-testing-thread-black-hole.html


----------



## 87dtna

tech savvy said:


> Wow, [email protected] Is your Vcore set on auto, or manual? Does all Phenom's use that much vcore, or is it just your chip?



Phenom II's run a lot more voltage than intel's.  4ghz at 1.425 is actually a decent chip.


----------



## claptonman

New laptop. Ignore the bloatware, haven't gotten around to reinstall.

Edit: the CPU is clocked at 2.30ghz.


----------



## Virssagòn

*V3.2 Released!!
I'll add beta scores tomorrow! *

*http://www.computerforum.com/215772-black-hole-v3-benchmark.html*


----------



## mx344

benchmark by mx344, on Flickr
Specs:
Amd 960T x6
3.77ghz
4gig wintec AmpX
Msi 785


----------



## spirit

Woah pretty nice!!!


----------



## mx344

I'm liken the progress with the program, a lot of improvement over the original.


----------



## spirit

mx344 said:


> I'm liken the progress with the program, a lot of improvement over the original.



Yeah it's definitely much better now than it was before.


----------



## Virssagòn

You got very good scores in multithreaded! Singlethreaded is a lack for you cpu though. Very nice scores!


----------



## Shane

Don't really care for benchmarks etc these days,as long as i get good gaming performance (Which it does very well)...im happy.


----------



## Virssagòn

Nevakonaza said:


> Don't really care for benchmarks etc these days,as long as i get good gaming performance (Which it does very well)...im happy.



That's why I like intel, look at his Singlethreaded and floating point performance!
That's the most important part if you're browsing,... if you got 4 cores and that Singlethreaded performance, you can be sure that 6,8,12 logical cores won't be faster!


----------



## spirit

Interesting how my 2500K @ 4.3 scores 1436 yet Nev's 3570K @ 4.2 scores 1386. I thought the scores may be a little closer.


----------



## wolfeking

he should be outscoring you actually.


----------



## spirit

Yeah that's what I thought, or at least he should only be a couple of points below me. 100MHz doesn't make much difference. Could be because I have more RAM though. I've got twice as much as him.


----------



## spirit

MediaFire is playing up for me again. If it's playing up for any of you guys, you can download Black Hole v3.2 from here too http://www.4shared.com/zip/xXUk6Vkz/Black_Hole_V32_By_Spirit.html might be worth adding that link to the first post, Smile. 

Edit: Here's my score with the 3700+!!






Not trying to get last place or anything...


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Yeah that's what I thought, or at least he should only be a couple of points below me. 100MHz doesn't make much difference. Could be because I have more RAM though. I've got twice as much as him.



It can make much difference, but every chip is different. Try to downclock yours to 4.2ghz and try again.

I also saw your floating points are very good, but the 3570K beats you in the others; multi and single.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> MediaFire is playing up for me again. If it's playing up for any of you guys, you can download Black Hole v3.2 from here too http://www.4shared.com/zip/xXUk6Vkz/Black_Hole_V32_By_Spirit.html might be worth adding that link to the first post, Smile.
> 
> Edit: Here's my score with the 3700+!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not trying to get last place or anything...



Seems like the 1 cores are unstable in multithreaded lol. Mine is scoring the same all the time.


----------



## spirit

Next time I boot up the Athlon I'll try it again and see what I get.


----------



## spirit

Hmm...


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> Seems like the 1 cores are unstable in multithreaded lol. Mine is scoring the same all the time.



It is single core CPU i think.


----------



## Jamebonds1

Heeeerrreeee my little insane overclock 






I3 2120 3.45 GHz, DDR3 1350.


----------



## Virssagòn

*Found the problem, we fixed the exe. But your scores can be very invariable running any programs with it. I closed all programs and had 3 times exactly the same scores.
But now we can't use the scores that were done already, that's pretty sad....
We'll post the exe online when we're sure it's totally stable!*


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> Heeeerrreeee my little insane overclock



sorry, but wait a bit until we release a small fix. It 'll probably be online in 5 min.


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> sorry, but wait a bit until we release a small fix. It 'll probably be online in 5 min.



Awwww man.


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> Awwww man.



We're sure now, tested the fix twice without any program running. I got 1538 stable and spirit 1484 stable.
Now uploading...


----------



## spirit

Download the FIXED EXE HERE http://www.4shared.com/rar/Ivm4devB/Black_Hole_V32__1_.html

My new score is a solid 1,484. That's with a 2500K @ 4.3.


----------



## Virssagòn

ATHLONG OWNS EVERYONE!!!


----------



## spirit

Wait until I try the 3700+ again!


----------



## Virssagòn

My scores:
i7 2600K @ 4.2ghz


----------



## Virssagòn

Seems the download from Spirit needs an account on that site...
Here is a download from mediafire: http://www.mediafire.com/?4hv78m59c7v4579


----------



## Virssagòn

i7 920 @stock


----------



## CrayonMuncher

Hyper 212 evo installed, new oc


----------



## Jamebonds1

I'm going re-doing benchmark but i'm wait for my new RAM to come.


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> I'm going re-doing benchmark but i'm wait for my new RAM to come.



You won't see that much difference with more/better ram.


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> You won't see that much difference with more/better ram.



Yeah. I know but my RAM is growing unstable.


----------



## Virssagòn

Decided to include the beta scores, because most of the results were the same. (only spirits i5 was doing wrong) My other cpu's scored the same as the beta, so here is the table!!


----------



## spirit

I can't test the FX-4100 with the final release I'm afraid (as the PC has gone back to the customer), but here is the Q8300.


----------



## Virssagòn

Challenges: 

- Top 10
- 1st
- 2nd
- 3th
- best amd/intel
- highest clock speed
- highest oc (from base clock)
- Last
- best tester

New:

- Hit 1700
- beat 1800
- Own 2000!!! ( not sure 2000 is reachable...)


----------



## spirit

Right I'm going for last place! Time to fire up the 3700+! 

How do we get 'best tester'?


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Right I'm going for last place! Time to fire up the 3700+!
> 
> How do we get 'best tester'?



The man who updates/tests most with different ocs or cpu's (have to delete 3 cpu limit )
Also it seems the stable version scores bit higher, so people that tested beta can update there scores!


----------



## spirit

I've tested with four different CPUs: 2500K, Q8300, 3700+ and an FX-4100. Will try an i7 3770 later and maybe an Athlon 64 3800+ depending on if my brother has a 32-bit or 64-bit OS (I forget which now).

Here's the 3700+.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> I've tested with four different CPUs: 2500K, Q8300, 3700+ and an FX-4100. Will try an i7 3770 later and maybe an Athlon 64 3800+ depending on if my brother has a 32-bit or 64-bit OS (I forget which now).
> 
> Here's the 3700+.



Already have your athlon ^^
The Q8300 will be updated from the beta scores.


----------



## spirit

My beta Athlon score was 407. Is it worth changing it?


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> My beta Athlon score was 407. Is it worth changing it?



not really I think, unless someone scores between the 2.


----------



## Virssagòn

Looking for more tests!


----------



## Virssagòn

i7 3770 @ stock


----------



## Virssagòn

Overclocked to 4.7ghz, 4.8 didn't boot :'(

1700+ is reachable!! 1800 too.


----------



## Virssagòn

Update scores:






Someone want to compete? 
Overclocking helps very much in this benchmark...


----------



## FuryRosewood

Stock


----------



## Virssagòn

FuryRosewood said:


> Stock



Nice scores! (Already got them from the beta though)
Now your oc?


----------



## FuryRosewood

Was trying to figure out how to set the multi in the bios, couldn't find it so i just fired up turboV again and did it that way.


----------



## tech savvy

Im getting this message when I click on the link provided;

"The file you attempted to download is an archive that is part of a set of archives. MediaFire does not support unlimited downloads of split archives and the limit for this file has been reached. MediaFire understands the need for users to transfer very large or split archives, up to 10GB per file, and we offer this service starting at $1.50 per month.

We have informed the owner that sharing of this file has been limited and how they can resolve this issue.

Still have questions or do you think we've made an mistake? Check our knowledge base for more information or contact us about it."


----------



## spirit

Try this link http://www.mediafire.com/?qciju5r1v2cqd2j


----------



## wolfeking

same message.


----------



## Jamebonds1

wolfeking said:


> same message.



Odd.  I'm able to opening file and download.


----------



## Virssagòn

Second mirror if first one doesn't work.

http://www.2shared.com/file/rDF0fQ3G/Black_Hole_V32.html

link added to mirrors.


----------



## spirit

wolfeking said:


> same message.



The link I posted works for me. Try the one Smile posted just above and see if that works for you?


----------



## wolfeking

spirit said:


> The link I posted works for me. Try the one Smile posted just above and see if that works for you?


I can not try it on a school network, but I will try again when I get home.


----------



## spirit

I'm donating the C2Q rig to my brother, so it may be hard to test this bench on the Q8300 now.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> I'm donating the C2Q rig to my brother, so it may be hard to test this bench on the Q8300 now.



No problem, it's already in the bench.


----------



## SuperDuperMe

I hope i have done the benchmark right  But here it is is anyway


----------



## Virssagòn

mikeb2817 said:


> I hope i have done the benchmark right  But here it is is anyway



Nice scores and nice oc! Almost as good as an i7 920!


----------



## spirit

mikeb2817 said:


> I hope i have done the benchmark right  But here it is is anyway



You have Windows Vista?


----------



## SuperDuperMe

Yes  Yes i do


----------



## spirit

mikeb2817 said:


> Yes  Yes i do



I thought you had 7 until Saw that screenshot.


----------



## mr.doom

Hello,
I just thought I'd pitch in with my new computer, the White Dragon, same one I'm running the build thread (in the signature). It seems like it fared quite nicely on the list


----------



## spirit

Nice score there!


----------



## mr.doom

spirit said:


> Nice score there!



Thanks. Do you know how often the tables get updated?


----------



## Virssagòn

mr.doom said:


> Thanks. Do you know how often the tables get updated?



I'm making a build-in scoreboard in the app. 
I'll update the scores.


----------



## spirit

mr.doom said:


> Thanks. Do you know how often the tables get updated?



Every few days or so...


----------



## Virssagòn

Update;
(hoping to see some vishera's soon)


----------



## FuryRosewood

if you do, i expect them to land about the spot the 3570k is, either above or below...not really sure how the bench will treat em though.


----------



## Virssagòn

The fx8120 scores about 1250 points in stock or so. So I think the fx8350 will score around 1350 points, which is pretty good.


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> The fx8120 scores about 1250 points in stock or so. So I think the fx8350 will score around 1350 points, which is pretty good.



Might even hit around 1400 with an FX-8350 and even higher once overclocked.


----------



## FuryRosewood

Id say more in the 1400s, due to there being about a 15 percent performance increase.


----------



## Virssagòn

FuryRosewood said:


> Id say more in the 1400s, due to there being about a 15 percent performance increase.



Don't think so, it shouldn't beat an i7...


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> Don't think so, it shouldn't beat an i7...



Look at the leaderboard. The two overclocked i7s on there are up in the 1600s and 1700s. The FX-8350 should beat an older Nehalem i7 by quite a long shot.

The i5s are around the 1500 mark. I'd bet the FX-8350 scores around 1400-1500 points.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Look at the leaderboard. The two overclocked i7s on there are up in the 1600s and 1700s. The FX-8350 should beat an older Nehalem i7 by quite a long shot.
> 
> The i5s are around the 1500 mark. I'd bet the FX-8350 scores around 1400-1500 points.



an i5 2500k or 3570k scores 1300 in stock. The i7's around 1400. The stock FX 8350 will not beat the i7's in my opinion. :S


----------



## spirit

A stock 8350 won't beat a stock Sandy or Ivy Bridge i7, but it should definitely beat a Nehalem i7. I've already seen benchmarks whereby the 8350 is beating the old i7 920.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> A stock 8350 won't beat a stock Sandy or Ivy Bridge i7, but it should definitely beat a Nehalem i7. I've already seen benchmarks whereby the 8350 is beating the old i7 920.



the fx8150 was already xD. The is better in a huge end! Also singlethreaded the new fx8350 owns them, but not the sandy or ivy bridges.


----------



## spirit

I think the 8350 is definitely an improvement over the 8150. A step in the right direction I think.

I still wouldn't buy one though.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> I think the 8350 is definitely an improvement over the 8150. A step in the right direction I think.
> 
> I still wouldn't buy one though.



I would if I had to choose between an i5 from the same price .
And it's a very powerful cpu for servers too.


----------



## 87dtna

spirit said:


> A stock 8350 won't beat a stock Sandy or Ivy Bridge i7, but it should definitely beat a Nehalem i7. I've already seen benchmarks whereby the 8350 is beating the old i7 920.



Thats because nehalem had super low clocks stock, there really isn't a ton of difference in nehalem and sandy bridge CLOCK FOR CLOCK.  Sandy and Ivy bridge are just clocked much higher stock, nearly an entire ghz.  The I7 920 only is 2.66 ghz and they all easily overclock to 4.2ghz+ on air.  Thats kinda sad that AMD's ''8 core'' offerings clocked at 4ghz are just now starting to beat Intel's quad core 2.66ghz 3 year old cpu's.

Lets see a 4.2ghz nehalem VS a 5ghz 8350 (the average daily overclocks of each), I bet the nehalem would win, in fact I know it would.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> Thats because nehalem had super low clocks stock, the I7 920 only is 2.66 ghz and they all easily overclock to 4.2ghz+ on air.
> 
> Lets see a 4.2ghz nehalem VS a 5ghz 8350 (the average daily overclocks of each), I bet the nehalem would win, in fact I know it would.



It depends on what aspects you're testing though...
The first gen i7 wasn't really that good singlethreaded though, even overclocked. Maybe a bit better then AMD. But AMD kicks the old i7 in multithreaded. And floating point is about the same.
The rest I don't know, I can't oc my 920 because the bios is locked.


----------



## spirit

87dtna said:


> Thats because nehalem had super low clocks stock, there really isn't a ton of difference in nehalem and sandy bridge CLOCK FOR CLOCK.  Sandy and Ivy bridge are just clocked much higher stock, nearly an entire ghz.  The I7 920 only is 2.66 ghz and they all easily overclock to 4.2ghz+ on air.  Thats kinda sad that AMD's ''8 core'' offerings clocked at 4ghz are just now starting to beat Intel's quad core 2.66ghz 3 year old cpu's.
> 
> Lets see a 4.2ghz nehalem VS a 5ghz 8350 (the average daily overclocks of each), I bet the nehalem would win, in fact I know it would.


Very true. My i5 760 was clocked at 2.8GHz at stock, kinda low.

If you had asked me that question about 8 months or so ago I could have overclocked my i5 760 and found out for you. Granted, it was only an i5, but would still be interesting to see if the 760 once overclocked would beat an 8350.


----------



## 87dtna

spirit said:


> Very true. My i5 760 was clocked at 2.8GHz at stock, kinda low.
> 
> If you had asked me that question about 8 months or so ago I could have overclocked my i5 760 and found out for you. Granted, it was only an i5, but would still be interesting to see if the 760 once overclocked would beat an 8350.



In heavily threaded benches I doubt the 760 would win over an 8350.  The 920 would fair about 30-40% better than a 760 in multi threaded benches.

I will say, it's nice to see a CPU that AMD is releasing thats finally a decent upgrade from Phenom II.  The 8320 for $180 isn't bad.  The 8350 is a bit overpriced, they both max out around 5ghz for a daily OC.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> In heavily threaded benches I doubt the 760 would win over an 8350.  The 920 would fair about 30-40% better than a 760 in multi threaded benches.
> 
> I will say, it's nice to see a CPU that AMD is releasing thats finally a decent upgrade from Phenom II.  The 8320 for $180 isn't bad.  The 8350 is a bit overpriced, they both max out around 5ghz for a daily OC.



Looking at the multithreaded the i7 920 isn't really that great if you compare them against newer gen...

i7 920








i7 3770 stock







That's 2.67ghz vs 3.4ghz, if the i7 920 was clocked the same, it would score around 480-500 (multithreaded). That's also less then an fx8150 would do I think.


----------



## Jamebonds1

87dtna said:


> Thats because nehalem had super low clocks stock, there really isn't a ton of difference in nehalem and sandy bridge CLOCK FOR CLOCK.  Sandy and Ivy bridge are just clocked much higher stock, nearly an entire ghz.  The I7 920 only is 2.66 ghz and they all easily overclock to 4.2ghz+ on air.  Thats kinda sad that AMD's ''8 core'' offerings clocked at 4ghz are just now starting to beat Intel's quad core 2.66ghz 3 year old cpu's.
> 
> Lets see a 4.2ghz nehalem VS a 5ghz 8350 (the average daily overclocks of each), I bet the nehalem would win, in fact I know it would.





SmileMan said:


> It depends on what aspects you're testing though...
> The first gen i7 wasn't really that good singlethreaded though, even overclocked. Maybe a bit better then AMD. But AMD kicks the old i7 in multithreaded. And floating point is about the same.
> The rest I don't know, I can't oc my 920 because the bios is locked.





spirit said:


> Very true. My i5 760 was clocked at 2.8GHz at stock, kinda low.
> 
> If you had asked me that question about 8 months or so ago I could have overclocked my i5 760 and found out for you. Granted, it was only an i5, but would still be interesting to see if the 760 once overclocked would beat an 8350.



The normally BCLK is 133 MHz for LGA 1156 series which is high than santy and ivy.  Just like I can overclocked at 215 MHz with LGA 1156.  It is biggest die core size.  Lack of Intel video card share with another AMD video card.


----------



## 87dtna

We wouldn't know unless you clock a 920 to 3.4ghz and find out.  Pretty sure it would be higher than the numbers you are stating.


----------



## 87dtna

Jamebonds1 said:


> The normally BCLK is 133 MHz for LGA 1156 series which is high than santy and ivy.  Just like I can overclocked at 215 MHz with LGA 1156.  It is biggest die core size.  Lack of Intel video card share with another AMD video card.



I'm at a loss for words at this post.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> We wouldn't know unless you clock a 920 to 3.4ghz and find out.  Pretty sure it would be higher than the numbers you are stating.



I asked someone with an oced i7 920 to test it for me, now waiting if he has the time . So we can get an answer here xD.


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> I asked someone with an oced i7 920 to test it for me, now waiting if he has the time . So we can get an answer here xD.



Most 1st gen i3, i5, and i7 can overclock without K series but it is slow a bit than K series.  I'm sure that 920 can be overclock with adj of BCLK and some voltage like vCore, Vtt, PLL or RAM voltage.  Like mine higher overclock i had on LGA 1156 is 215 MHz BCLK.


----------



## 87dtna

SmileMan said:


> I asked someone with an oced i7 920 to test it for me, now waiting if he has the time . So we can get an answer here xD.



Post the screenshot :good:

My guess- 550/130/475 for a total score of 1155.


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> Most 1st gen i3, i5, and i7 can overclock without K series but it is slow a bit than K series.  I'm sure that 920 can be overclock with adj of BCLK and some voltage like vCore, Vtt, PLL or RAM voltage.  Like mine higher overclock i had on LGA 1156 is 215 MHz BCLK.



You oc'd over the 4.9 ghz >.< didn't you?


----------



## 87dtna

Jamebonds1 said:


> Most 1st gen i3, i5, and i7 can overclock without K series but it is slow a bit than K series.  I'm sure that 920 can be overclock with adj of BCLK and some voltage like vCore, Vtt, PLL or RAM voltage.  Like mine higher overclock i had on LGA 1156 is 215 MHz BCLK.



No way!  Can you really overclock with the base clock???  No way!


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> Post the screenshot :good:
> 
> My guess- 550/130/475 for a total score of 1155.



Could be right I think 
I can't see the improvement line without results though.


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> You oc'd over the 4.9 ghz >.< didn't you?



Yeah. I was once insane overclocker back there haha.  Sad, my first gigabyte had died and it was better motherboard i have 



87dtna said:


> No way!  Can you really overclock with the base clock???  No way!



Picture never lie 

This is from my old motherboard GA-H55-USB3 and it was better i have.  My mistaken.  The higher i did is 217 BCLK.  I remember that i had to remove two of unstable RAM and keep two stable RAM in order to overclocked my old i3.


----------



## 87dtna

SmileMan said:


> Could be right I think
> I can't see the improvement line without results though.



Well I think even my guess is conservatively low, but we'll see, hopefully.


----------



## 87dtna

Jamebonds1 said:


> Yeah. I was once insane overclocker back there haha.  Sad, my first gigabyte had died and it was better motherboard i have
> 
> 
> 
> Picture never lie
> 
> This is from my old motherboard GA-H55-USB3 and it was better i have.  My mistaken.  The higher i did is 217 BCLK.
> ]



Insane?  217 base clock and 4.9ghz on an I3 540, not really.

You don't pick up sarcasm real well do you?






^Thats on air, then I put a 540 on DICE for 245 base clock-


----------



## Jamebonds1

87dtna said:


> Insane?  217 base clock and 4.9ghz on an I3 540, not really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^Thats on air, then I put a 540 on DICE for 245 base clock-



I have say we're both insane overclocker


----------



## 87dtna

Jamebonds1 said:


> I have say we're both insane overclocker



LOL, yeah sure.  217......245.....yeah thats the same.  I've forgotten about more things I've benched than you've done.


----------



## Jamebonds1

87dtna said:


> LOL, yeah sure.  I've forgotten about more things I've benched than you've done.



But really my overclock is more limited than your doing since my old RAM is 1.65 volt and motherboard's DIMM is 1.5 volt.  Plus my Power Supply is three rail power, ouch.  It shut down on me since the limit of power have been reached.


----------



## Virssagòn

Lol, 5.6ghz on the old i3 xD. And wtf? -15degrees?!?


----------



## Virssagòn

Need some insane overclockers here to place in the scoreboard! 

Could you try it with your i5 like you did with that -15degrees . Or aren't you risking that a 2nd time?
The newest version is v3.2 (couldn't change the headtitle)


----------



## 87dtna

I don't have any of my subzero equipment anymore.  I sold it all before I moved plus I've been too busy lately to bench as much as I used to.


----------



## CrayonMuncher

Heres a result from a laptop i have atm, just for as comparison for yourself, hope you are ready for it it is pretty special:


----------



## Rozyn

Hope I win this when I get my desktop


----------



## Virssagòn

CrayonMuncher said:


> Heres a result from a laptop i have atm, just for as comparison for yourself, hope you are ready for it it is pretty special:



Your singlethreaded is pretty good! But the multithreaded is were the athlon beats you.


----------



## spirit

Only around 100 points better overall than an Athlon 64 3700+.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Only around 100 points better overall than an Athlon 64 3700+.



Yeh, but he's using less then 2gb ram, so he can't max out here.


----------



## Virssagòn

Score update:


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> Yeh, but he's using less then 2gb ram, so he can't max out here.



Yeah I only have 1GB in my Athlon box.


----------



## Virssagòn

Still looking for overclocked 1st gen i7's to solve our discussion! 

And nobody has a vishera to test with?

All cpu's are welcome!


----------



## spirit

Give it time! Vishera is still very new!


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Give it time! Vishera is still very new!



Sorry, I'm very curious about this xD.


----------



## sctunehrdowib

-Lol-


----------



## Virssagòn

sctunehrdowib said:


> -Lol-



.... okay. :S


----------



## dark_angel

Here's a result from system in my sig






Edit: Fixed. Still need to see now why the buttons in reply are not working, can select font and size but rest do nothing.


----------



## Virssagòn

dark_angel said:


> Here's a result from system in my sig



Sorry I can't see your image.

Maybe post again with another site like imageshakeus


----------



## Virssagòn

Working now, I'll add to the table! 

Were you doing something while benching? Or didn't you close any program? Because you're not scoring better then the i7 3770 already listed.


----------



## dark_angel

i did have rainmeter running on second monitor and few system tray items. Would it be best to close all those as well and try.


----------



## Virssagòn

dark_angel said:


> i did have rainmeter running on second monitor and few system tray items. Would it be best to close all those as well and try.



Yeah, it can have an improvement then. If you got a browser open it's 20 points down


----------



## Intel_man

Here you go. Didn't bother bumping the cpu back up to 4.0 to do the test.


----------



## Virssagòn

Intel_man said:


> Here you go. Didn't bother bumping the cpu back up to 4.0 to do the test.



Nice scores you got there! But if you closed everything while benching I think you could have 1200+!


----------



## Intel_man

Probably, I'll push it back up to 4.0 next time I get around to doing so.


----------



## Virssagòn

Intel_man said:


> Probably, I'll push it back up to 4.0 next time I get around to doing so.



Nice! Could you do that? Maybe you own a 3th gen!


----------



## 87dtna

Not bad for just a dual core, cracked a thousand without even HT-


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> Not bad for just a dual core, cracked a thousand without even HT-



Wow, nice oc! Pretty good Singlethreaded it got there! Could you get it even higher? Because voltage is 1.4 now.


----------



## 87dtna

Load is actually 1.35v, it droops  pretty bad on this board.  It's only on the stock cooler as well, though it did only top out at 65c so I got plenty of room.

Problem is, I only have 1600 ram, which with the 8 multiplier is already at 1680 speed.  This board doesn't like the 6.66 multiplier, it won't even post.  So I'm kinda topped out unless I get better ram.

With a better cooler and better ram I could probably even get close to 5ghz out of it.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> Not bad for just a dual core, cracked a thousand without even HT-



Eum... You know you used the V3? There is a newer version out there, named v3.2. You can download it on the first page.


----------



## 87dtna

Ohh OK so my score should be even better.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> Ohh OK so my score should be even better.



I think not, but you can try


----------



## 87dtna

Yeah actually it was 1128 on 4.4ghz, nearly 100 points more.  But I loosened up timing on the ram and got 4.5ghz out of it.  This beats an FX6100 at 4.3ghz, lol-


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> Yeah actually it was 1128 on 4.4ghz, nearly 100 points more.  But I loosened up timing on the ram and got 4.5ghz out of it.  This beats an FX6100 at 4.3ghz, lol-



Lol, that's pretty funny xD. The old fx series are crap, I hope the new ones are better .

Without that singlethreaded performance you would be nothing though xD.


----------



## 87dtna

Floating point is super high for some reason too.  But whats weird is the single threaded performance is matching Ivy bridge clock for clock


----------



## Virssagòn

Could you test it on stock too? Just to see the difference with other dual cores.


----------



## 87dtna

Stock is only 2.8ghz though.  Do you want to me test at 3.4ghz too?


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> Stock is only 2.8ghz though.  Do you want to me test at 3.4ghz too?



stock and 3.4ghz would be great, I'll place them all in the list  Thanks bro!


----------



## 87dtna

Stock-







3.4ghz-


----------



## Virssagòn

If I see this benchmarks right, the cpu is scaling very good when overclocked.
It has a huge improvement to 4.5ghz, I'm very curious what he should do at 5ghz or so 
Thanks for testing btw!

PS: you got me thinking about scaling the singlethreaded lower and the multithreaded higher xD (not gonna update benchmarking code for some months though)


----------



## 87dtna

Seems fairly linear, slight advantage to a higher OC.  144 point improvement for 600 mhz (2.8 to 3.4).  310 points improvement for 1100mhz (3.4 to 4.5).  BUT, I think the extra points come in because of the QPI link speed, which wouldn't be affected on 1155 cpu's.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> Seems fairly linear, slight advantage to a higher OC.  144 point improvement for 600 mhz (2.8 to 3.4).  310 points improvement for 1100mhz (3.4 to 4.5).



The only weird thing is that it scores as good as sandy/ivy bridges in singlethreaded @ same clockspeed . (turbo gets the ivy/sandy's to 3.8ghz though)


----------



## 87dtna

Read my edit.  QPI link speed is higher, I think it gives it more points with a higher OC.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> Read my edit.  QPI link speed is higher, I think it gives it more points with a higher OC.



Can be true, I looked back to some tests. All i7's/i5's (ivy and sandy) @4.5ghz score 652 in singlethreaded. It's quite funny xD.


----------



## Virssagòn

Update:


----------



## 87dtna

I know I looked too lol.  Weird.

BTW, I picked up an I7 920 but I need to get a board.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> I know I looked too lol.  Weird.
> 
> BTW, I picked up an I7 920 but I need to get a board.



I got an i7 920, but my board doesn't allow me to oc :'(


----------



## spirit

I feel sad now. My Q8300 is being beaten by a freaking Pentium. Mind you, the Pentium was running at 4.4GHz.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> I feel sad now. My Q8300 is being beaten by a freaking Pentium. Mind you, the Pentium was running at 4.4GHz.



Haha, the Q8300 only 2ghz not?


----------



## spirit

2.5 I think.

It's not even working anymore. Hard drive's packed in, so I need to get a new one.


----------



## 87dtna

The G6950 is extremely underrated.  It's an I3 without HT, most people don't realize that.  They run extremely cool and overclock like crazy.  I was running the STOCK cooler for this benching, and even at 4.5ghz load voltage was 1.425v I only topped out at 70c core temps.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> The G6950 is extremely underrated.  It's an I3 without HT, most people don't realize that.  They run extremely cool and overclock like crazy.  I was running the STOCK cooler for this benching, and even at 4.5ghz load voltage was 1.425v I only topped out at 70c core temps.



Do you have another cooler to place on that cpu? Would be great if it was clocked at 5ghz and beating some i5's


----------



## 87dtna

Temps were not even maxxed out anyway, still had 30c of room.

I figured out that the board is actually topping out on the base clock.  It's a cheap H55 board.  218 was max.  I could probably tweak some things to get higher but I just don't feel like it.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> Temps were not even maxxed out anyway, still had 30c of room.
> 
> I figured out that the board is actually topping out on the base clock.  It's a cheap H55 board.  218 was max.  I could probably tweak some things to get higher but I just don't feel like it.



Funny how your pentium owns the fx4100 on a lower clock


----------



## Intel_man

Probably could've broken the 1300 mark if I bumped it higher to 4.2


----------



## Virssagòn

Intel_man said:


> Probably could've broken the 1300 mark if I bumped it higher to 4.2



Pretty good though!


----------



## Intel_man

Yea I'm pretty happy my i7 still pwns most of the AMDs out there.


----------



## 87dtna

Just FYI, Nehalem CPU's overclock better using uneven multipliers.  Thats really only once you get over 200 base clock though.  Thats why you see all the I7 930 guys using the 21 multiplier over the 22, and thats mostly why the 930 was a flop.


----------



## Intel_man

Would you think the 920 would get better benchmark numbers if I set it the multiplier at 19?


----------



## Virssagòn

Intel_man said:


> Would you think the 920 would get better benchmark numbers if I set it the multiplier at 19?



Nope, 21 will


----------



## 87dtna

Actually, 19 with higher baseclock would get better scores yes 

Same principle with my Pentium, the QPI link will be higher.

Most X58 boards will top out around 220 base clock though, with EVGA being one of the worst offenders you may only get 215ish.


----------



## Intel_man

Meh lifetime warranty ftw!


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> Actually, 19 with higher baseclock would get better scores yes
> 
> Same principle with my Pentium, the QPI link will be higher.
> 
> Most X58 boards will top out around 220 base clock though, with EVGA being one of the worst offenders you may only get 215ish.



Would he be able to hit over 1300 when just using 19 then?


----------



## Intel_man

Well if I push it to 4.1 - 4.2 then most likely.


----------



## wolfeking

assuming 215 baseclock and 19 multiplier, you would still end up at 4.085GHz, so should be able to break it. at 21 multi it would be 4.5GHz.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> assuming 215 baseclock and 19 multiplier, you would still end up at 4.085GHz, so should be able to break it. at 21 multi it would be 4.5GHz.



That would be nice, then we can see or the i7 920 is really better then the fx8120 @same clock  (I know it's better though)


----------



## 87dtna

Intel_man said:


> Meh lifetime warranty ftw!



A 3 year warranty is plenty for the lifespan of a motherboard, technology wise.



SmileMan said:


> Would he be able to hit over 1300 when just using 19 then?



Most likely since he got 1298.  Higher QPI isn't going to make up huge point gains but it would likely see a few points of gain so yeah I would think it would crack 1300 on the same clockspeed with higher QPI.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> A 3 year warranty is plenty for the lifespan of a motherboard, technology wise.
> 
> 
> 
> Most likely since he got 1298.  Higher QPI isn't going to make up huge point gains but it would likely see a few points of gain so yeah I would think it would crack 1300 on the same clockspeed with higher QPI.



You gonna test your main rig too?
And I saw you already sold your phenom so you got the money for a X58 board now?


----------



## 87dtna

No actually I traded it to a friend locally, no money exchange haha.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> No actually I traded it to a friend locally, no money exchange haha.



You traded it for what? Thought you were looking to trade it for a X58 board or an hd6870?


----------



## 87dtna

Well, he needed to upgrade to AM3 and he had a Phenom II 940.  So I traded the 830 and a cheap 880g board for his 940, 790x board, and 4x1gb of ddr2 800 ram.  So all he needs is DDR3 ram, which is cheap now.  I figure I'd get more for that combo anyway selling the board, CPU, and ram all together.


----------



## Intel_man

87dtna said:


> A 3 year warranty is plenty for the lifespan of a motherboard, technology wise.



Yea but a lot of years down the road, the motherboard might die and I can get a new one for free!


----------



## 87dtna

And it'll be worth $20  WOOT.  lol


----------



## Intel_man

Well by the time it'll probably die, I'll get something that's atleast decent that supports the later sockets!


Free mobo upgrade is free!


----------



## spirit

i7 3770 @ stock, 32GB 1333MHz RipJaws-X.


----------



## Virssagòn

Pretty weird I score higher then ivy bridge on stock xd. (turbo on: 3.8ghz though)


----------



## spirit

Yeah but remember your RAM is faster.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Yeah but remember your RAM is faster.



Yeh, and I really closed everything. With skype on (all rest off) I had 1410, w/o skype and the rest I got this.


----------



## spirit

I bet Dad didn't close everything.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> I bet Dad didn't close everything.



32gb RAM -.-


----------



## Fooozball

let's see who gets the worst scores?


----------



## spirit

I got the worst score with my Athlon 64 3700+.  Look back through this thread and you'll see.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> I got the worst score with my Athlon 64 3700+.  Look back through this thread and you'll see.



Or just the 1st page where the score tables are.


----------



## Jamebonds1

spirit said:


> i7 3770 @ stock, 32GB 1333MHz RipJaws-X.



Not bad for your dad's computer   I wish i have 32 GB RAM 

I'm too jealous of my dad's computer haha.


----------



## spirit

Dad's PC is pretty cool. Only short coming is the cheap case he used and the lack of a graphics card, and the 1333MHz RAM.


----------



## Jamebonds1

spirit said:


> Dad's PC is pretty cool. Only short coming is the cheap case he used and the lack of a graphics card, and the 1333MHz RAM.



1333 MHz RAM should not so bad right?


----------



## spirit

It's fast enough but 1600MHz would have been nice. Trouble was for whatever reason 1600MHz 8GB DIMMs weren't available when he built his machine, so he had to go for 1333MHz.


----------



## Virssagòn

Update:


----------



## spirit

I'm hopefully getting a few Xeon servers soon I can run this on! Each one with a different Xeon probably.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> I'm hopefully getting a few Xeon servers soon I can run this on! Each one with a different Xeon probably.



where do you get those from?


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> where do you get those from?



Dad.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Dad.



explains it... 
when did you said to test it?


----------



## G80FTW

My results. My CPU is still at stock settings, so the turbo is on which is 3.34GHz:





After a quick look at other scores, is there any reason why the IB is being outperformed by the SB? Isnt the IB supposed to be faster? They are basically the same CPU right just the IB is 22nm?


----------



## Virssagòn

G80FTW said:


> My results. My CPU is still at stock settings, so the turbo is on which is 3.34GHz:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After a quick look at other scores, is there any reason why the IB is being outperformed by the SB? Isnt the IB supposed to be faster? They are basically the same CPU right just the IB is 22nm?



My dad and spirit's dad didn't close every program while running it. Also faster ram can affect the scores. I tested with skype on and had 1391, that score -20 for slower ram would be 1371. And also, this is the pure calculation speed of a cpu which is tested. That'd be almost the same IB-SB.

Nice scores btw! Multithreaded part is just outstanding!
With some overclocking you'd beat me.


----------



## Jamebonds1

G80FTW said:


> My results. My CPU is still at stock settings, so the turbo is on which is 3.34GHz:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After a quick look at other scores, is there any reason why the IB is being outperformed by the SB? Isnt the IB supposed to be faster? They are basically the same CPU right just the IB is 22nm?



It is not SB nor IB.  That's a first gen Intel iX series for LGA 1336.


----------



## 87dtna

Jamebonds1 said:


> It is not SB nor IB.  That's a first gen Intel iX series for LGA 1336.



Socket 1366.  The I7 970 is Westmere Architecture, which is a die shrink of Nehalem.


----------



## Jamebonds1

87dtna said:


> Socket 1366.  The I7 970 is Westmere Architecture, which is a die shrink of Nehalem.



Oops.  I keep mixed up with 1366 and 1336


----------



## 87dtna

There is no 1336


----------



## Virssagòn

UPDATE:


----------



## Yachu

*i7 2600k @ 4.9ghz*






Here is my benchmark @ 4.9ghz


----------



## 87dtna

Nice score.


----------



## Ankur

Nice temps too.


----------



## Virssagòn

Nice! You beat me ;p.
But we can't see your max temps, how high does it go with a h100?


----------



## Virssagòn

Update scores:


----------



## Yachu

my temps are maxed at around 72-73C after running blackhole v3.2


----------



## Yachu

btw I am also running win8


----------



## G80FTW

Jamebonds1 said:


> It is not SB nor IB.  That's a first gen Intel iX series for LGA 1336.



I was referring to other scores, not my own. 

Also, Im pretty sure my CPU is not a first gen i7....


----------



## Virssagòn

Yachu said:


> my temps are maxed at around 72-73C after running blackhole v3.2



That's pretty good! I wonder if I could get that, I'm getting 67C max on 4.7ghz (1.385v)


----------



## Virssagòn

G80FTW said:


> I was referring to other scores, not my own.
> 
> Also, Im pretty sure my CPU is not a first gen i7....



It IS a first gen, but it just came a little later then the other i7 8xx/...


----------



## 87dtna

Yeah, die shrinks aren't considered a next ''gen''.


----------



## speedyink

My outdated computers

laptop






Desktop *shudder*







Bone stock


----------



## AlienMenace

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/96/testscore.jpg/

Clock Speed is at 3.8 ghz
Only way I can post the picture. It will not come any other way.


----------



## Virssagòn

speedyink said:


> My outdated computers
> 
> laptop
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desktop *shudder*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bone stock



You're sure you closed everything?
It's pretty weird the athlon 64 x2 scores the same...


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> You're sure you closed everything?
> It's pretty weird the athlon 64 x2 scores the same...



Actually, CPU on laptop isn't pretty fastest as desktop ever if it is same series and same speed clock.


----------



## spirit

Would test the server but for some reason I can't get a 64-bit OS to work on it.


----------



## Virssagòn

Pentium 4's are maybe 32bit only?
Or did you mean your fathers xeon?


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> Actually, CPU on laptop isn't pretty fastest as desktop ever if it is same series and same speed clock.



The phenom x4 9500 is a desktop cpu...


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> Pentium 4's are maybe 32bit only?
> Or did you mean your fathers xeon?



His Pentium 4 HT is a BGA 775 so it is 64 Bit.  It need driver in order to installing at SCSI hard driver.  It is not easy to installing normal windows at Raid and SCSI.  Pentium 4 HT Socket 478 is 32 bit only.  I have it on my laptop a socket 478.


----------



## 87dtna

SmileMan said:


> You're sure you closed everything?
> It's pretty weird the athlon 64 x2 scores the same...



It's especially weird that the single threaded performance is higher than the multithreaded on a Phenom quad core.  Something had to be running.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> It's especially weird that the single threaded performance is higher than the multithreaded on a Phenom quad core.  Something had to be running.



Yeah, but the multithreaded from an i7 920 is almost the same as the i7's singlethreaded.
and the other phenom do that way too.


----------



## wolfeking

not bad for 5 minutes of work. working from within windows for now. Will try BIOS later to see how it works.


----------



## FuryRosewood

^ That is why I like ASUS boards  I'm tempted to try their auto overclocking feature for a extreme test and see how far the software can get it, I bet it will be close to 4.8 It seemed rather impressive in the demonstration.


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> Pentium 4's are maybe 32bit only?
> Or did you mean your fathers xeon?



No some of them are 64-bit. Most of the P4 HTs were 64-bit because I used to use one daily and I had Vista 64-bit and 7 64-bit on it at one point IIRC. I don't think all P4 HTs were 64-bit though.

Dad's Xeon is definitely 64-bit - it's LGA 1156!


----------



## Jamebonds1

spirit said:


> No some of them are 64-bit. Most of the P4 HTs were 64-bit because I used to use one daily and I had Vista 64-bit and 7 64-bit on it at one point IIRC. I don't think all P4 HTs were 64-bit though.
> 
> Dad's Xeon is definitely 64-bit - it's LGA 1156!



What about your qqqqqqqqquuuuuuuuuuuaaaaaaaaaaaaadddddddddddddddddddd computer for Black Hole test?


----------



## wolfeking

FuryRosewood said:


> ^ That is why I like ASUS boards  I'm tempted to try their auto overclocking feature for a extreme test and see how far the software can get it, I bet it will be close to 4.8 It seemed rather impressive in the demonstration.


Running the auto overclock, it goes to 4400 ish. 42x103 is what it sets it to.  Personally, I think that the BIOS OC could be easier if they could just remove the auto OCer (as it confuses me into pushing it!). Otherwise, I can get up to 4.8GHz, but it throws a warning at me telling me it is hot.  So I am going to stay at 4.5GHz until I can get a cooler that does not suck donkey.


----------



## Virssagòn

Update!


----------



## spirit

Jamebonds1 said:


> What about your qqqqqqqqquuuuuuuuuuuaaaaaaaaaaaaadddddddddddddddddddd computer for Black Hole test?



It's not working at the moment.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> It's not working at the moment.



It's already on the score table


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> It's already on the score table



...there's that too.


----------



## 87dtna

87dtna said:


> My guess- 550/130/475 for a total score of 1155.



I was pretty darn close on the total score   I did think the multithreaded score would be higher.






And then 4ghz-


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> I was pretty darn close on the total score   I did think the multithreaded score would be higher.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then 4ghz-



Pretty nice scores!
Like said before even multipliers score lower with the 920. You can see the difference between the 920 @4ghz already on the table and yours.


----------



## Virssagòn

Do you have good cooling? Because it's pretty easy to reach at least 4.5ghz with a 920. Want to see it at 5ghz . Was planning to do that myself, but bios is locked from my 920....


----------



## 87dtna

I'm on water cooling yes, BUT this is a C0 chip and unfortunately it did actually take 1.35v to get 4ghz stable.

I'm sure I could get 4.2-4.3 out of it, but prolly not much more.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> I'm on water cooling yes, BUT this is a C0 chip and unfortunately it did actually take 1.35v to get 4ghz stable.
> 
> I'm sure I could get 4.2-4.3 out of it, but prolly not much more.



Try as high as you can. You know the voltage limit lays higher with 1st gen i7's. I wouldn't go above 1.42v with my 2600k. But I would say 1.47v for an i7 920 .
Your choice to do it, and what your limit will be.


----------



## 87dtna

Thermal throttling will be more of an issue.  These C0's run hot, even at 4.0ghz 1.35v I hit 75c on water cooling!

But I'll try, probably not tonight anymore though.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> Thermal throttling will be more of an issue.  These C0's run hot, even at 4.0ghz 1.35v I hit 75c on water cooling!
> 
> But I'll try, probably not tonight anymore though.



Closed loop? What cooler? Some watercoolers aren't that great...


----------



## 87dtna

No, full loop with EK supremacy copper plexi.  Yeah, they just run that hot.

I remember even on my single stage phase the temps would go positive 20-25c at 5.2 ghz 1.675v.  Idle was even only -18c, when idle on just about any other CPU was -42c and temps would never go positive.  Those 45nm 1366 cpu's are just fryers.

I'm on the lookout for a westmere hex core for a decent price though.  Just for fun I could set it back to quad core and see what kind of gains westmere had over Nehalem.  I know they run a LOT cooler though as I've owned one before.  The hex cores run cooler than the nehalem quads.


----------



## FuryRosewood

$0.02 - .rar sucks. Use zip files. I have to now download another application to open this thing up...god I hate winrar.

That said i briefly installed and uninstalled to get the executable out.


----------



## Virssagòn

FuryRosewood said:


> $0.02 - .rar sucks. Use zip files. I have to now download another application to open this thing up...god I hate winrar.



Sorry man, if I upload it as zip file it always says the file is corrupted when I download it.


----------



## Jamebonds1

FuryRosewood said:


> $0.02 - .rar sucks. Use zip files. I have to now download another application to open this thing up...god I hate winrar.
> 
> That said i briefly installed and uninstalled to get the executable out.



Trying WinZip?  They're from Corel and is great.


----------



## spirit

7-Zip.


----------



## FuryRosewood

Bleh feel like a idiot now, apparently 7zip does not support file icons for .rar and made me think it was a unknown file type, been dealing with those things all week. Sorry.


----------



## Virssagòn

FuryRosewood said:


> $0.02 - .rar sucks. Use zip files. I have to now download another application to open this thing up...god I hate winrar.
> 
> That said i briefly installed and uninstalled to get the executable out.



Nice oc and very nice scores over there!


----------



## spirit

FuryRosewood said:


> Bleh feel like a idiot now, apparently 7zip does not support file icons for .rar and made me think it was a unknown file type, been dealing with those things all week. Sorry.



Haha yeah right click, then click on Extract.


----------



## FuryRosewood

Yea, just stinks it shows a blank 'I don't know what this is' icon. I'm going to play with it more later with TurboV and use multipliers with a little FSB too. 3820 can do things, just cant use multiplier to do it all.


----------



## Ankur

KasperL said:


> Alright, pic should work properly now.



Fixed.
Can't you overclock it to around 4.5? It should cross 2000 easily.


----------



## KasperL

Ankur said:


> Fixed.
> Can't you overclock it to around 4.5? It should cross 2000 easily.



Nice job mate, thanks.

I don't really more than 4,2 GHz.


----------



## Virssagòn

Update scores!!

We got a new leader here, our 3 versions on a row winner until now KasperL!!!
Not easy to beat this powner, I think he's going for the 2000P award .


----------



## KasperL

SmileMan said:


> Update scores!!
> 
> We got a new leader here, our 3 versions on a row winner until now KasperL!!!
> Not easy to beat this powner, I think he's going for the 2000P award .



AWesome  
If anyone actually beats that, i will overclock to 4,5 ;D


----------



## Virssagòn

KasperL said:


> AWesome
> If anyone actually beats that, i will overclock to 4,5 ;D



You got 12 threads and your singlethreaded is also very good. We'll need a crazy overclocker with 8 threads or someone with the same threads to win from you... XD


----------



## Jamebonds1

KasperL said:


> AWesome
> If anyone actually beats that, i will overclock to 4,5 ;D



Nah.  Just overclock up to 5 GHz 



SmileMan said:


> You got 12 threads and your singlethreaded is also very good. We'll need a crazy overclocker with 8 threads or someone with the same threads to win from you... XD



Nah, we will need more insane overclocker with dual core


----------



## 87dtna

Hoping to be running a 980x soon.


----------



## Jamebonds1

87dtna said:


> Hoping to be running a 980x soon.



Not plan to blow up your computer i hope?


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> Not plan to blow up your computer i hope?



Hope he's planning to buy a below zero cooling or what he named it .
An i7 980X @ 5ghz, I think it would score around 2100P.


----------



## 87dtna

Single stage phase?  No I said I used to have one for benching.  I run water cooling now, hoping to get atleast 4.8 out of it anyway.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> Single stage phase?  No I said I used to have one for benching.  I run water cooling now, hoping to get atleast 4.8 out of it anyway.



Nice! You know already when you're getting it? Oh and, I ran 4.8ghz today with max 69-70C. But not really stable, didn't expect it to be stable with my board though...


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> Hope he's planning to buy a below zero cooling or what he named it .
> An i7 980X @ 5ghz, I think it would score around 2100P.



Lol.  980X is 1000 dollar worth but it can be found cheap on eBay i think.  Also what is 2100P?  



SmileMan said:


> Nice! You know already when you're getting it? Oh and, I ran 4.8ghz today with max 69-70C. But not really stable, didn't expect it to be stable with my board though...



Stable isn't for all of motherboard.


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> Lol.  980X is 1000 dollar worth but it can be found cheap on eBay i think.  Also what is 2100P?
> 
> 
> 
> Stable isn't for all of motherboard.



2100 points

And yes, but I know that myself. I just spared my money 2years ago and went for a cheap one. But I'm pretty happy to have it stable on 4.7ghz 1.375v max.


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> 2100 points
> 
> And yes, but I know that myself. I just spared my money 2years ago and went for a cheap one. But I'm pretty happy to have it stable on 4.7ghz 1.375v max.



I almost thought it is technology thing by 2100P lol.  This is what i google for that.  http://www.hach.com/2100p-portable-turbidimeter/product?id=7640450099  Sorry for misunderstand.


----------



## 87dtna

Hoping at ~4.6ghz on the 980x that I crack 2000 points.


----------



## Jamebonds1

87dtna said:


> Hoping at ~4.6ghz on the 980x that I crack 2000 points.



You just got 980X?


----------



## 87dtna

Yeah I just made the deal for it.


----------



## Jamebonds1

87dtna said:


> Yeah I just made the deal for it.



Very nice.  Can't wait until what 1000 dollar CPU can doing


----------



## speedyink

SmileMan said:


> You're sure you closed everything?
> It's pretty weird the athlon 64 x2 scores the same...



I thought it was weird too, lol.  Yeah, everything was closed, I even paused the live wallpaper.  I ran the test twice and got that exact result both times


----------



## byteninja2

I hate how its a rar, just make it a zip. I had to install 7zip for this.


----------



## FuryRosewood

I like 7zip...hate winrar...lol


----------



## speedyink

Winrar (or similar) is pretty much mandatory on a pc install if you download things off the internet.  Unfortunately we don't have the luxury of having only one type of compression format.  That's why 7zip and winrar and the like exist.


----------



## speedyink

Did a little clean on the desktop, this is all she got.







Maybe after a much needed format and reinstall I'll try this again.


----------



## spirit

byteninja2 said:


> I hate how its a rar, just make it a zip. I had to install 7zip for this.



Happy now? http://www.mediafire.com/?zznrrz6vo7t012w


----------



## Virssagòn

speedyink said:


> I thought it was weird too, lol.  Yeah, everything was closed, I even paused the live wallpaper.  I ran the test twice and got that exact result both times



The clock speed is also pretty low on that cpu. The x2 has 2.6ghz, that's why he's scoring that high compared to you. Can't see another reason...


----------



## FuryRosewood

smells fishy, even at the lower clockrate, the 9500 phenom should score higher than the a64 x2 5000+


----------



## Virssagòn

FuryRosewood said:


> smells fishy, even at the lower clockrate, the 9500 phenom should score higher than the a64 x2 5000+



it scores 10 points higher though. It's more singlethreaded then multithreaded here. I think I gonna make floating point 4 threads.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Happy now? http://www.mediafire.com/?zznrrz6vo7t012w



Link added


----------



## StrangleHold

Actually the Phenom I had the exact same core as the Athlon 64 Brisbane core. Clock for clock in single threaded they shoud be the same, unless the L3 cache on the Phenon helps any. But basically the Phenom I was just 4 Brisbane cores on a die with added L3 cache.


----------



## FuryRosewood

yes but 5000+ is at 2.6ghz, 9500 is at 2.2ghz


----------



## StrangleHold

FuryRosewood said:


> yes but 5000+ is at 2.6ghz, 9500 is at 2.2ghz


 
Was just making a statement on the architecture. In reality the Athlon X2 5000 should beat the Phenom 9500 in single threaded. The Phenom 9500 should beat the Athlon X2 5000 in multi, but by a smaller amount because of the lower clocks. But the 9500 being the 00 series has alot of problems, plus the TLB bug. If the board has the TLB bios bug fix, it killed the performance. But really the Phenom 00 series were duds.


----------



## Virssagòn

The other phenoms are scoring much better though.


----------



## 87dtna

9500 is Phenom I not Phenom II, there's a big difference.


----------



## speedyink

Yeah they quickly replaced the xx00 line with the xx50 line.  The first phenoms did have issues.  Unfortunately I bought into the ZOMG QUAD CORE fad when it was still a baby 

Tis ok, has performed just fine for me in real world use over the last however many years.  The whole computer is outdated now, so it's time for a new PC anyways.  But alas, house payments get in the way...


----------



## Jiniix

Here ya go


----------



## Virssagòn

It's 4.43ghz right?


----------



## Jiniix

Yes sir
(My signature build is undergoing a bit of maintenance, so ASUS auto OC will have to do for now )


----------



## Virssagòn

Probably I gonna buy a vishera for my server in december, probably an fx6300 / 8320. Will overclock the hell out of it and try to hit 5ghz. Is the 8320 and the 8350 totally the same chip (only diff clock) like the 8120 and the 8150 was?
If someone else got some of the visheras, your tests are welcome.


----------



## spirit

Yeah should imagine the only difference between the 8320 and the 8350 is the clockspeed.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Yeah should imagine the only difference between the 8320 and the 8350 is the clockspeed.



Nice! No problem for me .
They are also pretty good server cpu's that fx83xx series.
Probably I'm getting the thermalright truespirit 140 to oc it.
Do you know any very cheap vishera-compatible good overclocking mobo's?
Would my 350W psu be enough to power an oc'd fx8320? (Without gpu), if not, would be 450w from a quality brand (corsair/ocz) be enough?


----------



## spirit

A good 400-450W PSU should be OK, I'd maybe go for a 500W if overclocking though. Antec and Corsair have some I think. Look into the EarthWatts range perhaps. I wouldn't recommend overclocking on that 350W PSU.

Any AM3+ board should work with Vishera.


----------



## Virssagòn

Not any, it must be a revised one. But I didn't ask for a psu recommendation ;P.
I was talking about you can maybe recommend me a cheap mobo for overclocking ;D.


----------



## spirit

Pretty sure you asked this:



SmileMan said:


> Would my 350W psu be enough to power an oc'd fx8320? (Without gpu), if not, would be 450w from a quality brand (corsair/ocz) be enough?



But never mind.

How much do you want to spend on a board? Cheap/low-end boards will be rubbish for overclocking with.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Pretty sure you asked this:
> 
> 
> 
> But never mind.
> 
> How much do you want to spend on a board? Cheap/low-end boards will be rubbish for overclocking with.



Around 100 euro, it would be better if I can go less .


----------



## spirit

OK I'll take a look for you tomorrow. I am shattered, off now.


----------



## Virssagòn

Yeh, me too. I'm actually on my mobile now xD. Last check before going to sleep


----------



## 87dtna

980x stock, haven't had a chance to mess with it yet, stay tuned.


----------



## Jamebonds1

87dtna said:


> 980x stock, haven't had a chance to mess with it yet, stay tuned.



Do 5 GHz


----------



## 87dtna

4.4ghz....doesn't make much sense, the single threaded is higher than the 3930k at 4.2ghz but the multithreaded is much lower.


----------



## 87dtna

Looks like 4.4 is gonna be it.  Couldn't get 4.5 without thermal throttling, so thats just too dang hot not to mention I'm up around 1.50v.

I wonder now if it throttled at 4.4ghz too because that would explain the low multithreaded score.


----------



## Jamebonds1

87dtna said:


> 4.4ghz....doesn't make much sense, the single threaded is higher than the 3930k at 4.2ghz but the multithreaded is much lower.



It is the first gen i7 series CPU that made better single thread.  Most of program/game does not use single thread anymore.


----------



## 87dtna

Dude you need to not talk anymore.

The 3930k is sandy bridge, 2nd gen I7 which SHOULD be MUCH faster at single threaded then first gen I7.

Anyway, no thermal throttling at 4.4ghz, not even close actually only hit about 85c.


----------



## Jamebonds1

87dtna said:


> Dude you need to not talk anymore.
> 
> The 3930k is sandy bridge, 2nd gen I7 which SHOULD be MUCH faster at single threaded then first gen I7.
> 
> Anyway, no thermal throttling at 4.4ghz, not even close actually only hit about 85c.



Let's wait until what other would say.  Like i had LGA 1156.  Multithread thread is lower than single thread.

BTW I can talk as i want.  There is no way can block from someone else to say wrong thing or anything bad.  Also, it is really old argument when someone is trying to stop me from talk.


----------



## voyagerfan99

I noticed I haven't posted a public result since way back when. This is with the rig in sig.


----------



## Jamebonds1

voyagerfan99 said:


> I noticed I haven't posted a public result since way back when. This is with the rig in sig.



Nice benchmark.  Better than my i3 2120.  I'm curious.  You use a linux OS?


----------



## voyagerfan99

Jamebonds1 said:


> Nice benchmark.  Better than my i3 2120.  I'm curious.  You use a linux OS?



Nope. I'm running Windows 7. Just running a third party theme called "Seven Breeze".


----------



## Jamebonds1

voyagerfan99 said:


> Nope. I'm running Windows 7. Just running a third party theme called "Seven Breeze".



Oh..errr... Sorry my mistake.  I almost thought it is hacked Mac or something lol.


----------



## voyagerfan99

Jamebonds1 said:


> Oh..errr... Sorry my mistake.  I almost thought it is hacked Mac or something lol.



The Mac OS has window actions positioned on the top left of the window


----------



## spirit

voyagerfan99 said:


> Nope. I'm running Windows 7. Just running a third party theme called "Seven Breeze".



Why do you host stuff at ImageShack? Horrible site covered in adverts. :/


----------



## 87dtna

Jamebonds1 said:


> Let's wait until what other would say.  Like i had LGA 1156.  Multithread thread is lower than single thread.



I see now you are talking about this specific benchmark comparing multithreaded to single threaded.  You didn't follow what I was saying then, and you obviously didn't look at my bench results to even say that because my multithreaded is way higher than singlethreaded.

I was comparing the 980x to the 3930k, not just single and multithreaded for the 980x.  The single threaded on my 980x was higher than the single threaded for the 3930k, which makes no sense as sandy bridge has much higher single threaded performance than nehalem/westmere in real life apps.


----------



## 87dtna

Anyway, just squeaked out another couple mhz to secure second place, as before I was only tying it which would make me third.  Core 2 runs hot under load, but cool at idle.  Weird.  Temps topped out at TJmax on that core so it was right on the verge of thermal throttling.


----------



## Virssagòn

Nice scores.
But your 980x is scoring just the same as all sandy and ivy bridges if clocked equal.
The only reason why the i7 3930 is scoring better in other singlethreaded benches is because they test it with the baseclock which is higher for the i7 3930k.


----------



## 87dtna

KasperL's 3930k scored 1176 points in multithreaded alone at only 4.2ghz.  I didn't even crack 1000 points at 4.46ghz.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> KasperL's 3930k scored 1176 points in multithreaded alone at only 4.2ghz.  I didn't even crack 1000 points at 4.46ghz.



I was talking about singlethreaded .
Multithreaded is a nice improvement for intel.
They didn't need to improve their singlethreaded much, because they were and still are much ahead of AMD.


----------



## Virssagòn

> I run water cooling now, hoping to get atleast 4.8 out of it anyway.



Still trying? 
What's the problem you're dealing with? temps, voltage,stability,...?


----------



## Virssagòn

Update of scores:

Still no one who hits the 2xxx range?! Who will be the first? 

The i7 2600K and the i7 3820 are very competing cpu's if you see their scores always be equal at almost the same clock!


----------



## voyagerfan99

spirit said:


> Why do you host stuff at ImageShack? Horrible site covered in adverts. :/



I use Adblock Plus, so I don't see any ads anywhere on the internet


----------



## spirit

voyagerfan99 said:


> I use Adblock Plus, so I don't see any ads anywhere on the internet



I'm using AdBlock too and still ImageShack is covered in ads, it's the only site which I know of that still is.

As for "who will hit 2,000 first?", anybody with a 3930K or 3960X @ ~4.4GHz+ I reckon should be able to do it. Just ask Kasper to overclock his 3930K to 4.4GHz and see what it does.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> I'm using AdBlock too and still ImageShack is covered in ads, it's the only site which I know of that still is.
> 
> As for "who will hit 2,000 first?", anybody with a 3930K or 3960X @ ~4.4GHz+ I reckon should be able to do it. Just ask Kasper to overclock his 3930K to 4.4GHz and see what it does.



I'll ask him to oc a little more then 4.4ghz ;P maybe 2100 points? XD


----------



## voyagerfan99

spirit said:


> I'm using AdBlock too and still ImageShack is covered in ads, it's the only site which I know of that still is.



Try subscribing to Fanboy or Easylist.


----------



## Jiniix

I soooo wanted to break the 2000, but I'm not gonna fry my chip 

i7-2600k @ 4.94GHz: 1840
i7-2600k @ 5.15GHz: 1920

Also 3 points from #1 spot, shucks.


----------



## Virssagòn

LOL! wtf?? I gonna buy your board immediatly xD


----------



## JLuchinski

Wow, check out my score. I need a new system :sigh:

View attachment 5346


----------



## Virssagòn

JLuchinski said:


> Wow, check out my score. I need a new system :sigh:
> 
> View attachment 5346



It's ok for a dual core though.


----------



## Jiniix

SmileMan said:


> LOL! wtf?? I gonna buy your board immediatly xD



If you're referring to me, I've done it on an ASUS P8P67 B3 standard (no EVO, PRO etc)


----------



## Virssagòn

Jiniix said:


> If you're referring to me, I've done it on an ASUS P8P67 B3 standard (no EVO, PRO etc)



Mine isn't booting higher then 4.8 :S
Probably it would, but I want to stay below 1.46v.
You took a risk running over 1.5v


----------



## JLuchinski

SmileMan said:


> It's ok for a dual core though.



Yeah it could be worse. I've been trying to find a good price for a socket 775 quad core but everyone seems to think there worth there weight in gold.


----------



## Virssagòn

JLuchinski said:


> Yeah it could be worse. I've been trying to find a good price for a socket 775 quad core but everyone seems to think there worth there weight in gold.



Just buy a cheap mobo combo
maybe something like this:
intel:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.1101375
or amd:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.1094305

Both pretty good in gaming.
The vishera should be better in multithreaded apps and some others too, gaming the i3 should be about 10-5% better.


----------



## Jiniix

SmileMan said:


> Probably it would, but I want to stay below 1.46v.
> You took a risk running over 1.5v



I don't run 1.5v normally, just had to try and beat the 2000. I usually run it at 4.4 @ 1.325v 
I have several profiles saved for the different clocks, depends on my mood or if I'm gonna extract/pack huge files etc.


----------



## Virssagòn

update:

Jiniix is leading in highest overclock award


----------



## 87dtna

SmileMan said:


> LOL! wtf?? I gonna buy your board immediatly xD



It's not the board it's the chip.  Certain chips have multiplier walls, apparently you got a dud to only have a 48 multi chip.  Most can atleast hit 50 multiplier.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> It's not the board it's the chip.  Certain chips have multiplier walls, apparently you got a dud to only have a 48 multi chip.  Most can atleast hit 50 multiplier.



Nope, read what I said under that post. I just don't want to up the voltage that high as it can damage anything. I can oc to 4.9ghz under 1.5v but not stable.
And it's just my board that's bad, I tried booting 5ghz but I just couldn't get in bios anymore. Had to reset with the jumper.
If my mobo wouldn't be the problem it would just say "oc failed".


----------



## 87dtna

No it wouldn't, you can get a no post with a multiplier wall no problem.  Plus, it was probably lack of voltage anyway for 5ghz, that can result in a no post as well with nothing to do with the board.


----------



## Virssagòn

As you maybe know, my board has almost no oc features.
It's not meant for overclocking.
I've to do it in offset mode, no other option.
I can't modify load-line calibration.
And I never know what my voltage will be since it just leaves the given voltage behind.
I've almost no other power management options.
All overvoltage is all I've.


----------



## spirit

Should've gotten the P8Z68-V PRO or the PRO/GEN3 like I did.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Should've gotten the P8Z68-V PRO or the PRO/GEN3 like I did.



But you do nothing with it...
4.3ghz is easy even for my mobo totally stable and nice stock voltage.


----------



## wolfeking

True on p/z/x chipsets.  However, I would not be crying about not being able to do 4.9+GHz on a cheap board like yours. A v pro could likely do it, but not below 1.5V unless you have a very good chip.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> True on p/z/x chipsets.  However, I would not be crying about not being able to do 4.9+GHz on a cheap board like yours. A v pro could likely do it, but not below 1.5V unless you have a very good chip.



Would it be dangerous if I use over 1.5v on my mobo? Or is it just as dangerous as if you do it with a more expensive one?


----------



## wolfeking

It is not above the SB max of 1.52V, so your chip should be fine, if your temps are under control. 

Not to say that a low phase board won't buckle under the stress. It will probably function, but you need to watch the VRM temps. It would be safer on a higher end board, as the VRM chips would run cooler (as they have more power phases to run through). 

Basically, you can do it, but I do not recommend it.


----------



## 87dtna

The only difference is a cheap board might have quit a bit more Vdroop under load which causes you to set higher than necessary voltage to keep the chip stable.


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> Would it be dangerous if I use over 1.5v on my mobo? Or is it just as dangerous as if you do it with a more expensive one?



I don't know what to tell but what i can say is the more voltage the more risk.  You might can check it out overclock at hwbot.org.  It have information of overclocked CPU and video card.  If the temp is over 90C, i would drop voltage and could eat a lot of CPU's lifetime.  As wolfeking have say the high end motherboard would be better for overclock.  Heatsink on power core is positive.


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> But you do nothing with it...
> 4.3ghz is easy even for my mobo totally stable and nice stock voltage.



The limitation I've got right now is more to do with my CPU cooler than it is with my chip or motherboard.

Might go higher than 4.3 one day, but 4.3 just works for me. Not had any issues at all to do with overclocking and I've been using this overclock since April. I bought the PRO for the extra features it offered, namely the Bluetooth and a few other things.


----------



## Jamebonds1

87dtna said:


> The only difference is a cheap board might have quit a bit more Vdroop under load which causes you to set higher than necessary voltage to keep the chip stable.



Do you mean a cheap board is not that good for overclock or other thing....?


----------



## 87dtna

I kinda just meant what I said....


----------



## Jamebonds1

87dtna said:


> I kinda just meant what I said....



oh okay.  Just trying to understand reading.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> It is not above the SB max of 1.52V, so your chip should be fine, if your temps are under control.
> 
> Not to say that a low phase board won't buckle under the stress. It will probably function, but you need to watch the VRM temps. It would be safer on a higher end board, as the VRM chips would run cooler (as they have more power phases to run through).
> 
> Basically, you can do it, but I do not recommend it.



I'm going to stay how it is now. I've it running on 4.5ghz totally stable at 1.325v max.
Don't want to risk my cpus lifetime, probably I'm buying a new board around newyear. Then I'll try it anyway.

And dtna, so you say now it's my mobo which was the problem. Because a cheaper board needs more voltage and I only used 1.45v when I set it to 5ghz ;P.


----------



## 87dtna

What kind of Vdroop do you get under load?  Not sure if you board has vdroop control built in or not, it might.  A lot of newer 1155 boards do.


----------



## wolfeking

are you using the OC program within windows? It is very good and can show you what is going on. Just open a load program, say IBT, P95, or the like and open CPUz. Set a clock and voltage in AI suite II, and start the load program. Watch your voltage reading in CPUz vs what you set it to. You are now looking at vDroop. This will tell you more or less (in a very general idea) what you need to set it to to actually get what you set as voltage.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> What kind of Vdroop do you get under load?  Not sure if you board has vdroop control built in or not, it might.  A lot of newer 1155 boards do.



As far as I know is vdroop that your idle voltage is f.e. 1.35v and when you do an heavy app it's lowered to 1.325v.
But I can't see that with mine. The max voltage I'm getting is when running stress program... or am I wrong.
As I said, I can only enable/disable load-line calibration. (Normally you can set it standard/high/extreme)

And wolf, I know how to overclock and I deleted AI suite II. I will never overclock with software if I can do it in bios.
I experimented enough and I know there's nothing wrong with my oc atm!


----------



## wolfeking

you are not listening. The program is a front end to the BIOS. Any change you make is immediately changed in the BIOS when you hit apply.  And without knowing your exact voltage setting and your exact load voltage you can not see your vDroop. 

GO about it any way you want, but if you don't do it right you will not get optimal results.


----------



## Jamebonds1

The most lowest point    My little i3 underclock at 1600 MHz.  Sometime my BLCK went up to 400 to 500 MHz.


----------



## wolfeking

I am calling foul. Less cores, less threads, Less speed, and yet a higher score. This is screwed up.


----------



## 87dtna

Yeah single threaded at only 88 makes no sense.  I score almost double that at 1.2ghz.

So, what do I win?


----------



## zer0_c00l

pass 3 @4.6ghz


----------



## Jamebonds1

My another ever lowest point   More insane underclock.

1600 MHz CPU with one core, 800 MHz RAM.


----------



## Virssagòn

These are all pretty sick underclocks! I'll allow it this time. Next update will not, it's a bit confusing for people who try to compare performance xD.


----------



## wolfeking

Still calling foul on James score #1. The scores don't line up at all.


----------



## AntimatterAsh

Please can I have a i386 mirror of black hole, that way I can also get you a Pentium 4 Hyper Threaded benchmark.


----------



## wolfeking

currently it is 64 bit only, as he thinks that adds some advantage that is not there.


----------



## AntimatterAsh

Right...so on my Tosh Satellite:
When the internet loads...
I really need some better photo storage. I hate photobucket and picassa wont load.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> currently it is 64 bit only, as he thinks that adds some advantage that is not there.



It's just because 32 bit last 20min in total... 64bit is much faster lol.
But I could try, so more setups can be tested.
Although, it will stay 64 bit for a while...


----------



## wolfeking

I do not believe that a bit. If the 32 bit execution is that much slower, then your programming is very sloppy. The only difference in speed should come from RAM access, which you yourself said it only uses 2.6GB maximum.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> I do not believe that a bit. If the 32 bit execution is that much slower, then your programming is very sloppy. The only difference in speed should come from RAM access, which you yourself said it only uses 2.6GB maximum.



64-bit programs use 50% more ram, it's not only it can use "more" then 4gb ram. It just uses more ram...


----------



## wolfeking

That I know is complete crap. 64 bit programs in practice (at least ones from programmers that know what the heck they are doing) use the same amount of RAM to run. Sometimes even less.   A 64 bit copy of IBT only needs 600MB to run, until you start testing, and then it uses however much you set it to. The 32 bit also needs 600MB to run.  It can only test up to 4096MB though.  

Check your programming language, and how you went about the problem. If you are not optimized, then it can likely need more RAM. If you do optimize it, chances are you can cut the RAM necessity by 50%.


----------



## spirit

There is a chance I may be able to test this on a hex-core 12-threaded Xeon. Got one downstairs in a HP G8 server (24GB of RAM too). If I speak nicely to Dad he may let me.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> That I know is complete crap. 64 bit programs in practice (at least ones from programmers that know what the heck they are doing) use the same amount of RAM to run. Sometimes even less.   A 64 bit copy of IBT only needs 600MB to run, until you start testing, and then it uses however much you set it to. The 32 bit also needs 600MB to run.  It can only test up to 4096MB though.
> 
> Check your programming language, and how you went about the problem. If you are not optimized, then it can likely need more RAM. If you do optimize it, chances are you can cut the RAM necessity by 50%.



I'll MAYBE look into it and try to do what you're saying but man... I'm the programmer here, I designed it.
There's nothing wrong in my program and I want to stay 64 bit.
Most people use 64bit and more people will follow.


----------



## AntimatterAsh

I know nothing about programming, but would it be possible to have a black hole which runs both, it would definately be interesting to see the difference in benchmarks between my six year old p4 and my 2 month old i3.


----------



## Jamebonds1

Actually I test to see if my computer can handle a ton of stress on CPU and stable in high stress.  I make it one core, one thread.  X16.  DDR3 800, it is weird that i can overclock to 1833 MHz.  Sometime BCLK is 500 MHz by automation.  I test with 4 benchmark in one running.  So I thought i had share my picture here.


----------



## spirit

EclipticShell said:


> I know nothing about programming, but would it be possible to have a black hole which runs both, it would definately be interesting to see the difference in benchmarks between my six year old p4 and my 2 month old i3.



If SmileMan doesn't mind I can maybe compile a 32-bit version of Black Hole and post it up here.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> If SmileMan doesn't mind I can maybe compile a 32-bit version of Black Hole and post it up here.



I can do that. But spirit, I changed a bit of the code after we released that buggy version. So you don't have the complete files


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> I can do that. But spirit, I changed a bit of the code after we released that buggy version. So you don't have the complete files



OK. If you want to release a 32-bit version, go right ahead.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> OK. If you want to release a 32-bit version, go right ahead.



Nope, I just made it can run 64bit and 32bit. It just runs 64bit when you got a 64x Windows, if you got 32x it'll run 32bit.
But I can assure you if you got a 64bit system you'll have higher scores!


Can you come skype, I think my upload limit on mediafire reached...


----------



## Virssagòn

*Downloadlink 64 AND 32 bit!!!
Try it out!*
64 bit will be faster then 32bit though...

*http://www.2shared.com/file/Fc5sQNn6/Black_Hole_V32.html*


----------



## Jamebonds1

I know it is off topic but just want to advice.  You can use Google Drive, it is 5 GB online free.  Everyone not need Google account to be able to download.


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> I know it is off topic but just want to advice.  You can use Google Drive, it is 5 GB online free.  Everyone not need Google account to be able to download.



You can upload it and throw a link on the thread here. I'll add it if it can be downloaded by everyone.


----------



## FuryRosewood

64 bit should be no faster than x86... all 64 bit enables is larger address space.


----------



## Jamebonds1

https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B1ljcGIuMH71M254V1lEZWlCMVU/edit

If anyone can't view this link in my Google Drive, please let me know.  

I had put "X86" on one of black hole on download list, so I'm not sure if it is update or design for 32 bit.  Black Hole V3.2 X86 is from where i download for 64 bit and 32 bit on last post with 2shared website.


----------



## AntimatterAsh

SmileMan said:


> You can upload it and throw a link on the thread here. I'll add it if it can be downloaded by everyone.



Why dont you try "jimdo.com", you can then make a website for the bench mark too and upload it to your site. Its all free.


----------



## Virssagòn

EclipticShell said:


> Why dont you try "jimdo.com", you can then make a website for the bench mark too and upload it to your site. Its all free.



Interesting, but I'm already making a website. And a bit more features on it like scores that update automatically and send it to the website making a nice scoretable of all that scores. 
Something like 3Dmark.


----------



## AntimatterAsh

SmileMan said:


> Interesting, but I'm already making a website. And a bit more features on it like scores that update automatically and send it to the website making a nice scoretable of all that scores.
> Something like 3Dmark.



If you want any help, I will be willing to opt in  I don't know much but it would be a great chance to learn about programming and stuff


----------



## Virssagòn

EclipticShell said:


> If you want any help, I will be willing to opt in  I don't know much but it would be a great chance to learn about programming and stuff



If that's what you want, you'll first have to give me your skype name friend


----------



## AntimatterAsh

SmileMan said:


> If that's what you want, you'll first have to give me your skype name friend



I will have to put Skype on my laptop...pm me


----------



## Virssagòn

update:


----------



## spirit

We're getting quite a lot of results now! Nice!


----------



## Jamebonds1

spirit said:


> We're getting quite a lot of results now! Nice!



And new lowest point


----------



## wolfeking

I still don't see how the i3 beats the i7 on low points at the same speed and same threads.


----------



## Jamebonds1

wolfeking said:


> I still don't see how the i3 beats the i7 on low points at the same speed and same threads.



I running 4 benchmark at same time.  Two SuperPi and two black hole.


----------



## wolfeking

so you are basically cheating to get there. Put your score up with nothing but system monitor up (AS Suite II, CPUz, Temp probes or the like) while benching.


----------



## Jamebonds1

wolfeking said:


> so you are basically cheating to get there. Put your score up with nothing but system monitor up (AS Suite II, CPUz, Temp probes or the like) while benching.



Lol.  I'm just trying out with 4 benchmark and stress my i3.  So I thought i has share my picture.


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> Lol.  I'm just trying out with 4 benchmark and stress my i3.  So I thought i has share my picture.



I consider it as cheating this time. Next time underclocking will not be allowed, it's just confusing me and other people lol...
Plz, post another picture up there, so there's nothing they can say about it.
And if you score higher then dtna or wolfekin, just underclock harder


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> Plz, post another picture up there, so there's nothing they can say about it.



Huh? Do you mean to ask me to post my picture of 4 benchmark running at same time?


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> I consider it as cheating this time. Next time underclocking will not be allowed, it's just confusing me and other people lol...
> Plz, post another picture up there, so there's nothing they can say about it.
> And if you score higher then dtna or wolfekin, just underclock harder



There's only one guy here with the slowest processor if you don't allow underclocking. That's me. Athlon 64 3700+ at stock. 

...and I could underclock it if I like and beat anybody I reckon.


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> Huh? Do you mean to ask me to post my picture of 4 benchmark running at same time?



w/o 4 benches on...


----------



## FuryRosewood

Being slowest isnt much of an achievement...anyone could go out and pick up a 939 board off ebay, snag a 3000+ and under achieve... just sayin~


----------



## Virssagòn

FuryRosewood said:


> Being slowest isnt much of an achievement...anyone could go out and pick up a 939 board off ebay, snag a 3000+ and under achieve... just sayin~



And? So more people will try it ;P. And the more people will try, the more difficult it will be to achieve ;D.
But it's local on this forum now. When I release the new version everything will be ready; database, website for scores, new version with more features and better scorescaling, auto updating scores, auto upload scored, launch in more then 1 forum (CF will stay headforum with discussion thread), probably donate options and sponsors can get their logo on it , new design, trying to get it into anandtech bench list and cpu reviews,...
Other ideas?
The release day will probably be 30 December ;P.


----------



## 87dtna

Somebody should try this bench on a raspberry pi lol.


----------



## FuryRosewood

isnt raspberry pi ARM?


----------



## 87dtna

What does that have to do with anything?  I thought I saw a 32 bit version being posted a couple pages back no?


----------



## Jamebonds1

Raspberry pi have ARM CPU.  I'm pretty sure it is not 64 bit.


----------



## wolfeking

the Cortex A57 and cortex A53 are 64 bit ARM designs. Not sure if they are out yet, but they are designed at least. 

And that would need windows 8 I think. Don't think vista and 7 are ARM capable. 

SOURCE


----------



## FuryRosewood

ARM as far as im aware is neither x86 or x64 compatible


----------



## wolfeking

source is  there for a reason. http://www.pcworld.com/article/2013...rocessors-for-phones-tablets-and-servers.html


----------



## FuryRosewood

Still i dont see them running windows...maybe you could run Wine...but still wouldnt be native...so whats the point...? Honestly that hardware to me is a joke... good for embedded systems but anything else? Pass...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=samsung_odroidx&num=1

May cost 4x as much...but has less pedestrian performance, i could see this as a viable unit to run, but this executable would need to be compiled to run under a linux environment, not WINDOWS.


----------



## spirit

87dtna said:


> Somebody should try this bench on a raspberry pi lol.



I have a Raspberry-Pi.


----------



## mr.doom

Isn't Windows 8 ARM compatible?


----------



## 87dtna

Pretty sure the Arm11 cpu on the raspberry pi is 32 bit compatible.

I wonder if you could install Unbuntu on one...


----------



## StrangleHold

mr.doom said:


> Isn't Windows 8 ARM compatible?


 
Windows RT



87dtna said:


> Pretty sure the Arm11 cpu on the raspberry pi is 32 bit compatible.
> 
> 
> I wonder if you could install Unbuntu on one...


 
32bit has nothng to do with it. ARM isnt binary compatible with x86.


----------



## 87dtna

Ohh I get it now.  Hmm, so can you install unbuntu on an ARM cpu?


----------



## Virssagòn

Was just looking around and found this site:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/All-8-Cores-of-the-AMD-FX-8350-Vishera-CPU-Overclocked-to-8-176-GHz-Somehow-301992.shtml
WTF?! 8ghz oc with a vishera xD!
Would it be able to test the benchmark? at 1.9v!?


----------



## 87dtna

That was a no load CPUz clockspeed, seriously doubt it's stable full load.

The highest multithreaded bench clockspeed on HWbot is 7.145ghz

http://hwbot.org/submission/2328055_cherv_wprime_1024m_fx_8350_143sec_766ms


----------



## FuryRosewood

7 is pretty damn high...


----------



## Virssagòn

Looks like amd says you can reach easy a 5ghz oc with good cooling.
What would be the max that I could reach when I get the fx8320 for my server? 
Cooler: thermalright true spirit 140 (should cool pretty good for it's price)
Gigabyte 970A UD3
Case with 2 fans (probably gonna mod it a bit)
500watt supply from antec/corsair.
Also I'm not really experienced with overclocking AMD's, heard you can oc with multi? Or is oc'ing with FSB better?
Heard it's a nice server cpu, gonna run my website, database and minecraft server on it.
What are your opinions guys?


----------



## spirit

Well FX chips are multiplier unlocked, so I'd say you want to be overclocking with the multiplier. 

Doubt you'll be getting 5.0GHz though.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Well FX chips are multiplier unlocked, so I'd say you want to be overclocking with the multiplier.
> 
> Doubt you'll be getting 5.0GHz though.



You're giving me a challenge! Hope amd speaks the truth 
The mobo will not be the best but it's the only cheap board with 8+1 (for best oc) I can find. 
You asked your dad already about the xeon?


----------



## spirit

Ah yeah been out all weekend so I haven't had a chance to try the Xeon, but will do soon hopefully.


----------



## Virssagòn

K, do you know the piledrivers are that much better in w8? Or is it only by 1-2%?


----------



## StrangleHold

87dtna said:


> Ohh I get it now. Hmm, so can you install unbuntu on an ARM cpu?


 
http://www.ubuntu.com/download/arm


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> K, do you know the piledrivers are that much better in w8? Or is it only by 1-2%?



I'm really not sure. 

Might not be able to test that Xeon as it is for a customer, it's not ours. Sorry.


----------



## Virssagòn

Little 100mhz more on my machine, trying higher. Seems like I need much more voltage getting higher overclocks scaled to little overclocks.


----------



## spirit




----------



## Virssagòn

I did it! 5.2ghz and 1944 points! But it crashed when saving image -.-
So it's only 5.15ghz....
1920 points!!
Spirit, my mobo is just a killer xD
Also didn't want to go above 1.51v , it was 81°C max btw.


----------



## 87dtna

Nice job.  Wish my 980x wasn't such a crappy overclocker, would have loved to crack 2k but it would take atleast 4.7ghz to do it.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> Nice job.  Wish my 980x wasn't such a crappy overclocker, would have loved to crack 2k but it would take atleast 4.7ghz to do it.



haha, I love my crappy mobo. I didn't think it would overclock over 4.8ghz xD.
Couldn't get 5.2ghz stable though, 5.1ghz is good enough 
5.2 was only 20 points more, but crashed after taking a screenshot lol...


----------



## 87dtna

My problem isn't the mobo its the chip.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> My problem isn't the mobo its the chip.



You're sure? I also thought it was a problem with the chip, but when I enabled load-line, disabled cpu spread centrum, enabled PLL overvoltage and set my memory on a.lower speed it oc'd over 5ghz! Maybe look into your settings? Or try adding more voltage?


----------



## 87dtna

Yes I'm sure.  Temps are maxxed out.  This isn't an 1155 quad it's a 1366 hex core, they run hot.  Thats why they came with a 3 heatpipe 92mm tower cooler from the factory.

I told you earlier it wasn't your chip lol.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> Yes I'm sure.  Temps are maxxed out.  This isn't an 1155 quad it's a 1366 hex core, they run hot.  Thats why they came with a 3 heatpipe 92mm tower cooler from the factory.
> 
> I told you earlier it wasn't your chip lol.



Yeh, I know, but how hot does it get? The max temp of the 1st gen i7's is higher and max voltage too. Thought you had a watercooler on it?


----------



## 87dtna

At 101c it thermal throttles.  I was hitting 100c at 4.46ghz 1.425v.  I can boot 4.6ghz no problem, it just gets too hot.

Yes I'm running an EK supremacy copper plexi block and laing DDC pump.  1366 cpu's run hotter than you can even imagine when overclocked.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> At 101c it thermal throttles.  I was hitting 100c at 4.46ghz 1.425v.  I can boot 4.6ghz no problem, it just gets too hot.
> 
> Yes I'm running an EK supremacy copper plexi block and laing DDC pump.  1366 cpu's run hotter than you can even imagine when overclocked.



Hmm, looking for some cooling options...
What other coolers do you have? And thermal paste always need a week or something to work properly.
You could try taking your pc outside with both side panels off ? ( when it's night and cold)


----------



## 87dtna

DUDE, apparently you are not understanding how hot this chip runs.  My watercooling setup blows any air cooling away.  With an air cooler I doubt you'd get more than 4.2ghz out of it.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> DUDE, apparently you are not understanding how hot this chip runs.  My watercooling setup blows any air cooling away.  With an air cooler I doubt you'd get more than 4.2ghz out of it.



I asked you had any other coolers, I didn't specify aircoolers...
But I think it's your best cooling coming from your reaction.


----------



## 87dtna

The proper thing to ask would have been do I have any other blocks.

The EK supremacy copper plexi is a very good block.


----------



## Virssagòn

So, here's my server pc...
I thought it would be a bit better, but not.






What makes a xeon cpu better then a desktop cpu when doing things like servers for games, databases,...?


----------



## Virssagòn

update scores:


----------



## FuryRosewood

Reliability. The xeon chip can correct errors in memory that a desktop cpu cannot. if you get enough errors in normal non ecc memory you face data corruption, all the way down to a complete os corruption. Ive had it happen, ram is evil.


----------



## TrainTrackHack

Hokkai...


----------



## Darren

I'm hoping to get a 212+ and some AC5 for Xmas so I'll OC and post back with results then.


----------



## spirit

Denther said:


> I'm hoping to get a 212+ and some AC5 for Xmas so I'll OC and post back with results then.



Nice! I'm looking forward to seeing your result!


----------



## 87dtna

Finally got my server up.  Future plans of BSEL mod for 1600 FSB which will give me 2.8ghz for a nice increase.  When I get around to it...


----------



## 87dtna

A little setFSB action yields some nice increases.  Looks like I'll have to do the VID pin mod for higher CPU voltage before the BSEL mod.  At 2.6ghz I now beat a stock 8120, not bad for 2 CPU's I paid $17 shipped for and a $70 motherboard.


----------



## Virssagòn

a dual cpu setup! Nice!
You can see it see it from the difference between singlethreaded and multithreaded!
You gonna try to oc higher? I read that Xeons are pretty good in that since they use less voltage and produce less heat. 1 disadvantage there is that they have a limit.
F.e; the q6600 (which is ~equal to the X3220) can overclock higher then the X3220, but the X3220 will use less voltage and produce less heat at the same clock speed.

I wonder if you could hit 1000 in multithreaded. Probably you could since you're able to get at least 3.6ghz.


----------



## 87dtna

Well I'll probably be upgrading the CPU's to E5440's most likely for the higher multiplier and it's only about $50 for 2 of them.  They are 2.83 stock VS the E5410 is 2.33 stock.

With the BSEL mod for 1600 FSB I'll be at 3.4ghz with those chips.  If I score 744 with only 2.6ghz I think 3.4 will crack 1000.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> Well I'll probably be upgrading the CPU's to E5440's most likely for the higher multiplier and it's only about $50 for 2 of them.  They are 2.83 stock VS the E5410 is 2.33 stock.
> 
> With the BSEL mod for 1600 FSB I'll be at 3.4ghz with those chips.  If I score 744 with only 2.6ghz I think 3.4 will crack 1000.



Aah, now I get it. You're not overclocking in BIOS? Your mobo doesn't allow it.
Nice the BSEL mod, should it work on my i7 920?
It just let the system think the cpu runs on higher FSB, without changing in bios or programs like setFSB, like the cpu runs in stock on a higher clockspeed!


----------



## 87dtna

Yeah it's a server board, no overclocking or overvolting.  I7 920 doesn't have FSB.

The BSEL mod requires you to actually jump pins in the socket, I doubt you want to do that with a 1366 socket as the pins are far smaller and closer together.


----------



## 87dtna

3ghz, was slightly disappointed with the results but hey still a good score for 5 year old CPU's.....tying a stock 3770k!


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> 3ghz, was slightly disappointed with the results but hey still a good score for 5 year old CPU's.....tying a stock 3770k!



Yeh, pretty ok results. But I was thinking to see higher results with a dual-cpu system


----------



## 87dtna

Again, 5 year old CPU's lol and only 3ghz.   I also have less than a 3770k invested in this entire tower, including the gtx 560 Ti I'm currently running on it!


With this FSB speed on E5440's I will be at 3.6ghz


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> Again, 5 year old CPU's lol and only 3ghz.   I also have less than a 3770k invested in this entire tower.  Quite less actually.
> 
> 
> With this FSB speed on E5440's I will be at 3.6ghz



Then your scores would be around ~1550P I think


----------



## 87dtna

That would put me in the top 10, not bad for the cost.


----------



## Jet




----------



## Kirtus

AMD Vishera 8350 @ stock I don't know if this matters but I guess I should say I have default turbo boost on

I wish I knew to go intel! lol


----------



## Virssagòn

Did you close everything while testing? Backgroundprocesses like steam, origin,..
I really thought the FX should score higher on the multithreaded part.


----------



## Kirtus

me too... I had stuff running originally, and... I did the test, and then I closed everything redid the test I got the same score 
I can try running it again if you want with amd overdrive forcing the frequency of all 8 cores to max


----------



## 87dtna

Looks about right to me.  A 3570k at 4.4ghz should easily beat an 8350 at 4.1ghz, even multithreaded.

This is what baffles me about people recommending an 8350 over a 3570k.  It's takes an 8350 5ghz to match a 3570k at 4.4ghz for multithreaded apps, and in single threaded it would take an 8350 atleast 6ghz to match the 3570k which obviously isn't going to happen and even 5ghz isn't gauranteed while 4.4ghz is a piece of cake on ANY 3570k, most will do 4.5-4.6ghz daily and most 8350's do ~4.8ghz daily so the 3570k still easily beats it at literally everything.



Jet said:


>


----------



## StrangleHold

87dtna said:


> This is what baffles me about people recommending an 8350 over a 3570k. It's takes an 8350 5ghz to match a 3570k at 4.4ghz for multithreaded apps,


 
How do you figure that. This is a 8120 at 4.5. Just 100 mhz faster then that 3570 and beats its with a 688 in multi.


----------



## Kirtus

strangle you should overclock mine


----------



## StrangleHold

Kirtus said:


> strangle you should overclock mine


 
Was getting a 8320 for a good deal a few weeks ago, but it fell through. Thought about ordering a few of them. But I still have a few 8120s and 6200s, I need to burn them through before I order any more. Keeping this 8120 I have now though, clocks pretty well with low voltage. Will do 4.5 with only 1.392V. Have had it up to 4.8 with a 1.475V.


----------



## Virssagòn

Kirtus said:


> me too... I had stuff running originally, and... I did the test, and then I closed everything redid the test I got the same score
> I can try running it again if you want with amd overdrive forcing the frequency of all 8 cores to max



yeh, do it again. You should have at least 600 on multi. The singlethreaded will not change though...


----------



## 87dtna

StrangleHold said:


> How do you figure that. This is a 8120 at 4.5. Just 100 mhz faster then that 3570 and beats its with a 688 in multi.
> ]




I guess this bench isn't very realistic then.  It takes about 3.8ghz on an 8320 to match a 3570k at stock 3.4ghz in cinebench multithreaded test.  The 8350 at stock 4.0ghz just barely beats a 3570k.  Of of course single threaded they both get obliterated.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> I guess this bench isn't very realistic then.  It takes about 3.8ghz on an 8320 to match a 3570k at stock 3.4ghz in cinebench multithreaded test.  The 8350 at stock 4.0ghz just barely beats a 3570k.  Of of course single threaded they both get obliterated.



Yeah, that's why I ask Kirtus to test again. I'm working on the program, got already some new calcs to use and get better scaling. But I think he had some programs opened at the same time, that's why he's getting that bad results.


----------



## Kirtus

TBH I ran it again with nothing running twice and I still get the same multithreaded ;/


----------



## Kirtus

Heres another computer with amd phenom II x6 1055t.. (hey I'm confused why it says 1050t tho)


----------



## Virssagòn

Kirtus said:


> Heres another computer with amd phenom II x6 1055t.. (hey I'm confused why it says 1050t tho)



Pretty nice multithreaded for that clock speed! Could you try overclocking both? fx and phenom?


----------



## Kirtus

Haha, I switched the cpu to my girls computer so she'd be mad if I started oc'ing her stuff since I really have no idea what I'm doing.. I'll try to find guides I found one before and it sounded alot more confusing then what you guys told me to do on the other thread.


----------



## Virssagòn

Kirtus said:


> Haha, I switched the cpu to my girls computer so she'd be mad if I started oc'ing her stuff since I really have no idea what I'm doing.. I'll try to find guides I found one before and it sounded alot more confusing then what you guys told me to do on the other thread.



Just do what we told you to do.
Raising the multiplier to 21 will not need much experience I think


----------



## StrangleHold

87dtna said:


> I guess this bench isn't very realistic then. It takes about 3.8ghz on an 8320 to match a 3570k at stock 3.4ghz in cinebench multithreaded test. The 8350 at stock 4.0ghz just barely beats a 3570k. Of of course single threaded they both get obliterated.


----------



## Virssagòn

The bench runs 1 calculation on every thread. 1 of these calculations is timed and used as scores. Then it uses a multiplier of the count of logical cores.
That's why the FX series are scoring bad over here. I'm testing the "multithreaded stability", that's used to run many programs at the same time. It's not one process running on all cores like cinebench does. That's the difference between the black hole and other multithreaded benches.
More singlethreaded performance will be more effective here then when 1 process is tested.
I'm working on a new calculation to replace the 2nd pass in multithreaded test, that will be 1 calculation on all cores (so better for FX series).
Also working on better scaling with singlethreaded and a more advanced FLOP calculation.


----------



## Jamebonds1

StrangleHold said:


>



It is close one sec by between AMD 8 core and i7-3770K.  AMD 8 core can be overclock highest like 5 GHz?   

BTW.  Congrat on your mods title


----------



## spirit

Jamebonds1 said:


> It is close one sec by between AMD 8 core and i7-3770K.  AMD 8 core can be overclock highest like 5 GHz?


With the right cooling and board you can get a 2600K or a 3770K or any Intel K-series chip to 5.0GHz. There are people on here who have done it.


----------



## Jet

spirit said:


> With good cooling and a good board you can get a 2600K or a 3770K or any Intel K-series chip to 5.0GHz.



Have you ever tried overclocking a 3770K?!

They have TIM between the die and the IHS instead of being soldered. Thus, even with good cooling temperatures are through the roof. At 4.4Ghz my chip hits 105C with a Corsair H50.


----------



## Jamebonds1

Jet said:


> Have you ever tried overclocking a 3770K?!
> 
> They have TIM between the die and the IHS instead of being soldered. Thus, even with good cooling temperatures are through the roof. At 4.4Ghz my chip hits 105C with a Corsair H50.



It might be weird to me but it should be under 90C or something.  Your computer might be in hot spot?


----------



## spirit

Jet said:


> Have you ever tried overclocking a 3770K?!
> 
> They have TIM between the die and the IHS instead of being soldered. Thus, even with good cooling temperatures are through the roof. At 4.4Ghz my chip hits 105C with a Corsair H50.



Yeah I know IB runs hotter than SB, but people on here have gotten 3770Ks to the likes of 4.9GHz before. 

The 2600K would be easier to get to 5.0GHz.


----------



## Virssagòn

I could even reach 5.2ghz lol. Almost exceeded the 90c line lol.
But with another mobo I would need less voltage and the temps would stay lower.


----------



## StrangleHold

The point I was making was the FX 8320 beats the 3570K running stock at cinebench multi. It doesnt need the extra clock that 87dtna claims. The 3770 only beats the 8350 by less then a second.


----------



## Virssagòn

StrangleHold said:


> The point I was making was the FX 8320 beats the 3570K running stock at cinebench multi. It doesnt need the extra clock that 87dtna claims. The 3770 only beats the 8350 by less then a second.



sad you don't have a vishera .
Streamroller is only for Q3 I think.


----------



## StrangleHold

Was going to, but still have a few 8120 and 6200. After christmas it will be for sure.


Jamebonds1
Thank You.


----------



## Virssagòn

StrangleHold said:


> Was going to, but still have a few 8120 and 6200. After christmas it will be for sure.
> 
> 
> Jamebonds1
> Thank You.



Would you mind overclocking one of them to 4.8 or more? What cooler do you have?
It would be interesting to compare to some intels. If you could reach 5ghz, that'd be awesome!
Are you selling them? If yes, I would be interested in the FX6200 or FX8120 depending on the price.


----------



## 87dtna

Jet said:


> Have you ever tried overclocking a 3770K?!
> 
> They have TIM between the die and the IHS instead of being soldered. Thus, even with good cooling temperatures are through the roof. At 4.4Ghz my chip hits 105C with a Corsair H50.



Umm, what?  I ran a 3570k at 4.5ghz with a small 92mm two heatpipe cooler with acceptable temps (topped out at 80c or so).  You either got one BAD cpu, or your H50 isn't seated properly.




StrangleHold said:


> The point I was making was the FX 8320 beats the 3570K running stock at cinebench multi. It doesnt need the extra clock that 87dtna claims. The 3770 only beats the 8350 by less then a second.



I was looking at cinebench R10, but whatever.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/701?vs=698


----------



## Virssagòn

The h50 isn't a that great cooler though...


----------



## StrangleHold

Using a Zerotherm NV120 PMW right now. Better cooler then you think. Have a couple of the ZEN FZ120 too. For awhile I had a thing for ZeroTherm coolers, lol. Been thinking about getting a Antec 920 or Corsair H100i. Been looking at the Zalman LQ-320 too. I have these processors for builds Im doing, cant sell them.


----------



## Jamebonds1

StrangleHold said:


> Using a Zerotherm NV120 PMW right now. Better cooler then you think. Have a couple of the ZEN FZ120 too. For awhile I had a thing for ZeroTherm coolers, lol. Been thinking about getting a Antec 920 or Corsair H100i. Been looking at the Zalman LQ-320 too. I have these processors for builds Im doing, cant sell them.



Never heard Zerothern.  It is good fan?  no noise?


----------



## Virssagòn

Aah k, would you mind overclocking yours a bit higher?
I really recommend the silver arrow sb-e though, it beats the noctua nh-d14 by a small amount. The extreme edition is just a king.
The h2o 920 is cheap these days, also a h80 or h80i seem to perform only by a little worse then his h100 companion.


----------



## StrangleHold

Oh yeah, the noctua is a good cooler. Thought I would just go with some water coolers for awhile. My case keeps everything pretty cool. Have three 120 intakes. One 120 and two 140 exhaust. I'll go for 4.7/8 later tonight and see how cool it stays, if so I'll run the bench again.

Edit. I did mean the H80i, not the 100i


----------



## 87dtna

SmileMan said:


> The h50 isn't a that great cooler though...



It's usually compared to high end air, and as I said I was using a small 92mm 2 heatpipe cooler with my 3570k at 4.5ghz topping out at 80c when he claims 105c at 4.4ghz with his 3570k on an H50.  Something is just plain wrong.


----------



## StrangleHold

Jamebonds1 said:


> Never heard Zerothern. It is good fan? no noise?


 
Yeah, the NV120 and FZ120 are both good coolers. Havent tried the ZT-10D yet.


----------



## Virssagòn

StrangleHold said:


> Oh yeah, the noctua is a good cooler. Thought I would just go with some water coolers for awhile. My case keeps everything pretty cool. Have three 120 intakes. One 120 and two 140 exhaust. I'll go for 4.7/8 later tonight and see how cool it stays, if so I'll run the bench again.



My max temp @5.1ghz was around 84c in load, 5.2ghz did 89-90c, so didn't run the bench lol.
I don't think a h80-h100 is able to reach much higher though.
Sad I haven't got a better mobo... I needed 1.535v for 5.2ghz.
If I had a better board, I'd probably got higher xD.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> It's usually compared to high end air, and as I said I was using a small 92mm 2 heatpipe cooler with my 3570k at 4.5ghz topping out at 80c when he claims 105c at 4.4ghz with his 3570k on an H50.  Something is just plain wrong.



Yeh, he'll have to re-apply cooling paste to see or that helps.

I see you got another cpu again? 
What about a test?


----------



## StrangleHold

Just thought, it might be tomorrow before I do that run. Got Windows 8 Pro yesterday. Going to make sure I got everything backed up tonight and install 8.


----------



## Virssagòn

StrangleHold said:


> Just thought, it might be tomorrow before I do that run. Got Windows 8 Pro yesterday. Going to make sure I got everything backed up tonight and install 8.



I don't mind getting windows...
It doesn't seem that much better.
My dad can get one for me, but it's just all that works of reinstalling my stuff and just used to w7 for now.


----------



## Jamebonds1

Like 87dtna say.  Something is not right with his computer.  



87dtna said:


> It's usually compared to high end air, and as I said I was using a small 92mm 2 heatpipe cooler with my 3570k at 4.5ghz topping out at 80c when he claims 105c at 4.4ghz with his 3570k on an H50.  Something is just plain wrong.


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> I don't mind getting windows...
> It doesn't seem that much better.
> My dad can get one for me, but it's just all that works of reinstalling my stuff and just used to w7 for now.



You can upgrade w8 without have to reinstall any of steam game or other thing, but I decide to keep w7 ult for now and i listed w8 as unstable.


----------



## StrangleHold

Yeah, 105c at 4.4 is WAY to high.


----------



## 87dtna

SmileMan said:


> I see you got another cpu again?
> What about a test?



Soon.  I'm about to get two E5450's for my server so I'll be testing atleast 3.6ghz perhaps even 4ghz if I can hit it on 8 cores :good:


----------



## Jamebonds1

I have another possible.  It can be bad airflow desktop.  need have fan on side and front as intake.  Rear and top as exhaust.


----------



## 87dtna

It's an H50, it's most likely mounted in the rear of the case with it's own fan on it.  Very unlikely poor airflow is the problem.


----------



## Virssagòn

Update of scores:


----------



## 87dtna

Hmm, trying to get black hole to run on my new setup with the I5 760 and it won't open.

It just says- Black Hole has stoppped working, and prompts to close the program.

I even tried to re download it, just not working.  This is a fresh install of my OS, windows 7 ult X64, so I have no idea whats wrong.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> Hmm, trying to get black hole to run on my new setup with the I5 760 and it won't open.
> 
> It just says- Black Hole has stoppped working, and prompts to close the program.
> 
> I even tried to re download it, just not working.  This is a fresh install of my OS, windows 7 ult X64, so I have no idea whats wrong.



Never had that problem...
So you did already press test button or is it when you start the app itself?


----------



## 87dtna

It won't even start up.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> It won't even start up.



aah, do you have your .net framework updated?


----------



## spirit

Update your .NET Framework.

By the way I used to own an i5 760 before I got my 2500K, awesome processor!


----------



## 87dtna

spirit said:


> Update your .NET Framework.
> 
> By the way I used to own an i5 760 before I got my 2500K, awesome processor!



Updated, still same results.

Yeah in the real world, Lynnfield processors are not much behind sandy bridge at all.  They just run a lot hotter and don't overclock as well typically.  They pretty much all can get to 4ghz though.  But clock for clock, they are not that much slower at all.  I paid $70 for this I5 760, a steal for the performance it offers.  Right now running 4ghz at 1.28v, so this must be a decent clocker.  I'll probably be able to get atleast 4.4-4.5ghz for this benchmark if I can get it to work.


----------



## Virssagòn

Have you got other weird problems like this, now you did a new install?


----------



## 87dtna

No everything else works fine.


----------



## Jet

StrangleHold said:


> Yeah, 105c at 4.4 is WAY to high.



Something was messed up with my cooler, but with my H100 I picked up today temps are much better.


----------



## 87dtna

What kind of temps do you have now?

The thing about 3570k VS 2500k temps is dumb.  Those rumors only circulated from extreme benchers.  For daily rigs, a  3570k only runs ever so slightly warmer, only a couple degrees on the same cooler/overclock/voltage.


----------



## Jet

87dtna said:


> What kind of temps do you have now?
> 
> The thing about 3570k VS 2500k temps is dumb.  Those rumors only circulated from extreme benchers.  For daily rigs, a  3570k only runs ever so slightly warmer, only a couple degrees on the same cooler/overclock/voltage.



What were your 2500K temps at 4.5Ghz with IBT? I'm running around 78/89/82/82. Of course, my processor isn't the best, but still. It does run hot even with a good cooling setup.

Updated:


----------



## Virssagòn

Nice scores over there!
Stranglehold was right, the FX scores a bit higher at the same clock speed in multithreaded.


----------



## Virssagòn

StrangleHold said:


> How do you figure that. This is a 8120 at 4.5. Just 100 mhz faster then that 3570 and beats its with a 688 in multi.



Yep, the FX beats it even on a lower clock 
It would be a shame if the 8 threads vs the 4 scored less lol.


----------



## spirit

87dtna said:


> Yeah in the real world, Lynnfield processors are not much behind sandy bridge at all.  They just run a lot hotter and don't overclock as well typically.  They pretty much all can get to 4ghz though.  But clock for clock, they are not that much slower at all.  I paid $70 for this I5 760, a steal for the performance it offers.  Right now running 4ghz at 1.28v, so this must be a decent clocker.  I'll probably be able to get atleast 4.4-4.5ghz for this benchmark if I can get it to work.


I never overclocked my 760, so I can't comment on overclocking, but at stock it was fast. I bought it at the end of the December 2010 though, about two weeks or so before Sandy Bridge replaced it. I remember being very annoyed at myself! To be honest I can't really tell the difference between the 760 and the 2500K, other than the fact the 2500K is overclocked so maybe it is faster at rendering. 

They were good processors. I had an ASUS P7P55D-E board too, lovely board.


----------



## 87dtna

SmileMan said:


> Nice scores over there!
> Stranglehold was right, the FX scores a bit higher at the same clock speed in multithreaded.



3570k (3.4ghz) is the blue line VS 8150 (3.5ghz) the black line-






VS 8320 (3.5ghz)






VS 8350 (4.0ghz)


----------



## 87dtna

Jet said:


> What were your 2500K temps at 4.5Ghz with IBT? I'm running around 78/89/82/82. Of course, my processor isn't the best, but still. It does run hot even with a good cooling setup.
> 
> ]



I don't use IBT so I don't know.  But your CPU definitely runs hot to hit 80c on an H100 at 4.6ghz, that seems fairly warm too I would have expected more like 70c but then again that is IBT.  Try prime95 smallFFT.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> 3570k (3.4ghz) is the blue line VS 8150 (3.5ghz) the black line-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VS 8320 (3.5ghz)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VS 8350 (4.0ghz)



Like I already mentioned, every multithreaded benchmark is different.
I used the most recent cinebench to mention the advantage from the FX in multithreaded though.
Here are some others; the FX wins in most of them and ties others... It's just dependent on the things it stresses.


----------



## 87dtna

Got my E5450's in.  Now for some reason black hole still works fine on this PC, just not on my I5 760 rig.  Weird.

3.6ghz cracked 1000 points on multithreaded.  







I maxxed out at 3.9ghz.  Any higher voltage and the CPU would thermal throttle so the results were worse.  These things throttle at 70c which sucks, I looked and looked in the bios but I don't see any option to turn it off.  I think with water cooling these chips could crack 2k at around the 4.2ghz mark.

This score bested a 2600k at 4.9ghz, not bad considering I paid $84 for both of these cpu's, and have less than the cost of a 2600k invested in the board/ram/cpu's/coolers.


----------



## Virssagòn

Nice scores  
You could hit 2000 if 3.9 wasn't max!


----------



## 87dtna

Yeah, but I'm not really willing to invest more than I have into cooling already.

It's mostly ashame that it throttles at 70c.  If it was 100c like normal I'd be able to get a lot higher, maybe even to 4.2ghz.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> Yeah, but I'm not really willing to invest more than I have into cooling already.
> 
> It's mostly ashame that it throttles at 70c.  If it was 100c like normal I'd be able to get a lot higher, maybe even to 4.2ghz.



hehe, what cooler do you have?
Just place your pc outside and try again xD
I bet it would cool better then, if it's -8°C outside (at night).


----------



## 87dtna

SmileMan said:


> hehe, what cooler do you have?
> Just place your pc outside and try again xD
> I bet it would cool better then, if it's -8°C outside (at night).



Two of these-

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816101288


They aren't bad, 5 heat pipe mini tower cooler.  I mean to keep these quads to under 70c at 3.9ghz is fairly impressive for their size.

Yeah, well changing the voltage requires pin mods on the CPU and it's a huge PITA.  I've gone through enough thermal paste removing and reinstalling them as it is.  I really don't feel like doing it anymore so I'm leaving them set at 3.8ghz as a daily overclock for my server.


----------



## spirit

87, what OS are you running on your i5 760 machine?


----------



## 87dtna

Windows 7 ult x64


----------



## spirit

Hmmm... that's odd it won't run at all. Try downloading it again? 

Not sure what to suggest if you have updated .NET Framework.


----------



## 87dtna

Did that, and did that too.  lol


----------



## 87dtna

Reinstalled OS (changed other hardware anyway) and now it works.

I'll go for 4.5ghz later, hopefully get past that 2500k @4.3ghz score   I might be able to squeeze 4.6ghz outta this chip, it's an amazing clocker.  Runs 4.2ghz at 1.35v daily.


----------



## Virssagòn

Nice oc over there! You beat an [email protected]
Strong old chip you have there


----------



## spirit

87dtna said:


> Reinstalled OS (changed other hardware anyway) and now it works.
> 
> I'll go for 4.5ghz later, hopefully get past that 2500k @4.3ghz score   I might be able to squeeze 4.6ghz outta this chip, it's an amazing clocker.  Runs 4.2ghz at 1.35v daily.



I'm gonna cry if my old CPU beats the score of my new CPU.


----------



## 87dtna

lol.  Most people underestimate the Lynnfield CPU's.  1156 was and still is a good socket.  Sandy bridge was no huge upgrade at all.  Most of the difference is higher daily overclockability, and less heat.  But as far as clock for clock performance, not much gain at all.


----------



## spirit

I can tell you honestly overall I haven't noticed a big difference going from an i5 760 to the 2500K. If you want to use more than 16GB of RAM (1156 boards were limited to 16GB usually) then the newer stuff is better and if you want features such as USB 3.0, SATA 6GB/s and PCI Express 3.0 then the newer stuff is better (very few 1156 boards had USB 3.0 or SATA 6GB/s - my ASUS P7P55D-E did though). Overclocking Sand -Bridge is easier too.

Obviously you'd never use 1156 for a new build today, unless maybe you were in the second-hand market and came across a good bundle for a great price, but if you are still on 1156, I wouldn't bother upgrading unless you need any of the above.

I'll always be a fan of 1156 because the first PC I built was on 1156. Memories and stuff you know.


----------



## 87dtna

Yeah my board does have USB3 and sata3, however the sata3 controller is garbage.  It can't handle sata3 loads, in fact not even sata2 specs.

I had my 2 OCZ agility 3's in raid 0 on the sata3 controller, was very glitchy and only pulling 450 read/215 write speeds IN RAID 0!!!  I pulled that and installed the raid array on the sata2 controller, which of course goes through the main chipset (p55 doesn't support sata3), and read speeds are 580mb/s and write speeds are 510mb/s.
When I had these drives in a Z77 board they pulled 1.1gb/s read and 950mb/s write speeds


----------



## spirit

Yeah, the SATA 6GB/s controller on the P7P55D-E wasn't much good either. Read and write speeds with a Crucial M4 SSD when using the Marvell 6GB/s controller on the P7P55D-E were slower than that when using the Intel Z68 6GB/s controller on my P8Z68-V PRO/GEN3.

What board are you using? IIRC, Gigabyte made one with USB 3.0 and SATA 6GB/s too.


----------



## 87dtna

I just said mine doesl, how else would have been running on sata3 ports on this board?  lol.  The board is in my sig, P55A-UD3-

http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=3439#sp


----------



## spirit

How many different setups do you get through?


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> How many different setups do you get through?



MANY! xD
I'll update scores tomorrow


----------



## 87dtna

Yeah, 1 or 2


----------



## spirit

87dtna said:


> Yeah, 1 or 2



I think a bit more than that. How many have you had in the past month or so? I've lost count!


----------



## 87dtna

Too many to remember.  Atleast 60-70 setups in the last 3 years.

Here's an Athlon II 450, I had it kicking around and figured I'd pop it in the wife's PC to test.  I really wanted to see if it would unlock, but it doesn't.  Pretty decent clocker though, I beat out a stock 1055t hex core with this score-


----------



## Virssagòn

Yeh, nice one!


----------



## Virssagòn

You could maybe try even higher? Although the voltage is getting high...
How are you cooling this?


----------



## 87dtna

Well the board is a cheap one, and it goes it increments of .050 increases plus I think the bus clock is near maxxed at 263. Temps only hit 52c on the multithreaded test, I'm using a stock Phenom cooler...the copper 2 heatpipe ones.

Besides, higher clocks won't yield much.  4.0ghz was 1002 points, so 200 mhz only got me 36 points.  I won't even crack 1100 even if I can get 4.4 out of it.


----------



## Virssagòn

You'll never know if you don't try it 
Higher is higher right?
Weird that max temps are that low on a stock cooler lol.


----------



## 87dtna

Athlon II's run cool.  But it's the older style Phenom cooler, they are quite good.  Solid copper base with 2 heatpipes and the fan is better than the newer ones.

Alright I'll try it.  Perhaps floating point will bump up to 150 and I'll crack 1100.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> Athlon II's run cool.  But it's the older style Phenom cooler, they are quite good.  Solid copper base with 2 heatpipes and the fan is better than the newer ones.
> 
> Alright I'll try it.  Perhaps floating point will bump up to 150 and I'll crack 1100.



Yep, maybe. I'll include FLOP back in multithreaded and singlethreaded and make an apart score with 4 threads. Because that's the most important btw.
Also made some more reliable calcs and fixed the scaling between 2nd and 3th gen intels.


----------



## 87dtna

Couldn't even get 4.3 out of it.  Would not boot past 268 bus clock.  It's the board, just a super cheap 880g micro board.  I'm surprised it got that far really.


----------



## Virssagòn

Np, it was a good score for that cpu already .
I'm suprised too about my board lol, it was just the cheapest z68 board I could get lol...


----------



## 87dtna

I think I paid $25 for this board.  lol.  Definitely no more than $30.


----------



## Virssagòn

Probably I'm going to buy cheap sempron+board and oc the hell out of it.
Or I could get a cheap AM2 board and oc the hell out of my ATHLON X2 5000+


----------



## 87dtna

A 5000+ doesn't overclock very well at all.  You'd be lucky to hit 3ghz on it.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> A 5000+ doesn't overclock very well at all.  You'd be lucky to hit 3ghz on it.



It's stock is 2.6 or 2.8ghz?
And I got a true spirit 140 that will cool.that bitch down.
Just bought my hd7950 and some other things, so maybe I'll have to spare that 40-50 euro


----------



## 87dtna

2.6ghz.  

It's not about temps, they just don't overclock well at all no matter what.


----------



## FuryRosewood

yea...i could get mine to 2.8 without much trouble but anything above it was not stable...


----------



## Virssagòn

Awtch... and what about a core2duo E8400?
But I don't find any cheap boards for it....


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> Probably I'm going to buy cheap sempron+board and oc the hell out of it.
> Or I could get a cheap AM2 board and oc the hell out of my ATHLON X2 5000+


Why would you do that? 



SmileMan said:


> Awtch... and what about a core2duo E8400?
> But I don't find any cheap boards for it....


E8400s should overclock to around 3.6-3.8GHz I reckon. Probably no more than 4.0GHz though unless you've got a good board and good cooling.

If you want to see how well an E8400 does in this bench, ask CalinXP to run it, he's got an E8400 - and it's overclocked.


----------



## 87dtna

Most E0 stepping E8400's will easily get to 4ghz.  It only takes 450 FSB to do it, which most boards can hit.

C0 stepping E8400's will struggle to get past 3.8ghz.

For reference, SLAPL is a C0 stepping chip and SLB9J is E0 stepping.


----------



## Calin




----------



## Virssagòn

That's really good for a dual core! You're trying to get even higher? Then you can beat some quad cores and even a stock i7 920!
Your singlethreaded is very nice, multithreaded needs more threads to go up in points.


----------



## 87dtna

Score update?


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> Score update?



Ahh, yeah. wait.
Have to go for an hour. I'll do it after.


----------



## salvage-this

Wanted to see how High I could get it to bench


----------



## Virssagòn

Nice one! You're now the top of the i5 

Update:


----------



## spirit

It's good to see we appear to have gained a lot of interest here and we have a lot of results to show.


----------



## Calin

Got it work on 3.7
Ill try 4.0 tommorow, if we're still alive.


----------



## Virssagòn

Spirit said:
			
		

> It's good to see we appear to have gained a lot of interest here and we have a lot of results to show.



Yeh, hopefully we can set up that database to introduce this a bit wider.



CalinXP said:


> Got it work on 3.7
> Ill try 4.0 tommorow, if we're still alive.



Nice, try running without any other programs. It should improve your multithreaded.


----------



## Calin

SmileMan said:
			
		

> Nice, try running without any other programs. It should improve your multithreaded.


Exactly.


----------



## Virssagòn

CalinXP said:


> Exactly.



Like I said! 
weird that also singlethreaded gone up, but dual cores é


----------



## Virssagòn

Update; especially for CalinXP


----------



## Calin

thanks


----------



## Virssagòn

CalinXP said:


> thanks



Np bro . Test as much as you want!


----------



## Darren

snip


----------



## Virssagòn

Denther said:


>



You need to post that in the beta testing thread


----------



## spirit

If you support Black Hole, please copy and paste the following into your signature!



		PHP:
	

[center][i][size="2"]Let the beast run! Benchmark your system. [URL="http://www.computerforum.com/215772-black-hole-benchmark.html"]You can do it here![/center][/i][/size]


----------



## M1kkelZR

This on my 2500K at stock, no idea if its good lol


----------



## spirit

Only 73 points behind my i5 2500K @ 4.3GHz, so a gigahertz overclock doesn't seem to make much difference.


----------



## Virssagòn

Raz3rD said:


> This on my 2500K at stock, no idea if its good lol



Can't believe it's stock, because you score better then an i5 3570k @4.2ghz
Post cpu-z up.


----------



## M1kkelZR

SmileMan said:


> Can't believe it's stock, because you score better then an i5 3570k @4.2ghz
> Post cpu-z up.



Here you go mate


----------



## Virssagòn

Raz3rD said:


> Here you go mate



cpu-z + bench + in load so I can see your speed.


----------



## M1kkelZR

SmileMan said:


> cpu-z + bench + in load so I can see your speed.



ok let me to that later currently playing WoW with a mate LOL


----------



## Virssagòn

30 December

*Pre-release Black Hole V4.1*

*What's new?*
- Database, online score saving
- Better scaling between different generations of cpu's
- Ram latency and speed more sensitive in scores (you can get even higher scores lowering your latencys and speeding up your ram!)
- New smart calculations to measure the pure processing power of your pc.
- Score-scaling is different (making it more sensitive)

*Why Pre-release?*
- Website in make
- Trying to make a code to measure the turbo clock of the cpu, not the base clock.
- looking for improvements

I don't want to wait anymore:
*Download: http://www.mediafire.com/?pd32h7kuij9lhnp*

I'll try to update scores (that I receive in database) every week.

Go on, TEST!!!


----------



## Virssagòn

You can always post up a pic to show your results like they are.
The database is just a beginning for the website later, no need to care of that really.
Just save it in the database and post a picture up to show.
Less work for me to update from database then looking in this thread


----------



## Virssagòn

Small preview and guide how to fill in username and clockspeed.
Also my scores asm  4.4ghz


----------



## spirit

Rob, you need to disable the maximize box on the form where you can post your score and you need to change the Window name to something else, at the moment it's still 'Form2'.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Rob, you need to disable the maximize box on the form where you can post your score and you need to change the Window name to something else, at the moment it's still 'Form2'.



Sorry, I'm not perfect. And the time is was short lol.

Here is my score on the i7 920 with the imperfect version


----------



## Virssagòn

Download updated, problems fixed


----------



## spirit

I was just pointing it out to you.  Denther actually spotted it and told me. 

Anyway, here is what I got with the 2500K @ 4.3GHz. Obviously my CPU isn't running at 1.6GHz, it's just SpeedStep has kicked in. :/ I sent the score off, I said it was running at 4300MHz.







I just noticed too Smile you also need to lock the form border.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> I was just pointing it out to you.  Denther actually spotted it and told me.
> 
> Anyway, here is what I got with the 2500K @ 4.3GHz. Obviously my CPU isn't running at 1.6GHz, it's just SpeedStep has kicked in. :/ I sent the score off, I said it was running at 4300MHz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just noticed too Smile you also need to lock the form border.



SHIT ;P

Nice scores, and darren, I got a life, and I got not that much time to do all this...
Thanks for sending it in!
Will update that soon too.


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> SHIT ;P
> 
> Nice scores, and darren, I got a life, and I got not that much time to do all this...
> Thanks for sending it in!
> Will update that soon too.



Send me the VS files I'll quickly have a go at it for you.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Send me the VS files I'll quickly have a go at it for you.



come skype


----------



## spirit

I'm on.


----------



## Darren

Disregard my one score I submitted where I have a whopping 4 mHZ...


----------



## Virssagòn

Nice^^
What's your score at stock? So we can see how much improvement you got?
Don't submit it if you would test on stock. Your internal ip is unique, so it will save the scores you submit and overwrite the ones in the database.


----------



## Laquer Head




----------



## Virssagòn

Nice score!
Doesn't it get hot in that laptop?
Also, is it 3.2ghz or 3.3ghz. The sign says different then cpu-z?


----------



## Laquer Head

SmileMan said:


> Nice score!
> Doesn't it get hot in that laptop?
> Also, is it 3.2ghz or 3.3ghz. The sign says different then cpu-z?



Corrected// it is 3.2Ghz.. not 3.3

And no, doesnt get hot.. great cooling on this laptop


----------



## Virssagòn

Laquer Head said:


> Corrected// it is 3.2Ghz.. not 3.3
> 
> And no, doesnt get hot.. great cooling on this laptop



Seems like a hell of a powerful beast that asus. Nice specs!


----------



## Laquer Head

SmileMan said:


> Seems like a hell of a powerful beast that asus. Nice specs!



for a laptop that isnt custom like alienware, origin, sager...etc,,

its good


----------



## Virssagòn

Could you try out your i7 3770k at something like 4.5-4.7ghz?
Idk, but last time you scored less in higher ocs for some odd reason. (Maybe stability, thermal throttle,...)


----------



## Laquer Head




----------



## Virssagòn

Very nice score. If you're looking to increase it even more (w/o higher clock), try lowering your latency and increasing the speed of your ram.


----------



## M1kkelZR

Quick update. OC @ 4.5GHz


----------



## Virssagòn

Nice scores. But weird is why is your multithreaded that low? Or is spirits multithreaded just uber high?!
Where you running any other programs whilst benching?


----------



## M1kkelZR

SmileMan said:


> Nice scores. But weird is why is your multithreaded that low? Or is spirits multithreaded just uber high?!
> Where you running any other programs whilst benching?



I'm running:
Skype, Windows Media PLayer, Chrome and Xfire


----------



## Jamebonds1

New benchmark does not work on my computer


----------



## Virssagòn

Raz3rD said:


> I'm running:
> Skype, Windows Media PLayer, Chrome and Xfire



Yeah, close them and test again.


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> New benchmark does not work on my computer



Explain your problem, maybe I can help you.


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> Explain your problem, maybe I can help you.



I'm just kidding   Two time, it work


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> I'm just kidding   Two time, it work



-.-
I'll see in database and delete you muhahahaha 
No, that would be sad for myself xD

Edit: can't find you in database, press post scores after you tested. Then fill in the blanks.


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> -.-
> I'll see in database and delete you muhahahaha
> No, that would be sad for myself xD
> 
> Edit: can't find you in database, press post scores after you tested. Then fill in the blanks.



I think i'm going cry..... Just kidding   I can't resist joke 

Here it is.  BTW I'm going to upload picture of my new speaker and mountain later.


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> I think i'm going cry..... Just kidding   I can't resist joke
> 
> Here it is.  BTW I'm going to upload picture of my new speaker and mountain later.



Nice scores!


----------



## Virssagòn

My i7 2600k @ 4.6ghz.


----------



## spirit

How did you make the database in the end?


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> How did you make the database in the end?



MySQL database, after that I needed to make the webservice (HTTP REST). Then the deployment out oracle.
And then the client code...
It cost me some time lol, learning it from my dad who learns it too xD.
Our next step is the website.


----------



## M1kkelZR

Without the standard programs running in the background:


----------



## Virssagòn

Raz3rD said:


> Without the standard programs running in the background:



That's more realistic. Almost hit 10.000 range!


----------



## M1kkelZR

SmileMan said:


> That's more realistic. Almost hit 10.000 range!



Yeah, might go for a more powerfull OC later 4.6/4.7ghz then run it


----------



## spirit




----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


>



Okey score for a singlecore


----------



## Virssagòn

my dad scores 9125 stock, he saved it in the database. i7 3770 stock


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> Okey score for a singlecore



Took long enough to bench. :/


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Took long enough to bench. :/



 5 min?


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> 5 min?



Longer than that...


----------



## Ankur

Scores quite low than expected, I think all the background processes made this.
i7 2630QM at 2.00GHz, sry I forgot the CPUz


----------



## Darren

Kinda sad that the 2120 at 3.3 beats my 955 at 4.0 GHz... :/


----------



## Jamebonds1

Denther said:


> Kinda sad that the 2120 at 3.3 beats my 955 at 4.0 GHz... :/



actually it is overclock a little to 3.46 ghz.


----------



## Darren

Jamebonds1 said:


> actually it is overclock a little to 3.46 ghz.



Oh. Well still.


----------



## spirit

Did you run that bench with background programs like Skype and Steam turned off?


----------



## Virssagòn

Denther said:


> Kinda sad that the 2120 at 3.3 beats my 955 at 4.0 GHz... :/



normally you should beat it in multithreaded easily.
Sure you closed steam, skype and all other programs running?

Also, higher ram speed and lower latency can increase your score pretty much. Almost around 100-150 if you do it both to their limits.


----------



## Jamebonds1

Denther said:


> Oh. Well still.



I feeling bad that my little CPU beat your CPU


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> I feeling bad that my little CPU beat your CPU



Did you oc your ram or lower its latency?
If yes, run it on stock and you'll see difference in score.


----------



## Darren

I thought I got everything off. I had some temp monitors running. Lemme try again.


4982 this time. I don't think I got Origin turned off last time.


----------



## Virssagòn

Denther said:


> I thought I got everything off. I had some temp monitors running. Lemme try again.
> 
> 
> 4982 this time. I don't think I got Origin turned off last time.



Ok, you're not supposed to beat him in singlethreaded, but multithreaded should be your win.
Closed all steam, origin, skype and programs like chrome,...?
If you got same speed of ram and same latency, I'd think the scores have to be very close.


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> Did you oc your ram or lower its latency?
> If yes, run it on stock and you'll see difference in score.



I overclock CPU only.  Not RAM.  I lower its latency, it is more stable for my i3.   RAM is about 1348 MHz.


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> I overclock CPU only.  Not RAM.  I lower its latency, it is more stable for my i3.   RAM is about 1348 MHz.



The timings make the ram faster if you lower them...
The speed makes the ram faster if you increase it.
Weird that...


----------



## Darren

My RAM is 1600 and my latency is CAS 9 I think. Everything was closed down.


----------



## Virssagòn

Then it's just because I scaled singlethreaded too high... or because jamebonds lowered his latency.
But don't be sad, your score is pretty good actually.


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> The timings make the ram faster if you lower them...
> The speed makes the ram faster if you increase it.
> Weird that...



Yep.  My RAM is high end RAM series.  My limit edition intel RAM are Patriot Viper 3 series.  I will have to lowest speed if i want lowest timing latency.  9 latency for 1600 MHz.


----------



## jonnyp11

deleted all my capturers last week so can't do that

got 1416 (1000+416.489) with my 960t @ 3GHz w/ 8GBs 1333MHz RAM

do you want me to do a run unlocked or overclocked or anything?


----------



## Virssagòn

jonnyp11 said:


> deleted all my capturers last week so can't do that
> 
> got 1416 (1000+416.489) with my 960t @ 3GHz w/ 8GBs 1333MHz RAM
> 
> do you want me to do a run unlocked or overclocked or anything?



You tested the wrong version, This is the current one http://www.mediafire.com/?pd32h7kuij9lhnp
Thanks anyway, and yes, that would be nice to see yours oc'd. Test the bench with all programs off.


----------



## KasperL

Here are mine, once again Smile.


----------



## Virssagòn

And again nobody to beat you -.-


----------



## KasperL

SmileMan said:


> And again nobody to beat you -.-



Hehe. 
Well, it is an overly priced CPU.


----------



## Virssagòn

KasperL said:


> Hehe.
> Well, it is an overly priced CPU.



Yeah, if you're doing much multithreaded work, this is a nice investement lol. (8000 points xD)


----------



## KasperL

SmileMan said:


> Yeah, if you're doing much multithreaded work, this is a nice investement lol. (8000 points xD)



All i do is game, and that CPU is overkill for any game. Although it is quite futureproof.


----------



## Virssagòn

Scores until now:

(Slumdog is my dad lol...)


----------



## spirit

Ah comon' Kasper. 4.2GHz is a whimpy overclock for a processor like that. Get it to 4.8GHz and see what you get!


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Ah comon' Kasper. 4.2GHz is a whimpy overclock for a processor like that. Get it to 4.8GHz and see what you get!



Haha, then he needs better cooling I think


----------



## voyagerfan99

I'll do a benchmark on my PC when I get home.


----------



## Virssagòn

voyagerfan99 said:


> I'll do a benchmark on my PC when I get home.



Okey nice!
You overclocked to 3.9ghz right?


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> Haha, then he needs better cooling I think



Those 3930Ks don't come with stock coolers do they? So he must have decent cooling.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Those 3930Ks don't come with stock coolers do they? So he must have decent cooling.



he has a CM Hyper TX3 EVO I think.


----------



## voyagerfan99

Okay I ran the benchmark. I did it via Remote Desktop. I don't think it dragged down the score like TeamViewer did when I did it that way.


----------



## Virssagòn

voyagerfan99 said:


> Okay I ran the benchmark. I did it via Remote Desktop. I don't think it dragged down the score like TeamViewer did when I did it that way.



Seems like the oc from denther isn't pretty stable in comparison to your score


----------



## Virssagòn

Also, can you plz send the score through the program? That's much easier for me, and so I've a list.


----------



## voyagerfan99

SmileMan said:


> Also, can you plz send the score through the program? That's much easier for me, and so I've a list.



I'll re-bench and do that.



SmileMan said:


> Seems like the oc from denther isn't pretty stable in comparison to your score



Yeah MY OC is extremely stable. I thoroughly tested it.


----------



## Virssagòn

voyagerfan99 said:


> I'll re-bench and do that.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah MY OC is extremely stable. I thoroughly tested it.



Thanks, and I think denther must have had some other programs on since his multithreaded is that bad.


----------



## voyagerfan99

I re-ran and re-submitted it. I got a higher score after I disabled a few more apps I had running in the background (Skype, Cisco NAC Agent, F.lux)


----------



## Virssagòn

voyagerfan99 said:


> I re-ran and re-submitted it. I got a higher score after I disabled a few more apps I had running in the background (Skype, Cisco NAC Agent, F.lux)



Why, I saw you had a score of 5511 in the database? You saved it over it :S


----------



## Darren

Why would stability change scores?

I've got some desktop gadgets and other things that might be sucking up power. Lemme try again.


----------



## voyagerfan99

I guess I didn't double check my previous score


----------



## Darren

Redid it and killed a bunch of processes in Task Manager. Got 5640.


----------



## voyagerfan99

My chip isn't stable above my current OC on the board I have. Once I hit 4.0ghz (even with voltage bump) it's not stable.


----------



## Darren

I still haven't truly done a stability test yet unless you count about an hour and half straight of playing GTA...


----------



## magn3z

Not that bad after all.


----------



## Virssagòn

Denther said:


> I still haven't truly done a stability test yet unless you count about an hour and half straight of playing GTA...



You're trying higher? 4.5ghz or something? 
No, maybe 4.2ghz, then you'd beat the FX and maybe the i7 920


----------



## Virssagòn

Just for the second place 
4.7ghz (bumped voltage a bit too high, just to be sure it would be stable enough. Did it quick in AI suite lol)


----------



## magn3z

Cranked it up a little bit more


----------



## spirit

Makes me want to try and push my 2500K a little bit further! Nice scores!


----------



## magn3z

You should! 
Its only about two minutes of work


----------



## voyagerfan99

magn3z said:


> You should!
> Its only about two minutes of work




Plus the hours of Prime95


----------



## spirit

magn3z said:


> You should!
> Its only about two minutes of work



Hmm maybe, I was going to do it now, but IIRC my board has issues with it.

I'm using the pre-set ASUS overclock at the moment, shame on me I know, but I don't have time to go changing voltages and running hours of stability testing.


----------



## magn3z

voyagerfan99 said:


> Plus the hours of Prime95



Ah, i've only done mine for like 30 minutes. 68 degrees was the highest.
I've already played Battlefield 3 for like two hours so that was a good stress test


----------



## Calin

So with your new database I no longer need to post it here


----------



## Darren

magn3z said:


> Ah, i've only done mine for like 30 minutes. 68 degrees was the highest.
> I've already played Battlefield 3 for like two hours so that was a good stress test



That's pretty toasty...


----------



## Jet

I like the new version. Really simple logging results!

I only ran it at my current overclock (4.2), but you should at least get some more data .


----------



## Virssagòn

Jet said:


> I like the new version. Really simple logging results!
> 
> I only ran it at my current overclock (4.2), but you should at least get some more data .



Jet, I need you to test again. Your scores are too low for 4.2ghz, did you run any programs while testing?


And for all other testers: *"RUN THE BENCH WITH ALL OTHER PROGRAMS OFF, EVEN BACKGROUND PROCESSES!!!!"*

It's just irritating, because then I can't know real results....


----------



## Virssagòn

CalinXP said:


> So with your new database I no longer need to post it here



You're not in the database for some reason, did you fill it in wrong or didn't click the "send" button?
The rest who said here that they posted in database, are in.


----------



## spirit

Denther said:


> That's pretty toasty...



Nah for a 2500K 68C max is fine. My old i5 760 used to max at about 70-75C with the stock cooler and at stock clocks and it worked fine, I also had an old Core 2 Quad Q8300 which used to do the same.


----------



## Virssagòn

Update scores:


----------



## jonnyp11

god i wish i had a good cooler so i could leave it unlocked at 4GHz and be well into the 6000's


----------



## Virssagòn

jonnyp11 said:


> god i wish i had a good cooler so i could leave it unlocked at 4GHz and be well into the 6000's



You'd easily beat that [email protected] I think.
The first gen FX is weak as I can see now...
They oc higher though. :S


----------



## Calin

SmileMan said:


> You're not in the database for some reason, did you fill it in wrong or didn't click the "send" button?
> The rest who said here that they posted in database, are in.


I didnt tested it yet/


----------



## Calin

Now Im in!


----------



## Virssagòn

CalinXP said:


> Now Im in!



K! I'll see what you got


----------



## Calin

SmileMan said:


> K! I'll see what you got


Thanks bro


----------



## Calin

Update?


----------



## Virssagòn

CalinXP said:


> Update?



okey okey 
w8, making it 
Working on an automatic system though ...


----------



## StrangleHold




----------



## Virssagòn

Update:


----------



## Calin

SmileMan said:


> Update:


I suck at multitheard


----------



## Virssagòn

CalinXP said:


> I suck at multitheard


Your singlethreaded is pretty good


----------



## Calin

Submitted 3.7GHz score...


----------



## Virssagòn

CalinXP said:


> Submitted 3.7GHz score...



I'll update tomorrow friend xD


----------



## Calin

SmileMan said:


> I'll update tomorrow friend xD


I didn't ask you to update but ok....


----------



## Virssagòn

CalinXP said:


> I didn't ask you to update but ok....



Nice scores btw, you're getting on the top with singlethreaded on your 3.7ghz score.
Trying higher?  4ghz seems fair, but 4.5ghz is better! xD


----------



## Calin

SmileMan said:


> Nice scores btw, you're getting on the top with singlethreaded on your 3.7ghz score.
> Trying higher?  4ghz seems fair, but 4.5ghz is better! xD


Once ill update bios 4ghz


----------



## Virssagòn

CalinXP said:


> Once ill update bios 4ghz



Okay! Looking forward to see the results!


----------



## spirit

I'm going to go back to overclocking manually soon again. Might try 4.5GHz and see what I can do.  Reckon I get 4.5GHz OK on my cooler?


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> I'm going to go back to overclocking manually soon again. Might try 4.5GHz and see what I can do.  Reckon I get 4.5GHz OK on my cooler?



Just stay below 80°c and you should be fine
Intel says 95°c max, but I wouldn't run over 85°c for more then half an hour when stressed.


----------



## spirit

Yeah I don't remember it being higher than 80C, but what I do remember is having problems booting at 4.5GHz. I think it must have been because I didn't have voltage, but when I turned on the PC it powered up, then died for a few seconds, then worked normally.

So it wasn't stable, probably because my voltage wasn't high enough I imagine. 4.0GHz and 4.2GHz was OK, but the ASUS overclock overclocked it to 4.3GHz stably.


----------



## StrangleHold




----------



## Jet

SmileMan said:


> Jet, I need you to test again. Your scores are too low for 4.2ghz, did you run any programs while testing?
> 
> 
> And for all other testers: *"RUN THE BENCH WITH ALL OTHER PROGRAMS OFF, EVEN BACKGROUND PROCESSES!!!!"*
> 
> It's just irritating, because then I can't know real results....



Gotcha. I'll rerun when I have the time.


----------



## Virssagòn

Jet said:


> Gotcha. I'll rerun when I have the time.



Do that


----------



## Virssagòn

StrangleHold said:


>



Pretty nice scores there!


----------



## Calin

SmileMan said:


> I'll update tomorrow friend xD


It's time xD


----------



## Virssagòn

I'll update it tomorrow really...
Didn't have the time today.


----------



## Calin

SmileMan said:


> I'll update it tomorrow really...
> Didn't have the time today.


Okay...


----------



## Virssagòn

CalinXP said:


> Okay...



I saw in database and there are another 10 new scores!


----------



## Virssagòn

UPDATE


----------



## spirit

Good to see the almighty Athlon 64 3700+ is still stone dead last!


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Good to see the almighty Athlon 64 3700+ is still stone dead last!



Haha, he will for a long time I guess


----------



## spirit

The only reason I've kept that PC is just so I can run Black Hole on it. Honestly!


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> The only reason I've kept that PC is just so I can run Black Hole on it. Honestly!



You should overclock it then!


----------



## spirit

It runs hot enough as it is and it has a stock cooler and I'm too poor to buy an aftermarket cooler for it and I want it to always come last.


----------



## Calin

spirit said:


> The only reason I've kept that PC is just so I can run Black Hole on it. Honestly!


I would run BH on my old Windows 95 PC with Petinum 1 150MHz... lol :good:


----------



## spirit

...except it's not 64-bit compatible and you need .NET Framework 2.0 which I don't think Windows 95 supports.  

Hey do you want me to try running it on a ZX Spectrum?


----------



## Virssagòn

Again an update:
someone risked his cpu to go past 5.7ghz!


----------



## Laquer Head

This is about all I can do with 4 fans and a close-loop cooler..


----------



## Jamebonds1

Laquer Head said:


> This is about all I can do with 4 fans and a close-loop cooler..



Nice one!   It might sound like crazy but I have 12 fan


----------



## jonnyp11

your single threaded always leans to Intel. The phenom 2 should be right behind the core 2 for single threaded, but CalinXP's e8400 @ 3.5 is a good bit ahead of some phenoms at 4GHz+, only mentioning cuz a phenom 2 x6 @ 3 should definitely beat a e8400 @ 3.5, and an i3 2100 @ stock too IMO. I think you should weigh multi-threaded a little more (increase it's value).


----------



## Virssagòn

jonnyp11 said:


> your single threaded always leans to Intel. The phenom 2 should be right behind the core 2 for single threaded, but CalinXP's e8400 @ 3.5 is a good bit ahead of some phenoms at 4GHz+, only mentioning cuz a phenom 2 x6 @ 3 should definitely beat a e8400 @ 3.5, and an i3 2100 @ stock too IMO. I think you should weigh multi-threaded a little more (increase it's value).



Idk, maybe yes. But look how much the 12 threads are ahead of the others. Even an i7 3770k @ 5.7ghz can't beat any of them in multi. So If I would make it even more, it would be unrealistic in score/performance...


----------



## 87dtna

It's just AMD guys in denial about how superior intel is.

/troll

lol


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> It's just AMD guys in denial about how superior intel is.
> 
> /troll
> 
> lol



When are you testing your pc's?


----------



## StrangleHold

jonnyp11 said:


> your single threaded always leans to Intel. The phenom 2 should be right behind the core 2 for single threaded, but CalinXP's e8400 @ 3.5 is a good bit ahead of some phenoms at 4GHz+, only mentioning cuz a phenom 2 x6 @ 3 should definitely beat a e8400 @ 3.5, and an i3 2100 @ stock too IMO. I think you should weigh multi-threaded a little more (increase it's value).


 
I kinda agree. I mean really how many new programs just use a single thread any more, very few. Single thread scores should be a very low % of the total score. 

A cool test would be one with a 4 threaded test and one with multi/as many treads as you can throw at it test. Then combine the scores equally. No single thread at all. If you have a single core or a dual core, tough you bought it. I mean AMD came out with a dual core 8 years ago, old tech. Do they even make single cores any more, lol.


----------



## 87dtna

Really?  Please list the programs you use regularly, I guarantee that atleast 75% of them are single threaded.


----------



## jonnyp11

StrangleHold said:


> I kinda agree. I mean really how many new programs just use a single thread any more, very few. Single thread scores should be a very low % of the total score.
> 
> A cool test would be one with a 4 threaded test and one with multi/as many treads as you can throw at it test. Then combine the scores equally. No single thread at all. If you have a single core or a dual core, tough you bought it. I mean AMD came out with a dual core 8 years ago, old tech. Do they even make single cores any more, lol.



Hell, i dont think they even make single core cell phones any more  the new tegra 4 is like 12 core or something weird and i know intel has a quad core cell processor.


----------



## jonnyp11

87dtna said:


> Really?  Please list the programs you use regularly, I guarantee that atleast 75% of them are single threaded.



Chrome and games.

Really the things that use a single core are so old and non-demanding that there wont be a big enough difference between them for it to matter n the real world. I will admit that the i5 system i built was snapier than mine, but considering the 1866 ram and good mobo and price difference, i dont think the difference was that big.


----------



## Virssagòn

I'm not saying I'm deleting the singlethreaded, but I'll surely add a quad threaded bench... or how should I name it? 

And jonnyp, you're right about that, but really most people see the difference between 1 and 2 seconds. But most of singlethreaded use (70%) you'll see almost no difference.
Singlethreaded is always been a part of the technology that's improved with every new generation, this will stay but I'll reduce its scale by a bit.

What do you guys think, first website with the current version? Or 4.2 first and after that the website?


----------



## jonnyp11

I think'd i'd go for the more stable and jonny approved build before going for a site to promote it and all. i should get a pic made, seal of approval thing (the meme probably but saying jonnyp11's seal of approval)


----------



## Laquer Head

jonnyp11 said:


> I think'd i'd go for the more stable and jonny approved build before going for a site to promote it and all. i should get a pic made, seal of approval thing (the meme probably but saying *jonnyp11's seal of approva*l)



Sounds legit..


----------



## Virssagòn

Holy shit! Just posted it on guru... 1500 downloads on the page, 300 tests in database and hunderds of threads about the bench if you search in google!!! In 1 small week and tests count 50-100 a day lol...
We'll need to organise some private competitions I think


----------



## Virssagòn

Long list, I tried to remove all cheaters... But think their are still some in.
Looking to the scores, AMD is just unrealistic in disadvantage.
The next version will be out soon to fix this issue + integrated corespeed measure + maybe website + 4 threaded bench.


----------



## 87dtna

How are they cheating?


----------



## spirit

NOOO!!! THE 3700+ IS NO LONGEST SLOWEST?? 

Yeah, how are these people' 'cheating?' Telling you the wrong clockspeed or something?

How the heck did that guy get a 3770K to 5.8GHz by the way??


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> How are they cheating?



clockspeed
They can tick in what they want.


----------



## Laquer Head

SmileMan said:


> clockspeed
> They can tick in what they want.



In that case, put me down for a 7.35 @ 1.01V

and a 99 multiplier


----------



## jonnyp11

by being awesome (the 3770k @ 5.8 that is)

i think i'm gonna go kill the lowest speed thing. does it work on 32-bit? think that computer is so might not actually work, might just lock cores and clock to like 1GHz or less, but that might fry my cpu as idk what voltage would be best to use for that so NVM on that part


----------



## spirit

I'll just go and underclock my Athlon 64 then. 

And no, it's 64-bit only, sorry.


----------



## jonnyp11

Hehe, brother gots an e350 laptop, gonne borrow it later if i can


----------



## broken pixel

I just took the number four spot with 13911. Cool BM, thanks!


----------



## spirit

Welcome to the forum! That's a nice score you got there, what hardware were you running on?


----------



## Turbo10

My poor old Q6600


----------



## broken pixel

spirit said:


> Welcome to the forum! That's a nice score you got there, what hardware were you running on?



Thanks! I will add a sig for my specs.


----------



## spirit

Yeah with a 3930K @ 4.6GHz I'm not surprised you got that score.  Great setup!


----------



## broken pixel

Thanks!


----------



## Virssagòn

Turbo10 said:


> My poor old Q6600



That's a pretty nice score you got there! Beating a stock i7 920.
Next version will have singlethreaded scaled lower and will have an extra pass .
Because some scores are just not realistic lol.


----------



## Virssagòn

Nice build pixel!


----------



## 87dtna

SmileMan said:


> clockspeed
> They can tick in what they want.



A requirement for CPUz in the screenshot would fix that.

You are the only person to ever post a bench not requiring it, thats like asking for people to cheat


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> That's a pretty nice score you got there! Beating a stock i7 920.


Hmmm... Q6600 @ 3.2GHz beating a stock i7 920? I suppose it could happen, but I'm not sure about that - especially as I'm pretty sure the i7 920 was about as fast or maybe even beating the QX9650 which was an Extreme-end processor back when it came out?


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> A requirement for CPUz in the screenshot would fix that.
> 
> You are the only person to ever post a bench not requiring it, thats like asking for people to cheat



And how would I be able to add 300 score manually from screenshots?? That's 2days non stop work...
Anyway, working on a code to find real clockspeed.


----------



## 87dtna

You still have them enter the data but make them post a screenshot with CPUz.  It lets other people do your job for you, if people see someone cheating they will pounce on it.


----------



## RadeonHD

You could create a database server and have it send the info directly from the application into mssql or mysql and have instant results be shown on a web page.  It wouldn't take but a few minutes of coding to add that in, would eliminate some .... to good to be true results perhaps.  For actual clock speed you could get the bus frequency x the multiplier direct from system correct.


----------



## 87dtna

Thats what he said he's trying to do.


----------



## RadeonHD

I have web design with database knowledge if help is needed.


----------



## Virssagòn

RadeonHD said:


> I have web design with database knowledge if help is needed.



If you want to do that for free. It sounds interesting 
Did you made a website before? Yes, then link me to it.
I need to create a website as soon as possible, but myself I don't have much time.


----------



## RadeonHD

Yes for free.  I used to develop and host several well known games such as Knight Online and World of Warcraft.  It wouldn't be a bother.  Send me a PM and we can collaborate on the details of design and database structure as well.


----------



## Virssagòn

You must first have 100 posts.
Just give your skype/steam name.


----------



## RadeonHD

I have neither.


----------



## Virssagòn

Could you make a skype account.then? Or do you have something different?


----------



## RadeonHD

Ok I signed on skype - radeonhd69


----------



## RadeonHD

Will something like this do?


----------



## Virssagòn

I made database already. I'll come skype wednesday to give information.
How much time do you need to create a decent site for online scores?


----------



## Virssagòn

robas150 is my skype.


----------



## RadeonHD

Ok sent request on skype and see if we can figure something out and maybe get you on your own.


----------



## broken pixel

*New score for me*

Another high score for me, yay! 3930k 4700MHz, 1600MHz DDR3 9-9-9-24-1N







Is there going to be an updated score list?


----------



## spirit

Installed XP Pro x64 onto my Athlon 64 box today.

Just to let you all know - if you want to run this on XPx64 you need to download the Windows Imaging Component first (from here http://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/download/details.aspx?id=1385) and then .NET Framework 2.0 (from here http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=6523). You must install .NET Framework 2.0. I tried with 4.0 at first and it didn't work, but then I tried installing 2.0 and it worked fine.

Here are the scores. I added them to the database too. All at stock, no overclocking or underclocking.


----------



## turbobooster

*amd fx 832*

today i find this benchmark and put my cpu on 4.5 ghz.
i have a fx 8320
m5a97 motherbord.
g-skill ripjaws 16gb at 2133
gigabyte gtx 660ti
corsair cx750
corsair h100 cpu cooler
this is my first score.

i hope you will find it oke.


----------



## Virssagòn

That's a pretty nice improvement over the fx8120 at the same clockspeed.





 VS


----------



## turbobooster

yes indeed, trying to go to 4.8 when i succeed i will post it.
but for the first time that i overclock i,m pritty happy.


----------



## Virssagòn

Yeh, good for a beginner. Just stay below 1.57v and 65-70 degrees for benching.
I'll throw up my 5.2ghz tomorrow .


----------



## turbobooster

i will stay below 60-65 i dont want my amd to reach 70. 
we will see what is possible, because my mobo has not that much room.


----------



## turbobooster

so today i went to 4.6ghz
this is the score


----------



## Virssagòn

Nice!


----------



## turbobooster

SmileMan said:


> Nice!



thx i hope to see it in the score at page 1 soon hahaha


----------



## Virssagòn

turbobooster said:


> thx i hope to see it in the score at page 1 soon hahaha



Did you submit it?


----------



## turbobooster

SmileMan said:


> Did you submit it?



yes i did.


----------



## Virssagòn

turbobooster said:


> yes i did.



K, I'll look this evening for an update.


----------



## Virssagòn

turbobooster said:


> yes i did.


Under what name?


----------



## turbobooster

SmileMan said:


> Under what name?



under the name turbobooster.
i did it this mornig about the same time i posted the score.


----------



## Virssagòn

turbobooster said:


> under the name turbobooster.
> i did it this mornig about the same time i posted the score.



You're not in the database for some reason...


----------



## turbobooster

SmileMan said:


> You're not in the database for some reason...



dam that sucks haha.
mmm i will do it later again.


----------



## Virssagòn

turbobooster said:


> dam that sucks haha.
> mmm i will do it later again.



ok, if it still isn't in database then I'll add it manually...


----------



## turbobooster

SmileMan said:


> ok, if it still isn't in database then I'll add it manually...



can you do this 1 manually then please, because i,m reading more about overclock so i can go higher, and now i,m running at 4.0 ghz.


----------



## Virssagòn

turbobooster said:


> can you do this 1 manually then please, because i,m reading more about overclock so i can go higher, and now i,m running at 4.0 ghz.



kk
Probably gonna make just a score table for CF, so people can compete against people from the same forum.


----------



## turbobooster

SmileMan said:


> kk
> Probably gonna make just a score table for CF, so people can compete against people from the same forum.



mmm i dont understand, this is a cpu benchmark test, so what has that to do with cf???
ore i missing somthing.


----------



## 87dtna

In this case, CF= Computer forum


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> In this case, CF= Computer forum



^^that


----------



## turbobooster

ahhhhh   oke lol.


----------



## Virssagòn

turbobooster said:


> ahhhhh   oke lol.



New beta on the beta thread!!!

http://www.computerforum.com/216232-discussion-beta-testing-thread-black-hole.html

Beta from 4.2!!!

Plz test it and post it in the thread I linked


----------



## turbobooster

i will, lets see what i can do.


----------



## Virssagòn

turbobooster said:


> i will, lets see what i can do.



ty 
Close everything while running. Skype, steam, chrome,... everything. It can give you a boost from 50-500 points.


----------



## StrangleHold

SmileMan said:


> That's a pretty nice improvement over the fx8120 at the same clockspeed.


 
I was actually surprised. Didnt think there would be that much difference.


----------



## Virssagòn

StrangleHold said:


> I was actually surprised. Didnt think there would be that much difference.



Me too, check out new bench.
I included 4threaded + less singlethreaded (scaling)

EDIT: Ram timings can affect the score much too.


----------



## Virssagòn

Some results:

















































Just wanted to post for some interested people


----------



## Virssagòn

Timings make sense, but not much in this version (previous version was very sensitive in timings, dtna found that out)

9-9-9-24





7-7-7-22






@dtna: how much did you lower the timings? And what timings should have more effect? I'm not really into ram things...


----------



## 87dtna

Higher ram speed with looser timings made more improvement than lower speed with tighter timings (to a point, 1333 cas 7 is still gonna beat 1600 cas 9 as you showed).

People with 2133 ram will have a fairly large advantage, particularly if it's cas 9 ram as well.  2133 VS 1600 both cas 9 would yield anywhere from 500-1000 points better.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> Higher ram speed with looser timings made more improvement than lower speed with tighter timings (to a point, 1333 cas 7 is still gonna beat 1600 cas 9 as you showed).
> 
> People with 2133 ram will have a fairly large advantage, particularly if it's cas 9 ram as well.  2133 VS 1600 both cas 9 would yield anywhere from 500-1000 points better.



I thought you said lower timings was better then increasing ram speed? :S
How much voltage can I give my ram to not damage?
my hyperX ram needs more then the ripsjaws... that's not really handy


----------



## 87dtna

To a point.  You can see 1333 cas 7 was better than 1600 cas 9.  But 1333 cas 8 would probably be not as good at 1600 cas 9.

Once you go over 2000 ram speed though the results were highly changed.  I believe my 2000mhz cas 9 score was ~800 points higher than than 1600 cas 9 and 1000 points higher than 1333 cas 9.  This was with the first V4.  4.1 seems seems less affect and I'm not sure about 4.2.


----------



## 87dtna

I just downloaded and started testing the beta 4.2, and the 4 threaded test is only using 2 threads and my score is horrendous!  lol


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> I just downloaded and started testing the beta 4.2, and the 4 threaded test is only using 2 threads and my score is horrendous!  lol



Try running again, I got someone with the same problem and his was solved with another run for some reason...

On your cpu it normally runs at thread #0 2 4 6. Because that are the physicals and give best times...


----------



## 87dtna

lol it's messed up.  I ran it again, this time it started with cores 2 and 6 running, and halfway through the 4 thread test core 0 bounced in there.

First time I ran it my 4 thread score was 1600, now its 2600.  Should be more like 5k looking at other results so I'll try again.


----------



## 87dtna

Finally lol.  Though I'm not sure how an I5 760 at 3.7ghz scores 12k and the I7 860 at 4.2ghz only 2k more.

The multithreaded score seems quite low, like I don't even have HT on.


----------



## 87dtna

Yeah hmm something is up, only lost 180 points with turning HT off-


----------



## Virssagòn

Yeh, the bench don't let much difference between i5 and i7. I5 2500k @ 5.2 and i7 2600k @ 5.3 only had a rough ~1100 point difference.
Someone with i7 950 @4.2ghz scores 14356. Mine @4.3ghz 15488, so there is a pretty nice difference between the old i7 and the new.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> Yeah hmm something is up, only lost 180 points with turning HT off-



The benchmark is testing multithreaded performance AND stability, the program will the number of the logical cores in threads and then use a multiplier to measure the scores.


----------



## Virssagòn

There's not much difference in the other benches too, on sysmark the i5 even owns it at same clock.http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/108?vs=191

Anyway, seems like the clove isn't that big. Maybe I'll see to pick a lineup for the MT in the alpha.


----------



## 87dtna

It's 5 times the difference what are you talking about?

There's a 1000 point difference with HT on a 2600k VS 2500k....but not even 200 point difference on Lynnfield CPU's HT vs no HT?


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> It's 5 times the difference what are you talking about?
> 
> There's a 1000 point difference with HT on a 2600k VS 2500k....but not even 200 point difference on Lynnfield CPU's HT vs no HT?



Yeah, it's pretty weird...   If you look up i5 2500k and 2600k at anand, you can see that there's is also a bigger difference there.


----------



## Virssagòn

Lol, phenom x6 do have nice multi I see!
I'm curious what it would do on 5.2ghz or something 
Sad nobody is yet playing with ln2 or dice to do it...





Singlethreaded is bad though... I think it'd beat an FX8350 easily on MT (same clockspeed)


----------



## turbobooster

smileman asked my to do the benchmark at stock with turbo on, so here it is





this is amd fx 8320 at stock


----------



## turbobooster

SmileMan said:


> Lol, phenom x6 do have nice multi I see!
> I'm curious what it would do on 5.2ghz or something
> Sad nobody is yet playing with ln2 or dice to do it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Singlethreaded is bad though... I think it'd beat an FX8350 easily on MT (same clockspeed)



amd fx 8320 at stock.


----------



## 87dtna

Thats version 4.1, everyone is posting 4.2 as of late.


----------



## turbobooster

87dtna said:


> Thats version 4.1, everyone is posting 4.2 as of late.



i know was the wrong 1 the other 1 i do tommorow


----------



## Virssagòn

Yeah, plz test the 4.2 at stock.

I'm making a stock scoreboard, so if someone has the time to do a stockrun that'd be awesome!


----------



## turbobooster

SmileMan said:


> Yeah, plz test the 4.2 at stock.
> 
> I'm making a stock scoreboard, so if someone has the time to do a stockrun that'd be awesome!



i will do that.
but the problem i somtimes have with the v.2 is that you wont do the 4 core test.


----------



## Virssagòn

turbobooster said:


> i will do that.
> but the problem i somtimes have with the v.2 is that you wont do the 4 core test.



You're not the first person, most of the time it's fixed in the second run.
When does this problem occur mostly? My rig doesn't have problems with it, maybe it's only on Fx cpus?


----------



## StrangleHold

Ran 4.2 on mine. 

The multi did fine, ran all 8 cores 100%. 

The 4 threaded only used 2 cores, then with about 10 seconds left a third core kicked in, then right at the end the fourth core kicked in.

Single threaded started with a single core around 10%, then about half way it jumped to 100%


----------



## Virssagòn

StrangleHold said:


> Ran 4.2 on mine.
> 
> The multi did fine, ran all 8 cores 100%.
> 
> The 4 threaded only used 2 cores, then with about 10 seconds left a third core kicked in, then right at the end the fourth core kicked in.
> 
> Single threaded started with a single core around 10%, then about half way it jumped to 100%



Single and multithreaded should be perfectly fine, 4threads has some bugs though...
What's your 4thread score and did you try running it again?


----------



## StrangleHold

OK I ran it twice before but this time it was fine. Ran all 4 cores and on the single did 100% too, weird, lol. Now this isnt on mine, its another 8120 I have running at 4.2ghz.

Multi 5560
4 threads 4584
Single 2737
Total 12880


----------



## Virssagòn

StrangleHold said:


> OK I ran it twice before but this time it was fine. Ran all 4 cores and on the single did 100% too, weird, lol. Now this isnt on mine, its another 8120 I have running at 4.2ghz.
> 
> Multi 5560
> 4 threads 4584
> Single 2737
> Total 12880



This is an ok score, it's probably if the program doesn't know or the extras are physical or logical that he doesn't know what to do...
Could you run it at stock? So I can add an FX8120 to the list? Now got 12 stock cpus on it. (And 300+ overclocked on beta version, didn't do that manually lol...)


----------



## turbobooster

so today everithing wend fine wite the 4 threaded started with 4 cores the first time, ole.

this is the score at stock turbo on.


----------



## Virssagòn

That's a pretty nice score, did you close everything even in background?


----------



## turbobooster

SmileMan said:


> That's a pretty nice score, did you close everything even in background?



yes i closed almost everithing.


----------



## Virssagòn

turbobooster said:


> yes i closed almost everithing.



EVERYTHING !!! (joking) ;P
it does affect the score pretty much, even programs on background. Anyway, you're 100 points ahead of a FX8150 (which is clocked higher then yours I think)


----------



## turbobooster

SmileMan said:


> EVERYTHING !!! (joking) ;P
> it does affect the score pretty much, even programs on background. Anyway, you're 100 points ahead of a FX8150 (which is clocked higher then yours I think)



almost everithing haha.
no the 8150 runs at 3.3ghz the fx 8320 runs at 3.5ghz. with a turboboost to 4.0ghz on 1 core and the boost for al cores is 3,7ghz.
i will do it again with everithing closed.


----------



## Virssagòn

turbobooster said:


> almost everithing haha.
> no the 8150 runs at 3.3ghz the fx 8320 runs at 3.5ghz. with a turboboost to 4.0ghz on 1 core and the boost for al cores is 3,7ghz.
> i will do it again with everithing closed.



Nope 

Baseclock FX8150 = 3.8ghz
FX8320 = 3.5ghz
FX8120 = 3.1 or 3.3 (idk anymore)
FX8350 = 4ghz


----------



## CrazyMike

I'm not even sure if i did this right. I am going to try again.


----------



## Virssagòn

That's a nice score! Maybe you should try the beta v4.2 in beta testing thread?


----------



## CrazyMike

SmileMan said:


> That's a nice score! Maybe you should try the beta v4.2 in beta testing thread?



LOL i don't think it's a nice score. Was hoping for much higher. I'll do the v4.2 tonight.


----------



## CrazyMike

Finally did the Version 4.2 (beta)


----------



## Virssagòn

Nice score for that c2qqqqquuuuaaaaadddd!!!


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> Nice score for that c2qqqqquuuuaaaaadddd!!!



Oh dear.   It seem I and Jason make some people say it


----------



## Virssagòn

I think so too. Didn't you see my qqqqquuuuaaaaadddds in the past?


----------



## CrazyMike

...... I don't get it?... lol... it's an ok score i guess. I really need to hurry up and upgrade.


----------



## Shlouski

Runs my 680gtx just fine:


----------



## Virssagòn

Also try the 4.2 beta version in the beta testing thread!


----------



## turbobooster

SmileMan said:


> Also try the 4.2 beta version in the beta testing thread!



tried the beta again to day took me 3 runs to run the 4 tread correct on a i7
but it was a nice score on 4.0ghz


----------



## Virssagòn

On the exe I posted in beta thread? Try if you didn't.


----------



## MasterEVC

I will try this later on my new FX-8350


----------



## turbobooster

MasterEVC said:


> I will try this later on my new FX-8350



so where is the score of the 8350


----------



## Calin




----------



## Virssagòn

CalinXP said:


>



yeah, database isn't connected anymore. Other then that, pretty ok score there!


----------



## Calin

SmileMan said:


> yeah, database isn't connected anymore. Other then that, pretty ok score there!


Why?
Oh my old score was better


----------



## Virssagòn

CalinXP said:


> Why?
> Oh my old score was better



Try testing the beta, that version is scaling far better then this one. The official 4.2 will release next week when I'm done with the website.
You can compare your score with the scores on the stock table.

http://www.computerforum.com/216232-discussion-beta-testing-thread-black-hole.html


----------



## Ankur

Hey Smile, do you know how to create bench-marking app for smartphones? probably for windows phone 8 will be easier.


----------



## Virssagòn

Ankur said:


> Hey Smile, do you know how to create bench-marking app for smartphones? probably for windows phone 8 will be easier.



Never tried, but it won't be much different. Do you want me to try? That will have to wait until I've done my exams... I'm now busy on the website myself. But I need someone who can help me with some things, also trusted admins, etc...
Can you come on skype from wednesday until sunday? I want to finish it this week.
I made the website with drupal, because it offers best administration options, because I will include a forum, have moderators that can post articels,... and other things I need to update/overlook pretty much.


----------



## Ankur

SmileMan said:


> Never tried, but it won't be much different. Do you want me to try? That will have to wait until I've done my exams... I'm now busy on the website myself. But I need someone who can help me with some things, also trusted admins, etc...


Yea, smartphones are taking over people's minds and they need good benchmarks, you can also put ads in the apps that will help you compensate your works. I am thinking of an android app myself, but better to start up with windows, as we are much familiar with it.


SmileMan said:


> Can you come on skype from wednesday until sunday? I want to finish it this week.
> I made the website with drupal, because it offers best administration options, because I will include a forum, have moderators that can post articels,... and other things I need to update/overlook pretty much.


Surely I can, but I cannot do much work until June 1, but I can do it moderately, I have my last exams going on, so will rap up by end of month. Surely after then full time.


----------



## spirit

You can make applications for Windows Phone very easily with Visual Studio I believe.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> You can make applications for Windows Phone very easily with Visual Studio I believe.



Yeah, there's even an integrated option to build it as app for Windows phone, so it isn't that difficult I think.


----------



## Ankur

I don't know much about mobile cpus, but they aren't x86 based instruction sets, so how will we design the benchmark?


----------



## Turbo10

Dunno why it says the clocks at that, it's at stock but i think the intel boost thingo is changing it


----------



## Virssagòn

Turbo10 said:


> Dunno why it says the clocks at that, it's at stock but i think the intel boost thingo is changing it



I've to say, nice new build! You aren't going to leave it at stock I believe? You have a great board, that's why you buy such a thing e?


----------



## spirit

Turbo10 said:


> Dunno why it says the clocks at that, it's at stock but i think the intel boost thingo is changing it


Intel SpeedStep mate. Puts your CPU to 1.6GHz when it's idle and not doing a lot to save power. You can disable it in the BIOS if you want to disable it.


----------



## Turbo10

spirit said:


> Intel SpeedStep mate. Puts your CPU to 1.6GHz when it's idle and not doing a lot to save power. You can disable it in the BIOS if you want to disable it.



What madness is this? I'll be getting rid of that instantly 

and yeah smile i'm not gunna OC yet, need to get used to this PC and the UEFI bios first


----------



## spirit

Turbo10 said:


> What madness is this? I'll be getting rid of that instantly




If you're going to overclock it may be an idea to disable it.


----------



## CrayonMuncher

Tried to submit using blackhole but not sure if it went through.

Got the phenom to 4.3ghz, cable management ftw


----------



## Virssagòn

You should try this one too: http://www.computerforum.com/216232-discussion-beta-testing-thread-black-hole.html (v4.2 beta)


----------



## xarik

idk how good this is...but I'm rather happy considering it's my laptop and I was running a little high on ram and it got rather warm halfway through


----------



## turbobooster

so again another pc, so this is the score.


----------



## PCunicorn

Black Hole now has a site!
http://blackholetec.com/


----------



## Virssagòn

Okay guys! I made it! The website is finally (almost) done. Like you can see in the post above^
Sadly, I'm going on vacation, so the next version has to wait until August, as well as the big black hole competition!
PCunicorn will keep it a bit active, if you want to help, send me a PM here (I'll be online everyday, but not long enough to do anything on my project)
Submit your results to join the top of your category!


----------



## turbobooster

i will join.


----------



## Virssagòn

You already joined ;P


----------



## JasonPDK

On the PC in my signature:


----------



## turbobooster

its not a verry hard bord to learn, i do 4.5 on 1.2v with a 3570k, and mayby it can go lower.


----------



## turbobooster




----------



## CorruptHawkeyez

Goofing around on the laptop waiting for my replacement motherboard for my desktop. Is this about right for the processor and it being on a laptop?


----------



## Virssagòn

at the website you can find more results at the "benchmark results" tab. http://blackholetec.com/
There you'll find an i3 2328M which is almost similar in performance scoring 100 points less, so yes, your score should be about right for the hardware you have!


----------



## turbobooster

so my new set up.
just everithing on stock settings.
the specs of my pc you can see 4670k and the rest.


----------



## Virssagòn

turbobooster said:


> so my new set up.
> just everithing on stock settings.
> the specs of my pc you can see 4670k and the rest.



You know you're not allowed to post results from unreleased versions on the forum? Wait a little longer, thanks for the results though.


----------



## Romv19

Here is my bench






Sorry for the mistake new to the forum.


----------



## PCunicorn

You have to have notepad open with your username and date. Sorry, but your score is invalid until you update the post.


----------



## Virssagòn

will make a thread directly, all threads from black hole that now exist will be deleted or unstickied.


----------

