This topic is locked from further discussion.
Download SuperPI
http://www.xtremesystems.com/pi/super_pi_mod-1.5.zip
and
CPUZ
http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php
And post a screenshot of your 4M score and system specs.
Here are mine -
3800+ single OCed to 2.5GHz (from 2.4Ghz, stock cooling) 2:53
3000+ Single 32bit at stock 2.1GHz 4:10
Athlon X2 3800+ 4:06 How come all you other people got a shorter time that I did?
[QUOTE="brenden27"]what does the number stand for? like 3:58 or 4:16. What is it?basersx
It’s how long it takes your CPU to calculate to 4 million digits of Pi (3.14…). 4 million digits (4M) seems to be the standard when talking about Super Pi on most OC boards.
It's actually 1M.
1M in 35s. Terrible. :( [QUOTE="basersx"][QUOTE="brenden27"]what does the number stand for? like 3:58 or 4:16. What is it?Fayt_Liengod
It’s how long it takes your CPU to calculate to 4 million digits of Pi (3.14…). 4 million digits (4M) seems to be the standard when talking about Super Pi on most OC boards.
It's actually 1M. 1M in 35s. Terrible. :(Do the 4M test.
Pentium M 2.13ghz , 3m 33sec
3m 17.469s on stock 4400+
Â
[QUOTE="basersx"][QUOTE="PikaPichu"] [QUOTE="basersx"][QUOTE="PikaPichu"] [QUOTE="brenden27"]Athlon X2 3800+ 4:06 How come all you other people got a shorter time that I did?
re-raid
Yeah but Super PI should be a test that makes the dual cores shine. I have always said the 3800+ X2 was a terrible CPU because of its ridiculously slow clock speed, I mean the 3000+ 32 bit CPU I bought in 2004 has a faster clock speed then the 3800+ x2! Still I was really surprised that guy only got a 4:something. I would have guessed mid 3s. I guess the duals really are not all they are cracked up to be.
Only if you intend to run one major application (with no dual core support) at a time. If we were all to run a game like Half Life 2 and Super Pi at the same time, single core users like me would see a major increase in the amount of time it takes to calculate 4M whereas dual core users would see little to no hit at all.
Well that is a very unrealistic scenario. The duals already should be handling all the other background apps on any desktop leaving one core solely for super pi. Meaning even without running a game the duals should be beating the singles. That’s the whole idea. And I know for a fact that the Intel Core Duos dominate this test. I saw someone got below 1 min of the 4M test with Core Duo. Bottom line the x2 chips should still have a major advantage over singles running this test under all situations. And so far it doesn’t look like its true. I would like to see some more scores though. We need to see someone with a 4400+ and 4600+ run this.
which core duo did you see get under a minuite on the 4m test? Was it Overclocked or stock?Here is one from another board. He got 1:03 with this one, that’s insanely fast!!
[QUOTE="re-raid"][QUOTE="basersx"][QUOTE="PikaPichu"] [QUOTE="basersx"][QUOTE="PikaPichu"] [QUOTE="brenden27"]
Athlon X2 3800+ 4:06 How come all you other people got a shorter time that I did?
basersx
Yeah but Super PI should be a test that makes the dual cores shine. I have always said the 3800+ X2 was a terrible CPU because of its ridiculously slow clock speed, I mean the 3000+ 32 bit CPU I bought in 2004 has a faster clock speed then the 3800+ x2! Still I was really surprised that guy only got a 4:something. I would have guessed mid 3s. I guess the duals really are not all they are cracked up to be.
Only if you intend to run one major application (with no dual core support) at a time. If we were all to run a game like Half Life 2 and Super Pi at the same time, single core users like me would see a major increase in the amount of time it takes to calculate 4M whereas dual core users would see little to no hit at all.
Well that is a very unrealistic scenario. The duals already should be handling all the other background apps on any desktop leaving one core solely for super pi. Meaning even without running a game the duals should be beating the singles. That’s the whole idea. And I know for a fact that the Intel Core Duos dominate this test. I saw someone got below 1 min of the 4M test with Core Duo. Bottom line the x2 chips should still have a major advantage over singles running this test under all situations. And so far it doesn’t look like its true. I would like to see some more scores though. We need to see someone with a 4400+ and 4600+ run this.
which core duo did you see get under a minuite on the 4m test? Was it Overclocked or stock?Here is one from another board. He got 1:03 with this one, that’s insanely fast!!
[QUOTE="basersx"][QUOTE="re-raid"][QUOTE="basersx"][QUOTE="PikaPichu"] [QUOTE="basersx"][QUOTE="PikaPichu"] [QUOTE="brenden27"]
Athlon X2 3800+ 4:06 How come all you other people got a shorter time that I did?
HeatForLife
Yeah but Super PI should be a test that makes the dual cores shine. I have always said the 3800+ X2 was a terrible CPU because of its ridiculously slow clock speed, I mean the 3000+ 32 bit CPU I bought in 2004 has a faster clock speed then the 3800+ x2! Still I was really surprised that guy only got a 4:something. I would have guessed mid 3s. I guess the duals really are not all they are cracked up to be.
Only if you intend to run one major application (with no dual core support) at a time. If we were all to run a game like Half Life 2 and Super Pi at the same time, single core users like me would see a major increase in the amount of time it takes to calculate 4M whereas dual core users would see little to no hit at all.
Well that is a very unrealistic scenario. The duals already should be handling all the other background apps on any desktop leaving one core solely for super pi. Meaning even without running a game the duals should be beating the singles. That’s the whole idea. And I kjavascript:void(0); Quick Quotenow for a fact that the Intel Core Duos dominate this test. I saw someone got below 1 min of the 4M test with Core Duo. Bottom line the x2 chips should still have a major advantage over singles running this test under all situations. And so far it doesn’t look like its true. I would like to see some more scores though. We need to see someone with a 4400+ and 4600+ run this.
which core duo did you see get under a minuite on the 4m test? Was it Overclocked or stock?Here is one from another board. He got 1:03 with this one, that’s insanely fast!!
any graphics benching apps out there? can you link like you did when you first started this thread?re-raid
3DMark, but its a 500meg download. - http://www.futuremark.com/download/3dmark06/
Here is my results -
They are not very good because this test is almost all video card even though it does run a CPU test. And my 6800GT holds me back on it.
My 3DMark over all score is 2654. (in 1280x1024)
[QUOTE="basersx"][QUOTE="PikaPichu"] [QUOTE="brenden27"]Athlon X2 3800+ 4:06 How come all you other people got a shorter time that I did?
PikaPichu
Yeah but Super PI should be a test that makes the dual cores shine. I have always said the 3800+ X2 was a terrible CPU because of its ridiculously slow clock speed, I mean the 3000+ 32 bit CPU I bought in 2004 has a faster clock speed then the 3800+ x2! Still I was really surprised that guy only got a 4:something. I would have guessed mid 3s. I guess the duals really are not all they are cracked up to be.
Only if you intend to run one major application (with no dual core support) at a time. If we were all to run a game like Half Life 2 and Super Pi at the same time, single core users like me would see a major increase in the amount of time it takes to calculate 4M whereas dual core users would see little to no hit at all.
Ok, I thought this was a really stupid idea when you said it but it made me think. So in my never ending effort to prove how useless dual cores are I did just what you said. I ran Hl2 in 1280x1024 with everything maxed. I went to a water scene and positioned my guy to be right in the water so the whole view is water. I then alt tabbed out and ran SuperPi.
I still was able to run the 4M test in 3:15 with HL2 running at the same time!!
I would love to see some dual users do this. But if having HL2 running only slows Super Pi but 20 seconds on a single core it already shows dual cores are not needed for anything people do on their computers!!!!
Clock speed is everything do not believe the 64bit/dual core hype!!!!
2 Min 44 Sec Super PI, CPU Z 
2 Min 55 Sec Super PI, CPU Z, Oblivion on high (I was running around Imperial city wacking people and running away from the guards while Super PI was running), SpeedFan, the LCD program for my G15 keyboard, Google Desktop, McAfee Firewall, McAfee Antivirus (it wasn't scanning, just doing the system moniter thingy), nVidia settings in the taskbar, and the mouse program for my MX 815 Summary: The time increased by 11 seconds when the system was under a lot more stress. Hope this helps. Note: While playing Oblivion with Super PI in the back ground, there was no visible difference in game. I was getting 30 to 60 FPS, which is what I normally get, with no stuttering. basersx- Here are two pictures of my dual core AMD X2 4600 running Super PI 4M. The first one is just Super PI, the second one is Super PI running along side a bunch of other applications and games.
Well that’s fine but I doubt all that would run much slower on a single core. Oblivion is actually not a very CPU intensive game unlike what most people think. The benchmarks show that Oblivion runs at the same FPS regardless if it’s a 3500+ single or a 4800+ dual when running at 1280x1024, the game is all video card. The fact that yours did run 11 seconds slower shows it’s very similar to what I lost with HL2. I had all the NVIDIA Cpanel, Asus cPanel, messenger, etc.running on my test also.
Once again this shows no real advantage in duals over singles even when you do run many apps at the same time!!
Look at this!! I ran SuperPi with both HL2 and Oblivion running!! I even went in and played HL2 while it was running, which was a little jumpy in spots but was very playable and read as 72FPS even around the water! I got a 3:13!!! That’s 1 second faster than when I just ran HL2 without Oblivion!!
Haha! This proves that not only is Oblivion not very CPU intensive, it is in fact negatively intensive. jk, but anyways I just ran Super PI again without Oblivion, but with the other back ground apps, and got 2 min 48 secs (4 seconds slower than nothing running at all). That's actually a lot more surprising than the 11 second drop in Oblivion (since even though Oblivion is heavily GPU dependant, it still needs quite a bit of CPU power to manage the AI for the characters I was hitting and being hit by. A good CPU might not increase frame rates much during most of Oblivion, but it will definately help in a city at noon when everyone is outside walking around, talking to eachother, etc) I was hoping that most of the background apps would run on one core, while only Super PI ran on the second core, but I guess that didn't happen... I wonder if the times would change any if I manually changed the affinity of the all my background processes to one core and Super PI to the second core. I don't know much about how procs work, but maybe that would work better since I'd have 2.6 ghz devoted just to Super PI while another 2.6 ghz for everything else. -Moth
Look at this!! I ran SuperPi with both HL2 and Oblivion running!! I even went in and played HL2 while it was running, which was a little jumpy in spots but was very playable and read as 72FPS even around the water! I got a 3:13!!! That’s 1 second faster than when I just ran HL2 without Oblivion!!
basersx
[QUOTE="basersx"]Haha! This proves that not only is Oblivion not very CPU intensive, it is in fact negatively intensive. jk, but anyways I just ran Super PI again without Oblivion, but with the other back ground apps, and got 2 min 48 secs (4 seconds slower than nothing running at all). That's actually a lot more surprising than the 11 second drop in Oblivion (since even though Oblivion is heavily GPU dependant, it still needs quite a bit of CPU power to manage the AI for the characters I was hitting and being hit by. A good CPU might not increase frame rates much during most of Oblivion, but it will definately help in a city at noon when everyone is outside walking around, talking to eachother, etc) I was hoping that most of the background apps would run on one core, while only Super PI ran on the second core, but I guess that didn't happen... I wonder if the times would change any if I manually changed the affinity of the all my background processes to one core and Super PI to the second core. I don't know much about how procs work, but maybe that would work better since I'd have 2.6 ghz devoted just to Super PI while another 2.6 ghz for everything else. -Moth
Look at this!! I ran SuperPi with both HL2 and Oblivion running!! I even went in and played HL2 while it was running, which was a little jumpy in spots but was very playable and read as 72FPS even around the water! I got a 3:13!!! That’s 1 second faster than when I just ran HL2 without Oblivion!!
MothSky
I think this just shows there is really NOTHING people actually do that uses dual core. Even when we try to come up with crazy things that no one would ever do, running 2 top of the line games and an intensive CPU benchmark at the same time, there still isn’t much of a difference.
This is what I have been saying all along. I’m glad that the manufactures want to change to all dual cores and phase out singles and I don’t have a problem with that at all. But because there is absolutely nothing that can use them yet it should be free to the consumer. They should have just said on at such and such a date we will stop making 2.4 GHz singles and only make 2.4GHz duals, and they will be the same price. But of course what they do is hype up the whole thing and give them names like "4400+" to try to make you think a 2.2GHz dual is going to be many times faster than a 2.4GHz single. This is total garbage.Â
They pulled the same marketing scam with the 64bit CPUs too.
I'm getting 3:15 in the 4M test
Actually now i got 2:50 for 4M test.
Log in to comment