[hwbot] wPrime 1024m ranking

[Th3 F4ll3n P1mp]

Nope nothing. I had seti running, but I paused it.

Could it be that I am running it off an extremely slow 5400 rpm hard drive?

 

[toddm27]

I don't think that'll play that big a difference into it, try a reboot and disable seti and retry it

 

[Th3 F4ll3n P1mp]

Nah, right now, I dont have seti running, or any other program. I rebooted, and got 47 seconds at 3.3 ghz. Something is messed up.

 

[toddm27]

ok, well I just looked back at your result and you've only got one core running the benchmark go into advanced and set it to use all 4 cores

 

[El<(')>Maxi]

He needs to click 'Advanced' and choose 4 threads with that chip...and install the missing libraries.

 

[Mu||et]

He needs to click 'Advanced' and choose 4 threads with that chip...and install the missing libraries.

You beat me to it.

 

[Th3 F4ll3n P1mp]

Thanks guys. Its way faster now. I will post some results soon.

 

[Th3 F4ll3n P1mp]

[hwbot]358.000s - Q6700 @ 3.6[/hwbot]

I just destroyed some people on here lol.

 

[OC101]

[hwbot]620.109 - Intel E8400 @ 4004 MHz[/hwbot]



I found something interesting.


First, I ran it with 2 threads since it is Dual Core.

Then, I ran it with 4 threads.

I did a bunch of tests on different amount of threads (1 to 12).

Conclusion:
The best result is with 4 threads, in other word -
You get the best score when the amount of threads is twice the number of the cores.

 

[Th3 F4ll3n P1mp]

[hwbot]620.109 - Intel E8400 @ 4004 MHz[/hwbot]



I found something interesting.


First, I ran it with 2 threads since it is Dual Core.

Then, I ran it with 4 threads.

I did a bunch of tests on different amount of threads (1 to 12).

Conclusion:
The best result is with 4 threads, in other word -
You get the best score when the amount of threads is twice the number of the cores.

Interesting. I was playing around and doing the same thing with my quad, but 4 threads is the best, sometimes you get higher scores, sometimes you get identical scores.

 

[Boosted98gsx]

[hwbot]402.372 - Phenom x4 9950 BE @ 3009MHz[/hwbot]

 

[omni]

[hwbot]376.787 sec - Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 @ 3329 mhz[/hwbot]

 

[schumi]

[hwbot]428.977 sec - QX9650 @ 3000 mhz[/hwbot]

 

[keepaf1]

[hwbot]464.906s - QX6800@3149mhz [/hwbot]


http://www.hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=768502

 

[zacdrew]

[hwbot]18min 2sec 520ms - X2 4200+ @2618Mhz[/hwbot]

http://www.hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=773041

 

[Evilsizer]

[hwbot]4475.328s - Atom 230 @ stock - HD 2400 PRO @ stock[/hwbot]

 

[Automiketic]

hwbot has this one:
Q9400 @ 4006.2MHz - 288.10 sec
http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=774775

 

[MIAHALLEN]

[hwbot]281.035 - Q6600 @ 4.662GHz[/hwbot] on LN2

 

[rdrash]

SWEET!!! Great job Miah.... very good see you playing cold

 

[baditude_df]

[hwbot]347.288 - Q9450 @ 3.6GHz[/hwbot] H2O

3.6GHz with 750MHz RAM @ 5-5-5-15 2T beats out the 3.8GHz with 791MHz RAM @6-6-6-16 2T.