Please help!!! Benchmarks... (WinXP)!

Mephistopheles

Distinguished
Feb 10, 2003
2,444
0
19,780
A few colleagues of mine are a little skeptical about the Core 2 Duo. They've used Athlon 64s extensively, so they've come to like A64s, but I've told them that C2Ds are the way to go right now in almost all cases.

So to prove my point, I would very much appreciate it if any of you guys could take this small program and execute it. It's simple stuff, really: it does a series of (obviously harmless to you!) calculations and then returns the time it took to finish. The calculations themselves are a mix of typical code from my colleagues, which makes this an adequate representation of their performance requirements.

So let's get to it:
Here's the binary! (NOT a virus, don't worry)

It's only one file: the executable, bmark3.exe, which takes a while to run, then simply reports a time.

...and I've scored ~37 seconds on an Athlon 64 X2 4200, an Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe and 2GB DDR400 (OCZ Platinum Enhanced Latency @ 2-3-2-5). Unfortunately, there are a few fluctuations in the results if you run this several times, but the result doesn't fluctuate beyond, say, ±5% from the average if you do the statistics.

If possible, I'd like anyone who runs this to say on which CPU + motherboard + memory this was executed on!!

Oh, and sorry for not making the source available - they've told me not to do so.

Please help me by just running this and reporting!! Even if you don't have a C2D! I'm very much interested in any performance I can get for this! Thanks!
 

skyguy

Distinguished
Aug 14, 2006
2,408
0
19,780
Why not just run Super-pi? There's no install, and it's based on calculations, just like yours......except Super-pi is a proven standard here.

Try out Super-pi, calculated to 1 million digits, and report back here to compare.....most people here have their Super-pi times.

Mine:

E6300 Core2Duo @ 1.86 ghz (stock) = 29.5 seconds
E6300 now overclocked @ 3.0 ghz = 19.5 seconds.

An AMD X2 4200 I'm currently building for a friend (almost identical to your specs) @ 2.2 ghz stock = 40 seconds. So, since you say you got 37 seconds, my guess is that your friends' program is extremely similar to Super-pi, plus or minus. Considering my cheap rig is twice as fast as your AMD (and I used to have an AMD X2 3800).......I'd say C2D wins in a landslide ;)
 

slicessoul

Distinguished
Apr 18, 2006
771
0
18,980
You can told them to go to tomshardware.com, anandtech.com and any other sites who do the benches.
I hope you're not skeptical too cuz you are still on AMD rig. Why don't you prove it by yourself by using C2D and show it directly to your skeptical colleagues.
You said that C2D is the way to go right now, why you don't take the way right now ? If you think it's worth it, then do it and prove it.
 

Mephistopheles

Distinguished
Feb 10, 2003
2,444
0
19,780
Yes, well, I could use SuperPI, but this specific code is exactly what my colleague will be running and it is exactly what he wants to be fast!... So that's the point...

Well... actually, I was kind of sold on all the benchmarks I saw on the net, but I'm doing this because this guy is one of the "if I haven't checked it myself it ain't true" kind of person, you know?... :)

Thank you very much for your interest!
 

Avalanche

Distinguished
Oct 30, 2004
66
0
18,630
Ran 36.125 on a Prescott 3.2 while FAH was running plus other programs. (Work machine) 2gb memory. Also a Dell.

Note Super PI 1M on the same machine ran 59s.
 

ElMoIsEviL

Distinguished
X6800 Core2Extreme @ 2.93GHz (stock) = 19s
X6800 OC'ed to 4.7GHz = 9.65s

E6600 OC'ed to 3.6GHz = 16s

Hmmm it's not linear per MHz technically I should be getting around 11s not 9s. Perhaps the wider BUS helps more or something.
 

sruane

Distinguished
Aug 18, 2006
707
0
18,980
You've got to be kidding.

Here - download this binary - Trust Me!

yeah, right.

I'm offended that you would assume I'm such an idiot.
 
G

Guest

Guest
One thing Mephistopheles got that you lack:
Credibility....

Now go pr0n site get some spyware/dialers or something... :twisted:

Hey Mephistopheles great to see you posting again =)
 

Avalanche

Distinguished
Oct 30, 2004
66
0
18,630
Old P4 3.2ghzHT Prescott 1gb of ram (School Computer)(also Dell) got a 26.92 s on the time for that bench program

Because of this I decided to turn off FAH and Autocad etc. and Ran program again and now have 24.51562s same machine with 2gb ram.
 
G

Guest

Guest
50 Sec on a IBM T43, P-M 2.0ghz, with 1 gig of ram but it's my work laptop, sooo many process running...50+...
 

Grimmy

Splendid
Feb 20, 2006
4,431
0
22,780
P4 3.0/800 Northwood:

[code:1:c76a40392b] Starting Benchmark....
Total time = 47.46875 Process = 47.45312
Fortran Pause - Enter command<CR> or <CR> to continue.[/code:1:c76a40392b]
 

three0duster

Distinguished
Mar 1, 2006
112
0
18,690
ok Home system Lots of crap running in background, 30.5s
AMD 3800 x2 @ 2.6 Ghz S939
2 GB ram loose timings

kinda slow on AMD's I guess, maybe its one of those programs that actually do run well or better on an Intel system, (ie, encoding , stuff like that)

Time to oc some more and clean up some background programs and try it again :wink:

ok 2.7ghz still stuff running 29.3s
Looked at Cpu Usage history and its only utilizing the first core, and the second is doing nothing different than no Bmark running.
gonna try it on roomys computers and report back

ok set it to run on 2nd core only 29.29 s @ 2.7 so does not make use of dual cores on AMD processors at all, maybe a programming issue (or thats how it was made) or Windows is not making both cores do anything with it
@ 2.75 ghz 28.51 still nowhere close to Intel :x
@ 2.8 ghz 28.0s

AMD64 3200+ @ 2.5ghz 1G mem 34s

Awaiting an opty 144 @ 2.4Ghz