Looking for some benchmark results (Now with results!)

CTho9305

Elite Member
Jul 26, 2000
9,214
1
81
I wrote a quick little loop to test the performance of certain combinations of instructions on my CPU and was curious what people with different CPUs get. It's 100% integer code - no floating point. It's designed to be mostly independent of FSB / memory performance and should fit in the CPU caches.

It produces no output, so you have to time it. On linux, do:
$ time ./foo32
or
$ time ./foo64
On windows, do:
C:\> timeit.bat (ignore any "Missing operator" messages)

Run it a few times and take a good result.

What you'll need:
(Windows) windows timer script and 32 bit windows binary (should work on 64 bit windows too)
(Linux, 32 bit) 32 bit linux binary
(Linux, 64 bit) 64 bit linux binary

Pretty results (New)
Graph
raw data

My results:
Athlon 64 X2 4400+ (2.3 GHz), 64 bit linux - 10.73 seconds
Athlon 64 X2 4400+ (2.3 GHz), 32 bit linux - 10.82 seconds
Athlon 64 X2 4400+ (2.3 GHz), 32 bit windows - 10.81 seconds
Athlon XP 2100+ (1.733 GHz), 32 bit windows - 17 seconds
From friends:
1.2 GHz tbird, 32 bit linux - 26.726 seconds
Core Duo 2.0 GHz, windows - 19 seconds
P4 2.7 GHz - 14.48 seconds
2200+ tbred (1.8GHz), 32 bit linux - 15.47 seconds
celery m (dothan) (1.4 GHz) - 26.82 seconds
Athlon 64 X2 (OC'ed to 2.7 GHz ) - 9.22 seconds
From replies
Core 2 Quad Q6600, vista (2.4 GHz) - 13 seconds (cputeq)
Core 2 Duo E6600, vista (OC'ed to 3.2 GHz) - 10 seconds (bfdd)
Core 2 Duo E6750 (OC'ed to 3.5 GHz) - 8.96 seconds (bryanW1995)
Core 2 Duo E2160 (OC'ed to 2.58 GHz) - 13 seconds (spikesoldier)
Athlon XP (2.3 GHz) - 12 seconds (SilentAssassin)
Core 2 Duo E6750 (OC'ed to 3.4 GHz) - 8.9 s (honolululu)

Source code if you don't want to use my binaries:
32 bit windows source (built with MSVC6)
32 bit linux source (g++ -O0 -o foo32 foo32.cpp if you're on a 64bit machine, add -m32)
64 bit linux source (g++ -O0 -o foo64 foo64.cpp)
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Vista 64bit

E6600 @ 3.2ghz 1600fsb w/ 4gb DDR2-800 = 10sec flat but I have VLC open and IE w/ a few tabs open

ran it a few more times without anything running got 10sec again. Gona try clocking the CPU to 3.6 if I can get it stable and see what I get tomorrow.
 

n7

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2004
21,281
4
81
Originally posted by: bfdd
I'm curious why this bench favours AMD cpus.

Originally posted by: CTho9305
It's 100% integer code - no floating point. It's designed to be mostly independent of FSB / memory performance and should fit in the CPU caches.

There's your answer.

Why int vs. fp is generally better on AMD vs. Intel is above my limited knowledge level, but AFAIK know that's been the general rule for the last while now.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
except n7 every other benchmark ran there's no way a x2 4400+ would even come close to a 3.2ghz C2D.