Diceman2037
Member
- Dec 19, 2011
- 54
- 0
- 66
Benchmarks are getting old. A CPU is for productive work. not benchmarking and getting happy or stability testing..... Use your Rig and do your work and enjoy it intstead of looking at some numbers....... gl
safe mode is perfectly fine for performance testing a cpu, unlike older versions of windows, vista and 7 keep dma enabled for memory and disk access
Benchmarks are getting old. A CPU is for productive work. not benchmarking and getting happy or stability testing..... Use your Rig and do your work and enjoy it intstead of looking at some numbers....... gl
If you have so many bloat ware in which safemode will actually give u a better score i think its time to reformat.
"benchmarks are getting old" lol, that is gold
anyhow.. wonder if this hotfix would help my e350 laptop at all? I dont have high hopes of it being able to play HD netflix, but you never know.
I guess the new 2 part update that was just released is not compatible with intel systems?
Tried to run both with the popup"the update is not applicable to your computer".
Or is the original file still floating around?
The patch "works" for my Intel CPU (i7-2670QM). Don't bother using this on a non BD CPU.
Geekbench benchmark before patch - 8900~
Geekbench benchmark after patch - 7900~
Aida64 before patch (CPU benchmarks) -
CPU Queen 33953
Photoworxx 49096
CPU ZLib 191.4 MB/s
...And so on.
Aida64 after patch -
CPU Queen 29813
Photoworxx 46941
CPU ZLib 170.9 MB/s
I could go on, but I see no improvements and hope people get the point.
why dont you try real benchmarks that support ht and use 8threads and see what the results are.the whole purpose of this patch is for 8+ threads.
Iv emailed this to many peeple and everyone has had there numbers go up while using 8 threads on a sandybridge cpu
I have a dual boot os right now and ill bet you 100 bucks that my numbers are up.Ask me a bench to run and ill post before and after numbers with the 2 different OS
Waht the patch does it make sure the application maps its thread differently depending on the workload.
so you get improved 8thread behavior and a lot worse low thread behavior? that would be a explainable and unacceptable for every SB user imo.
Depeding on the workload threads might be sheduled per Mdoule or per core. If the same anology is applied on SB (or intel cpu's) you will effectively have cases where you choose to run 2threads on 1core (+HT) instead of 2 cores like it is now. Which would be a huge loss in performance for SB.
Afaik this kind of optimization only aids designs without totally dedicated 'cores' for each thread. As in Intel HT cpus and AMD 'module' designs.
intel burn test gflops is up bigtime with hyperthreading and avx enabled.I broke 112gflops at only 4.9ghz
I couldnt break 100gflops at that speed before the hotfix
Is there a link for the 2 part update?
intel burn test gflops is up bigtime with hyperthreading and avx enabled.I broke 112gflops at only 4.9ghz
I couldnt break 100gflops at that speed before the hotfix
Nice! Just think, with a little more optimization you might beat the 120+gflops my 2500k gets @ 4.5ghz![]()
It's a hyperthreading thing. For some reason it scores lower in the GFlops with it enabled. Guess HT has advantages and disadvantages
Here's a screenshot of my 2700k at 4.8ghz with HT disabled in bios. The temps and voltages are with prime running in the background to get vcore under load and to see the whimpy temps prime generated compared to IBT
![]()
the second of the 2 patches is not required on Intel
Official link that the first patch does anything for Intel cpu's?
Official link that the first patch does anything for Intel cpu's?
