Super Pi Scores, Post yours here.

Orph3us · Post by **Orph3us** » 05 Nov 2005, 15:38

AlphA wrote:After clocking to 3.6Ghz .... I now got 37 secs

HAHA Intel sucks! My standard 3500+ Athlon64 scores 37secs in 32bit XP-home with 1gig ram. NO overclock needed!!

AlphA · Post by **AlphA** » 05 Nov 2005, 22:58

Orph3us wrote:
AlphA wrote:After clocking to 3.6Ghz .... I now got 37 secs
HAHA Intel sucks! My standard 3500+ Athlon64 scores 37secs in 32bit XP-home with 1gig ram. NO overclock needed!!

*sigh* - Dont tell me Intel sucks....I prefer Intel to AMD, but I will not say it sucks....Its childish to tell someone that their preferance susks!

How much does your board, RAM and CPU cost to get that 37secs? I didn't spend much to build this system, and I think it performs really well for the money I spent.

And so what so bad about overclocking that you're so proud that you did not "need" to do it????

Basipooh · Post by **Basipooh** » 07 Nov 2005, 23:38

Orph3us wrote:
AlphA wrote:After clocking to 3.6Ghz .... I now got 37 secs
HAHA Intel sucks! My standard 3500+ Athlon64 scores 37secs in 32bit XP-home with 1gig ram. NO overclock needed!!

They shud get similar scores coz a 3500+ is comparable to a 3.6ghz p4 as the pi score sugests.
the 3500+ is also more expensive than a 3ghz p4 which is wat alpha actually has.

Try underclocking urs to 3000+ and bench it against a stock 3ghz p4 and it will be quite even.

AlphA · Post by **AlphA** » 08 Nov 2005, 21:33

Basipooh wrote:the 3500+ is also more expensive than a 3ghz p4 which is wat alpha actually has.

This is just what I was trying to prove. No use going on how much faster your system is.....the question is, how much bang did you get for your buck?? (mobo, chip & RAM)...

A friend of mine has an AMD64 3000+ (Venice) clocked up to 2500Mhz and he scores 36....so he's beating your scores Orpheus...Spent a lot less than you did too ...

Orph3us · Post by **Orph3us** » 17 Dec 2005, 10:39

AlphA wrote:
Basipooh wrote:the 3500+ is also more expensive than a 3ghz p4 which is wat alpha actually has.
This is just what I was trying to prove. No use going on how much faster your system is.....the question is, how much bang did you get for your buck?? (mobo, chip & RAM)...

A friend of mine has an AMD64 3000+ (Venice) clocked up to 2500Mhz and he scores 36....so he's beating your scores Orpheus...Spent a lot less than you did too ...

Spent less on the CPU...yes, but how much extra did he spend to get RAM able to cope with those frequencies, because I know that the multiplier is locked? And any "special" cooling added?? Spent a LOT less you say... i don't think so!

Consider this: You buy a CPU for about R1200, clock it up 700Mhz and it dies not long after OR you pay R2000 for a CPU, spend no extra on aftermarket cooling score the same and be able to sleep peacefully at night?

I got bang for my buck - CPU, RAM and Mobo cost me R4000, your friend will probably just get bang disguised as blue-screen or failure to boot one day.

edit: R300 less is not a lot!

Oj · Post by Oj » 17 Dec 2005, 14:02

Intel sux Intel sux Intel sux Intel sux Intel sux Intel sux. Sorry, couldn't help myself. They're cool.

jPm · Post by **jPm** » 17 Dec 2005, 14:23

Please ppl this thread isnt about which processor sucks!!!!

Orph3us>>> i Have a intel 640, that is the 64 bit 3.2ghz, not clocked a bit, and i achieve 38 seconds constantly and that is with hyperthreading ON!!!

So my mobo, processor and ram costs alot less than yours and my processor is not suppose to be in the same league as yours

My laptop achieved 39seconds and thats a Pentium M 1.8ghz, So im sure Intel does suck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oj · Post by Oj » 17 Dec 2005, 14:35

Sorry, I aimed something at jPm. Have cooled done now. Feel free to delete this post. I'm just saying that I was joking.

MrBean · Post by **MrBean** » 17 Dec 2005, 16:26

@ Orpheus: Mmm....let's see....

2gig Intel Pentium-M
P4GD1 Asus Desktop board
CT-479 convertor
Any crap old ram that can do DDR266

34sec SuperPI. Kills FX55/ Kills 4800+

So yeah. Will cost the same as yours, but kill it over and over in any gaming benchmark. And it's a laptop cpu...rofl...

AlphA · Post by **AlphA** » 17 Dec 2005, 19:52

jPm · Post by **jPm** » 17 Dec 2005, 20:06

DJT · Post by **DJT** » 17 Dec 2005, 20:54

48sec, but I am running things atm that i can't close down. Will try later when I am not so busy

jPm · Post by **jPm** » 17 Dec 2005, 21:14

WOW, kill all tasks and try again, coz ther is defnitely something wrong with that super PI count

DJT · Post by **DJT** » 17 Dec 2005, 21:18

Will do it tomorrow

dammod · Post by **dammod** » 18 Dec 2005, 00:36

Guys remember the 3800+x2 is not clocked really high. So it wont get such a good score.

MrBean · Post by **MrBean** » 18 Dec 2005, 11:45

48sec, but I am running things atm that i can't close down. Will try later when I am not so busy

Mmm...and there I thought it wouldn't really matter with dual-core cpu?

Me thinks you have a nother issue than open apps

Abatis · Post by **Abatis** » 18 Dec 2005, 18:37

don't really think that he has a problem with his system, i get the same score as he does (48s) but the difference is that we can do almost anything on our system while it's busy and get the same score

everythings got its pro's and cons

MrBean · Post by **MrBean** » 18 Dec 2005, 19:43

48 sec sounds to low. I have 4800+ on a dirty install, which is clocked at 2400mHz, with 1m L2 cache. I score around 35sec SuperPI 1M test, I would think with 2000mHz and 512M L2 Cache, you should get closer to 41-42sec.

I may be wrong, but let me investigate stock scores for your cpu, and I'll get back to you

edit: Have you guys done this?

Br,
Beanie.

TheDee · Post by **TheDee** » 18 Dec 2005, 23:15

38s on P4 3.0 running @ 3.8

37s @4.0 - not 100% stable, unfortunately

Abatis · Post by **Abatis** » 18 Dec 2005, 23:22

MrBean wrote:48 sec sounds to low. I have 4800+ on a dirty install, which is clocked at 2400mHz, with 1m L2 cache. I score around 35sec SuperPI 1M test, I would think with 2000mHz and 512M L2 Cache, you should get closer to 41-42sec.

I may be wrong, but let me investigate stock scores for your cpu, and I'll get back to you

edit: Have you guys done this?

Br,
Beanie.

thanks bean, but i've already done that, and i'm not running cool and quiet

edit: oops, sorry for some reason i got the impression from the site i got the patch from that i was supposed to change the key to a 0 i'll change it quick then see if it helps

edit: ok, i'm getting a small performance increase to 45s.
out of curiousity i set the affinity so that it runs only on 1 core and i got 46s

DJT · Post by **DJT** » 19 Dec 2005, 10:51

I got 46sec with nothing running

MrBean · Post by **MrBean** » 19 Dec 2005, 22:36

Erm....3 seconds are not a small increase That is a lot

Probably in the order of around 100-150mHz higher clock on your cpu.

I still think you are short 3 seconds, you should be getting closer to 42, but it is an improvement.

Oj · Post by Oj » 20 Dec 2005, 16:52

You guys are saying that 48sex (sorry, secs) is a bit low. Be glad that you don't get 6hr24min41sec !!!

DJT · Post by **DJT** » 20 Dec 2005, 18:28

lol, my old lap top would crash before it got a quarter of the way in.

Abatis · Post by **Abatis** » 20 Dec 2005, 19:14

Oj wrote:You guys are saying that 48sex (sorry, secs) is a bit low. Be glad that you don't get 6hr24min41sec !!!

8O

are you sure you are running the 1mb test?