• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Show off your CPU

Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Messages
29
I have released a new free, multi-core benchmarking software.

http://cpu.smart-cam-mv.com/

The software measures your system's actual efficiency increase when a cpu- and memory-intensive task is taken from old single-threaded design and made to work with thread counts from 2 to 8. If two threads takes half as much time as one thread, that would be an efficiency of 2.00x.

In addition to displaying information on the screen, the software can write out a tiny file containing your CPU's ID String (ie "Intel Celeron"), your clock speed, your average core score, and your speed score. This information can then be uploaded to the MCB website to build a publicly viewable database containing CPU strings, maximum clocks, average clocks, average core score and average speed score.

img1.jpg


In the preceding example, I used an Athlon 64 X2 -- dual core, so I expected to get a final average core score of 2.00x and indeed it was 2.17x.

How can it be higher than 2.00x? Well, as a single-threaded task, L2 cache misses hold up processing, everything is fairly serialized. Break that task into two pieces (or more) and now you have new possibilities. One thread's processing will hide or mask the L2 cache miss latency of other threads in the same group.

I have seen Celeron M, a single core processor, achieve consistent high 2.xx to low 3.xx scores on some tests.

Please do try the software, and upload the MultCore.BIN file it produces.
For those of you who might be paranoid, the contents of the file is:

48 characters CPU ID String
4 bytes mcb version (4)
4 bytes clockspeed (240 = 2.40 GHz)
4 bytes core score (217 = 2.17x)
4 bytes speed score (0 to 36000)
4 bytes validation value (used to verify that the information is not fake)
60 bytes reserved future expansion (zero)
 
Nice job. I just took the top spot on your stats page, by the way ;). Average score of 3.7x.
 
Neat little prog there, I posted my score, I come right in the middle (so far) with my E2180, maybe I can give Zero a run for his money since I just got my Q9550 in today, time to start OCing!! Just gotta put it in first....
 
Upped my new score with the Q9550, 3.13x, with just a quick FSB and voltage OC, gotta find some time a sit around a fiddle with this new CPU a bit.
 
Interesting app, I just uploaded my results to your site.

core speed: 3.15x
speed core: 35850

q9550@3.4GHz (8.5x400)
2x2GB DDR2 800
Abit IP35-Pro
 
thanks for the program

q6600 here
8 gb ram
Foxcon p45 board

while running F@H too i got
core speed 3.58x
speed core 35790
 
e7200 @ 3.48ghz
2gbs of ram
core speed: 1.91x
speed score: 35770

Why is my core score so low?
 
Uploaded mine, but it doesn't calculate the correct core speed when you are running a non stock multiplier. I am running 10*290 or 2.9Ghz and it reports it like 11*290 or 3.2Ghz, same thing windows does.
 
Heh, I'm still on top. Let's see someone running a quad at >4GHz take the lead already...
 
I just did mine at 4.1GHz and I got a lower score than 3.8GHz and even lower than stock speeds...
 
I wonder if running a 64 bit OS affects the results?

Ran my laptop and it wasn't the lowest score surprisingly :D (1.73x 32390 Pentium III - M @ 933 MHz)

I want to see a Core i7
 
Heh, I'm still on top. Let's see someone running a quad at >4GHz take the lead already...

I just took # 2 with my X3350 @ 3.4....I gotta pump it up a bit and go for #1..:D

BRB

EDIT.Damn, lost #2 spot already..:eek:
 
Nice program OSC. Not too bad on a stock clocked Xeon 3350 on an Asus P5E with 4GB of Corsair C5DF 1066 RAM.

AceGoober_MCB4_2.jpg
 
Time to throw a dual quad in there. Only 4th place Average Speed but first in Core Score, how does that happen? Does this scale with 8 cores?
 
*scratches head* My speed score is not showing right I guess, on the site it's 35866 but it displays as 35880 in the prog. and doesn't go any higher with faster clocks (4.2ghz), and 3.11x on the site and 3.20x in the prog...

fe095e24.jpg
 
My X2 6000+ (stock) is holding up better than I expected. XP x64, FYI.

*scratches head* My speed score is not showing right I guess, on the site it's 35866 but it displays as 35880 in the prog. and doesn't go any higher with faster clocks (4.2ghz), and 3.11x on the site and 3.20x in the prog...

fe095e24.jpg

The site averages all your submissions. Yours currently shows "10 entries".
 
Athlon 64 4000+ (single core) @ 2.52Ghz

Core Score: 1.59x
Speed Score: 34950
 
My X2 6000+ (stock) is holding up better than I expected. XP x64, FYI.



The site averages all your submissions. Yours currently shows "10 entries".

Pff, well that sucks some serious ass. No way I am going to get the top spot then, I would have to clock 4.5+ to get it back up and my 800 RAM just isn't going to push that far.
 
Hmm, just hit 4.25GHz, RAM wont go over 1000 with 2v and stock timings, think I might have to go to 2.1v and loosen up the timings a bit and I think I can hit 4.5GHz with this RAM. I knew I should have gotten the 1066.
 
AMD athlon x2 BE-2350(2.1Ghz) @ 2.93Ghz did 2 tests..

Results:
1. core speed 2.10x
speed score 35620
2. core spead 2.18x
speed score 35620

guess ill have to take this thing back to 3.5Ghz and show up those c2d's :p
 
did a test on my notebook. got a speed core of 35250 and got a core score of 2.17x

not too shabby
 
x3350 @ stock 2.6ghz
2 x2 gb Mushkin
xp64bit

core score 3.61
speed score 35800
 
I get completely different results every time I run it. VERY different results. No consistency... needs a bit of work I think. Pretty cool though still.
 
Yeah I'm not sure what's good for bad.

Higher or Lower is better for Core Score?

Higher or Lower for Speed Score?
 
Yeah I'm not sure what's good for bad.

Higher or Lower is better for Core Score?

Higher or Lower for Speed Score?

Higher is better for both. You can use the sort options on the stats page to figure out what you should be aiming for.
 
Funny trend, AMD duals seem to post consistently higher "efficiency" than Intels. Also, pretty common for duals to get over a 2.0, but very few quads with a 4 yet... Wonder what that means. :)
Guys, please note that processor speed will NOT affect its ratio here.

2.18x out of an X2 3800+ at stock 2GHz.
 
X3360 @ 8.5x400=3.40 GHz/DDR2 @ 1,003 MHz

image1ju9.gif


Your benchmark didn't do a very effective job utilizing all four cores though:

shitdi1.gif
 
EDIT: might wanna give linpack a try, it is wicked good at utilizing all cores in a multicore machine. Screenshot of my system running Debian/Lenny (LINUX) running it:

15978852cs4.gif
 
Back
Top