Crap! My 1.6GHz Core Duo Proc is as fast as my 3800+ X2 @ 2.4GHz!

[homestarmy]

Last night I was bored, so I ran Super Pi on my new laptop with a T2050 Core Duo @ 1.6 GHz - 38 seconds.

I ran the same on my dekstop, 3800+ X2 @2.4 GHz - 38 seconds as well! Yikes!

That was for 1M, so I changed it to 4M and got nearly the same result for each, within 2-4 seconds if I remember correctly!

It wasn't the most scientific thing, as my X2 was running Azureus in the background, but still, that's impressive.

However, with a test image doing a radial blur (test outlined in a thread here) my X2 beat the snot out of my laptop - 34 seconds vs 54 seconds.

However, RAM likely has A LOT do do with it. The desktop has 2GB while the laptop only has 512. How different would the scores likely be with the same amount of RAM?

 

[Thor86]

Who cares about SuperPi times, can you laptop do video/audio encoding or game just as fast as your desktop? I think not.

 

[homestarmy]

For me personally -

Gaming - who cares.

Video/Audio encoding - I'll have to test that. Recommend any good specific tests? Any pre-setup benchmarks?

Of course if it were video EDITING, I'm sure the laptop HDD would slow it down.

 

[zephyrprime]

The tendancy to use superpi as the measuring stick nowadays is so lame. People complain about synthetic benchmarks but at least they try to be a little bit diverse in what they do unlike superpi which does only one fricken thing.

 

[tvdang7]

Originally posted by: homestarmy
Last night I was bored, so I ran Super Pi on my new laptop with a T2050 Core Duo @ 1.6 GHz - 38 seconds.

I ran the same on my dekstop, 3800+ X2 @2.4 GHz - 38 seconds as well! Yikes!

That was for 1M, so I changed it to 4M and got nearly the same result for each, within 2-4 seconds if I remember correctly!

It wasn't the most scientific thing, as my X2 was running Azureus in the background, but still, that's impressive.

However, with a test image doing a radial blur (test outlined in a thread here) my X2 beat the snot out of my laptop - 34 seconds vs 54 seconds.

However, RAM likely has A LOT do do with it. The desktop has 2GB while the laptop only has 512. How different would the scores likely be with the same amount of RAM?

My 1.83 coreduo sucks VERY bad for CSS compared to my amd rig.pretty sure even at 2.0 ghz. i dont know why but yea.

 

[InlineFive]

Originally posted by: tvdang7

Originally posted by: homestarmy
Last night I was bored, so I ran Super Pi on my new laptop with a T2050 Core Duo @ 1.6 GHz - 38 seconds.

I ran the same on my dekstop, 3800+ X2 @2.4 GHz - 38 seconds as well! Yikes!

That was for 1M, so I changed it to 4M and got nearly the same result for each, within 2-4 seconds if I remember correctly!

It wasn't the most scientific thing, as my X2 was running Azureus in the background, but still, that's impressive.

However, with a test image doing a radial blur (test outlined in a thread here) my X2 beat the snot out of my laptop - 34 seconds vs 54 seconds.

However, RAM likely has A LOT do do with it. The desktop has 2GB while the laptop only has 512. How different would the scores likely be with the same amount of RAM?

My 1.83 coreduo sucks VERY bad for CSS compared to my amd rig.pretty sure even at 2.0 ghz. i dont know why but yea.

If I'm remembering correctly the Core follows the Intel trend of weak FPUs relying on heavily optimized SSE/SSE2/SSE3 code to be effective.

Where as AMD processors just have plain old, bruiser FPUs. While they may not be as fast as Intel CPUs for heavily optimized code they will really make a difference for unoptimized code.

 

[n19htmare]

Why are you comparing your laptop to a desktop. Laptops have never been as strong as desktops and I think you guys know why... it's a balance between power and battery compsumption along with size, weight and all that stuff....
Let me see you carry around your desktop to a starbucks... Heck that'd be halarious.

If you're gonna game and don't want to complain about it, get a desktop. A decent laptop with a decent graphics card will still game, but please don't compare it to desktops.

Meroms are are the faster mobile chips available to consumers. Period.

Originally posted by: tvdang7

My 1.83 coreduo sucks VERY bad for CSS compared to my amd rig.pretty sure even at 2.0 ghz. i dont know why but yea.

Hmm are you sure?
Are you comparing a core 2 at 1.83 Ghz to your opty which from your stepping it looks like you might have it at 2.8ghz+?

Maybe you're expecting a tad too much from your X850, VERY likely a GPU bottleneck in your case.

 

[homestarmy]

For reference, I was in class, remoted into my desktop and bored, so I ran this and the CS2 test.

 

[tvdang7]

Originally posted by: n19htmare
Why are you comparing your laptop to a desktop. Laptops have never been as strong as desktops and I think you guys know why... it's a balance between power and battery compsumption along with size, weight and all that stuff....
Let me see you carry around your desktop to a starbucks... Heck that'd be halarious.

If you're gonna game and don't want to complain about it, get a desktop. A decent laptop with a decent graphics card will still game, but please don't compare it to desktops.

Meroms are are the faster mobile chips available to consumers. Period.

Originally posted by: tvdang7

My 1.83 coreduo sucks VERY bad for CSS compared to my amd rig.pretty sure even at 2.0 ghz. i dont know why but yea.

Hmm are you sure?
Are you comparing a core 2 at 1.83 Ghz to your opty which from your stepping it looks like you might have it at 2.8ghz+?

Maybe you're expecting a tad too much from your X850, VERY likely a GPU bottleneck in your case.

yes im sure ive had a x600 which is pretty equal to my x1400 in my laptop and i had a 3200 and it ran good. go t notebookforums and ull see tons of threads saying how bad their super gaming laptop sucks for source.

 

[BrownTown]

i find it hard to believe a crappy laptop gfx card is being bottlenecked by a decent CPU.

 

[tvdang7]

its the physics of the game. do i need to support this thread with ppl with go7800gtx and 7900gs's for u to beleive me.

edit

http://www.notebookforums.com/showthread.php?t=118178&highlight=source
http://www.notebookforums.com/showthread.php?t=124441&highlight=source
http://www.notebookforums.com/showthread.php?t=113351&highlight=source

get a laptop before you tell me the cpu doesnt suck for source.
btw i jsut got this laptop last month before i had a 1.73ghz and 6800go no performance increase if graphics were on high or low.

 

[Duvie]

First of all 38sec with 2.4ghz oc sucks...you dont have the system well tweaked...

The E6300 I am testing with now gets 18sec at 3ghz

 

[SparkyJJO]

Counter-strike: Source ran flawlessly on my dell inspiron 9300 P-M 2GHz, gForce 6800 vanilla, 1.25GB RAM.

I sold that laptop on notebookforums actually. Now I have a desktop that needless to say pounds that laptop soundly (see my rigs link in my sig, first rig listed). For reference it does 1M in 30 seconds. I think it needs more tweaking (A64 3700+ @ 2.86GHz)

 

[tvdang7]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
Counter-strike: Source ran flawlessly on my dell inspiron 9300 P-M 2GHz, gForce 6800 vanilla, 1.25GB RAM.

I sold that laptop on notebookforums actually. Now I have a desktop that needless to say pounds that laptop soundly (see my rigs link in my sig, first rig listed). For reference it does 1M in 30 seconds. I think it needs more tweaking (A64 3700+ @ 2.86GHz)

2.0 is a good boost from the 1.73 i had.

 

[homestarmy]

Originally posted by: Duvie
First of all 38sec with 2.4ghz oc sucks...you dont have the system well tweaked...

The E6300 I am testing with now gets 18sec at 3ghz

Ok, you tell me what I need to do to make it so much better? And what is a good score?

 

[n19htmare]

opps.... i've been thinking it was core 2 duo....it's core duo....