• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Multicore Pi benchmark

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Idontcare said:
Two issues with this multi-core Pi programs - Super-Pi correctly calculates the digits of Pi, multi-core Pi does not.
Click to expand...
That was more or less my point (in response to your earlier reply)

The first "calculation" is always the same (practically speaking), regardless of clock settings... leaving it open, and calculating over and over again, it changes.

Even just looking through the posted images, the values are different, pick any 3 of them, they will all be different.
 
Here is an animation of 5 different posted images...
zL2gNFN.gif


Values are all different.

P.S. I don't remember Photoshops animation stuff being this annoying before... lol that took WAY longer than it should have.
 
Vectronic said:
Here is an animation of 5 different posted images...
zL2gNFN.gif


Values are all different.

P.S. I don't remember Photoshops animation stuff being this annoying before... lol that took WAY longer than it should have.
Click to expand...

Well that's no good 🙁 (the lack of repeatability, not your image overlay, your sleuthing work itself is superb :thumbsup🙂
 
I think it's creating unique identifiers for later trojan infections, disguised in pseudo PI, that's why the application is so big for what little it does ... I kid... kinda...lol, although it would be an interesting way of encryption/keys.... calculate some sort of CRC based on the PC, find that value in PI, use the offset to identify the computer later... ok I'll shut up.
 
Vectronic said:
I think it's creating unique identifiers for later trojan infections, disguised in pseudo PI, that's why the application is so big for what little it does ... I kid... kinda...lol, although it would be an interesting way of encryption/keys.... calculate some sort of CRC based on the PC, find that value in PI, use the offset to identify the computer later... ok I'll shut up.
Click to expand...

:hmm: hmmm, we did just download this thing from a romanian website, didn't we 😱
 
I could OC higher, but this is what I use my rig at, so heres what it got.
3930k @ 4.3
ram @ 1600
24s 855ms

MULTI-PIE.jpg
 
Last edited:
Vectronic said:
I think it's creating unique identifiers for later trojan infections, disguised in pseudo PI, that's why the application is so big for what little it does ... I kid... kinda...lol, although it would be an interesting way of encryption/keys.... calculate some sort of CRC based on the PC, find that value in PI, use the offset to identify the computer later... ok I'll shut up.
Click to expand...

Nice thinking dude .. ICU.
 
So my initial run was 45 seconds, second was 42 seconds and fastest was 40 seconds. That's quite a range of results.
 
AMD FX-8350, 2.2GHz NB, DDR3-1866 10-10-10-28-CR2, Win7x64 all updates applied. I shutdown and restarted the Multi-Core Pi application between each test.

FX-8350 2.0GHz 52s 908ms
FX-8350 2.5GHz 1m 4s 561ms
FX-8350 3.0GHz 55s 208ms
FX-8350 3.5GHz 1m 0s 885ms
FX-8350 4.0GHz 56s 652ms
FX-8350 4.3GHz 1m 4s 439ms

Intel i7-3770K, DDR3-1866 10-10-10-28-CR2, Win7x64 all updates applied. I shutdown and restarted the Multi-Core Pi application between each test.

i7-3770K 2.0GHz 1m 1s 670ms
i7-3770K 2.5GHz 49s 146ms
i7-3770K 3.0GHz 46s 471ms
i7-3770K 3.5GHz 39s 491ms
i7-3770K 4.0GHz 31s 209ms

All these results are suspect. The AMD results are clearly borked, but if you look at the clockspeed scaling for the Intel processor you will note they are borked as well.

Going from 2.5GHz to 3GHz reduced the process time by a mere 2.7seconds, but going from 3.5GHz to 4GHz reduced process time by nearly 8seconds? :hmm:

I feel confident to declare this benchmark is functioning as a chaotic number generator, both in terms of the computed values of Pi as well as in terms of the computed process time for the bench to run. Can it get more broken than that?
 
Idontcare said:
I feel confident to declare this benchmark is functioning as a chaotic number generator, both in terms of the computed values of Pi as well as in terms of the computed process time for the bench to run. Can it get more broken than that?
Click to expand...

Ya those times don't make any sense, this so-called benchmark is useless!

Sorry for wasting you guys time, I won't even bother updating scores,
THREAD CLOSED! 😡
 
Idontcare said:
AMD FX-8350, 2.2GHz NB, DDR3-1866 10-10-10-28-CR2, Win7x64 all updates applied. I shutdown and restarted the Multi-Core Pi application between each test.

FX-8350 2.0GHz 52s 908ms
FX-8350 2.5GHz 1m 4s 561ms
FX-8350 3.0GHz 55s 208ms
FX-8350 3.5GHz 1m 0s 885ms
FX-8350 4.0GHz 56s 652ms
FX-8350 4.3GHz 1m 4s 439ms

Intel i7-3770K, DDR3-1866 10-10-10-28-CR2, Win7x64 all updates applied. I shutdown and restarted the Multi-Core Pi application between each test.

i7-3770K 2.0GHz 1m 1s 670ms
i7-3770K 2.5GHz 49s 146ms
i7-3770K 3.0GHz 46s 471ms
i7-3770K 3.5GHz 39s 491ms
i7-3770K 4.0GHz 31s 209ms

All these results are suspect. The AMD results are clearly borked, but if you look at the clockspeed scaling for the Intel processor you will note they are borked as well.

Going from 2.5GHz to 3GHz reduced the process time by a mere 2.7seconds, but going from 3.5GHz to 4GHz reduced process time by nearly 8seconds? :hmm:

I feel confident to declare this benchmark is functioning as a chaotic number generator, both in terms of the computed values of Pi as well as in terms of the computed process time for the bench to run. Can it get more broken than that?
Click to expand...

Those are some interesting results.

And the AMD ones are totally 😵 the uneven core speeds are slower than the even numbers regardless of higher clock speed!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top