Endless Paradigm

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Lol, your laptop core2 ripped up the i7 people...

This benchmark doesn't like core i7?  Probably just a lot of single threaded apps (which is the case in real life too, so can't really blame them).

EDIT: No, I fail reading.  That was 3Dmark05 not Vantage...

Who agrees that the x264 benchmark should be the official EP benchmark?   Hiding_something

Assassinator Wrote:Lol, your laptop core2 ripped up the i7 people...

This benchmark doesn't like core i7? Probably just a lot of single threaded apps (which is the case in real life too, so can't really blame them).

Who agrees that the x264 benchmark should be the official EP benchmark?

I do. Yeah, the lack of a multi-threaded benchmark is a flaw.. I guessing PCMark Vantage has multi-thread..

STILL, that benchmark is only 33MB.

I'll add it to the main post.

Senseito7 Wrote:
Assassinator Wrote:Lol, your laptop core2 ripped up the i7 people...

This benchmark doesn't like core i7? Probably just a lot of single threaded apps (which is the case in real life too, so can't really blame them).

Who agrees that the x264 benchmark should be the official EP benchmark?

I do. Yeah, the lack of a multi-threaded benchmark is a flaw.. I guessing PCMark Vantage has multi-thread..

STILL, that benchmark is only 33MB.

I'll add it to the main post.

1. PCMark Vantage was the benchmark I was talking about where the core2duos ripped up the corei7s.

2. The x264 benchmark being the official EP benchmark bit was a joke.... though I wouldn't mind if it is...

Assassinator Wrote:
Senseito7 Wrote:
Assassinator Wrote:Lol, your laptop core2 ripped up the i7 people...

This benchmark doesn't like core i7? Probably just a lot of single threaded apps (which is the case in real life too, so can't really blame them).

Who agrees that the x264 benchmark should be the official EP benchmark?

I do. Yeah, the lack of a multi-threaded benchmark is a flaw.. I guessing PCMark Vantage has multi-thread..

STILL, that benchmark is only 33MB.

I'll add it to the main post.

1. PCMark Vantage was the benchmark I was talking about where the core2duos ripped up the corei7s.

2. The x264 benchmark being the official EP benchmark bit was a joke.... though I wouldn't mind if it is...

That's pretty spoon of Futuremark O_o

anyway, lets give x264 Benchmark a shot, I've added relevent info and a board ready for first score. Work machine testing shall commence xD

Senseito7 Wrote:That's pretty spoon of Futuremark O_o

Not really....

Because PCMark tries to simulate your computers performance in real life usage, and in real life, how many of your applications are actually multithreaded? If I weren't encoding stuff 1/3 the time my computer is on, I so would get dual core (eg. corei5) over quad.

Also, it's not just to test CPU power, but other parts of the computer too.

Assassinator Wrote:Because PCMark tries to simulate your computers performance in real life usage, and in real life, how many of your applications are actually multithreaded? If I weren't encoding stuff 1/3 the time my computer is on, I so would get dual core (eg. corei5) over quad.

Also, it's not just to test CPU power, but other parts of the computer too.

Then it is not suitable for our purposes xD

Anyway, how do wee want to work out the points? I just run the benchmark on my Work PC..

Code:

			x264 HD BENCHMARK 3.0 RESULTS 
 
Please do not compare it with older versions of the benchmark! 
Please copy/paste everything below the line to to report your data 
 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
 
Results for x264.exe r1342 
-------------------------- 
encoded 1442 frames, 34.02 fps, 3899.26 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 34.24 fps, 3899.26 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 33.19 fps, 3899.26 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 33.05 fps, 3899.26 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 9.10 fps, 3970.96 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 9.02 fps, 3971.80 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 9.25 fps, 3970.53 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 9.15 fps, 3970.95 kb/s
 
 
System Details 
-------------- 
	Name			Intel Core 2 Duo E7500
	Codename		Wolfdale
	Specification		Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU     E7500  @ 2.93GHz
	Core Stepping		R0
	Technology		45 nm
	Stock frequency		2933 MHz
	Core Speed		2926.0 MHz
	FID range		6.0x - 11.0x
 
Northbridge			Intel P45/P43 rev. A3
Southbridge			Intel 82801JR (ICH10R) rev. 00
 
CAS# latency (CL)		6.0
RAS# to CAS# delay (tRCD)	6
RAS# Precharge (tRP)		6
Cycle Time (tRAS)		18
Command Rate (CR)		2T
Memory Frequency		399.0 MHz (2:3)
Memory Type			DDR2
Memory Size			3072 MBytes
Channels			Dual, (Symmetric)
 
Windows Version			Microsoft Windows 7 (6.1) Ultimate Edition   (Build 7600) 
 
Number of processors		1
Number of threads		2
	Number of threads	2 (max 2)
	L2 cache		3072 KBytes, 12-way set associative, 64-byte line size
	Instructions sets	MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, EM64T
	Package (platform ID)	Socket 775 LGA (0x0)
 
	Temperature 0	53°C (127°F) [0x35] (TMPIN0)
	Temperature 1	38°C (100°F) [0x26] (TMPIN1)
	Temperature 0	47°C (116°F) [0x35] (Core #0)
	Temperature 1	38°C (100°F) [0x3E] (Core #1)

Senseito7 Wrote:
Assassinator Wrote:Because PCMark tries to simulate your computers performance in real life usage, and in real life, how many of your applications are actually multithreaded? If I weren't encoding stuff 1/3 the time my computer is on, I so would get dual core (eg. corei5) over quad.

Also, it's not just to test CPU power, but other parts of the computer too.

Then it is not suitable for our purposes xD

And that's another reason why wee have multiple benchmarks.

Senseito7 Wrote:Anyway, how do wee want to work out the points? I just run the benchmark on my Work PC..

Lol, forget whatever I ever said about the x264 benchmark being the official benchmark... that's just a joke. It's not very suitable for that position with multiple reasons.

As for the scores for that, lets just let the interested post it in posts like yours and leave as is... other interested can seek them out if they want.

On the other hand, I added the 3DMark Vantage link to the main page.

Assassinator Wrote:Lol, forget whatever I ever said about the x264 benchmark being the official benchmark... that's just a joke. It's not very suitable for that position with multiple reasons.

As for the scores for that, lets just let the interested post it in posts like yours and leave as is... other interested can seek them out if they want.

On the other hand, I added the 3DMark Vantage link to the main page.

I wasn't considering any of them being "official"... up to the user which benches they do.

For the x264 PowerBoard, Wee'll just have to compare speeds and put them in order. [Name] and [URL of results].

>> You removed any mention of it >.>

/sigh..

Senseito7 Wrote:For the x264 PowerBoard, Wee'll just have to compare speeds and put them in order. [Name] and [URL of results].

>> You removed any mention of it >.>

/sigh..

Well, if enough people show interest in it, wee can always put it back on.

Andway, here's my results...

Code:

			x264 HD BENCHMARK 3.0 RESULTS 
 
Please do not compare it with older versions of the benchmark! 
Please copy/paste everything below the line to to report your data 
 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
 
Results for x264.exe r1342 
-------------------------- 
encoded 1442 frames, 51.64 fps, 3900.68 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 52.46 fps, 3901.21 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 52.02 fps, 3901.21 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 51.41 fps, 3900.68 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 16.15 fps, 3971.82 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 16.17 fps, 3971.58 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 16.10 fps, 3971.35 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 16.17 fps, 3971.84 kb/s
 
 
System Details 
-------------- 
	Name			AMD Phenom X4 9550
	Codename		Agena
	Specification		AMD Phenom(tm) 9550 Quad-Core Processor
	Core Stepping		DR-B3
	Technology		65 nm
	manufacturer		Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd.
	vendor			Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd.
	manufacturer		Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd.
	Stock frequency		2200 MHz
	Core Speed		2640.2 MHz
	FID range		5.0x - 11.0x
 
Northbridge			AMD 780G rev. 00
Southbridge			ATI SB700 rev. 00
 
CAS# latency (CL)		5.0
RAS# to CAS# delay (tRCD)	5
RAS# Precharge (tRP)		5
Cycle Time (tRAS)		13
Command Rate (CR)		2T
Memory Frequency		400.0 MHz (3:5)
Memory Type			DDR2
Memory Size			4096 MBytes
Channels			Dual, (Unganged)
 
Windows Version			Microsoft Windows 7 (6.1) Ultimate Edition   (Build 7600) 
 
Number of processors		1
Number of threads		4
	Number of threads	4 (max 4)
	L2 cache		4 x 512 KBytes, 16-way set associative, 64-byte line size
	Instructions sets	MMX (+), 3DNow! (+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4A, x86-64
	Package 		Socket AM2+ (940)
	Package Type		0x1
 
	Temperature 0	38°C (100°F) [0x26] (TMPIN0)
	Temperature 1	58°C (136°F) [0x3A] (TMPIN1)
	Temperature 2	65°C (148°F) [0x41] (TMPIN2)
	Temperature 0	45°C (112°F) [0x168] (Core #0)
	Temperature 1	45°C (112°F) [0x168] (Core #1)
	Temperature 3	45°C (112°F) [0x168] (Core #3)
	Temperature 2	45°C (112°F) [0x168] (Core #2)

Beat your work machine, but that's expected (quad vs dual). What I'm interested in knowing is if I can beat Zinga or not... because unless he recently decided to overclocked, I remember wee're quite similar.

Wowow, nippy machine Assassinator Madwin

Certainly appropriate for encoding ^^

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Assassinator

S7*

Assassinator

S7*

Assassinator

S7*

Assassinator

S7*

Assassinator

S7*