• 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.

Nuclear Multi-Core CPU benchmark

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
What are people getting for an L1 cache speed? My friend's system is showing something along 150,000, which IMHO can't be right. WTF is up with this benchmark.

Edit: Maybe I'm wrong. I guess I get 160,000+ for an L1 score on my box.
 
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
What are people getting for an L1 cache speed? My friend's system is showing something along 150,000, which IMHO can't be right. WTF is up with this benchmark.
Click to expand...

See the pic(s) above. Perhaps an extra zero was added? 😉
 
AMD X2 4400+ @2200 (Stock), 2GB DDR400 (2-3-2-5)

ALU = 3497
FPU = 4123
MT = 7073
SCORE = 5876

Edit: I noticed that Kroffty (above) has his AMD single core CPU clocked 35% higher than mine, with only a 26% increase in score in ALU and FPU. Kroffty, what is your RAM speed/latency?
 
Thanks for the heads up.
everest ultamate
Field Value
Memory Speed PC3200 (200 MHz)
Field Value
@ 200 MHz 3.0-3-3-8 (CL-RCD-RP-RAS) / 11-14-2 (RC-RFC-RRD)

I Think I can do way better. I just never checked it sober.


:Q
 
OK I did a quick shot in the arm to the ram

CAS Latency (CL) 2.5T

RAS To CAS Delay (tRCD) 3T

RAS Precharge (tRP) 3T

RAS Active Time (tRAS) 6T

alu = 4743
fpu = 5559
mt = 5197
score 5109
 
Originally posted by: Kroffty
OK I did a quick shot in the arm to the ram

CAS Latency (CL) 2.5T

RAS To CAS Delay (tRCD) 3T

RAS Precharge (tRP) 3T

RAS Active Time (tRAS) 6T

alu = 4743
fpu = 5559
mt = 5197
score 5109
Click to expand...

That looks much better... 35% more clock speed than my CPU, 35% higher alu/fpu!
 
Originally posted by: Kroffty
OK I did a quick shot in the arm to the ram

CAS Latency (CL) 2.5T
RAS To CAS Delay (tRCD) 3T
RAS Precharge (tRP) 3T
RAS Active Time (tRAS) 6T

alu = 4743
fpu = 5559
mt = 5197
score 5109
Click to expand...
That's better, but you should score higher than that, I would think. Run your system at 12 (cpu multiplier) x 247 (HTT bus)= 2964 Mhz; your score will be higher, and so will your overall system performance. Oh, you'll need to set your RAM divider to 1:1 (200 Mhz, or 400 DDR, or whatever your motherboard calls it). Oh, and don't forget to change your HT or LDT multiplier to 4x, and put your RAM timings back to where they were before you changed them.
 
3701 Mark

Intel C2D Celeron 440, 2.0Ghz, 512KB L2, 1GB DDR400 3-3-3-8 DC

Originally posted by: Noema
3735 Total Mark on my Single Core A64 3200 2.2GHz (NewCastle core and 1GB of DDR PC3200 RAM).
Click to expand...
So much for the superiority of the C2D over the A64. It seems that AMD's price/performance is very competitive at the low end. I paid $70 for the 2.0Ghz 440, you can get a 2.4Ghz 4000+ for less. C2D is only worth the money if you overclock. At stock speeds, AMD is the p/p winner.
 
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

So much for the superiority of the C2D over the A64. It seems that AMD's price/performance is very competitive at the low end. I paid $70 for the 2.0Ghz 440, you can get a 2.4Ghz 4000+ for less. C2D is only worth the money if you overclock. At stock speeds, AMD is the p/p winner.
Click to expand...

Kinda extreme to state that based merely off of one little-known and somewhat dubious benchmark program you stumbled across on a forum thread...don't ya think?
 
5152 Score on a Core Duo "Yohah" @1.83GHz, 2MB L2 Cache (Dell Inspiron 6400 Lappy); 1GB of DDR2@557MHz.

Not bad for a mid-range lappy. Too bad the 4200RPM HDD really cripples it 🙁
 
Originally posted by: Idontcare
Kinda extreme to state that based merely off of one little-known and somewhat dubious benchmark program you stumbled across on a forum thread...don't ya think?
Click to expand...
I'm just saying that with a crippled L2 cache (only 512KB), C2D performance doesn't really scale like it should.

XBitLabs showed that an AMD X2 3600+ was comparable to an E2140 (or was it the E2160) in most things, and the AMD chip is cheaper.
 
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
XBitLabs showed that an AMD X2 3600+ was comparable to an E2140 (or was it the E2160) in most things,
Click to expand...
And the 3600+ has 19% more clockspeed and the E2140 still beat it most applications.

So much for the superiority of the C2D over the A64. It seems that AMD's price/performance is very competitive at the low end.
Click to expand...
It's precisely the superiority of the C2D over the A64 that has forced AMD to price their products the way they are. When you don't have the outright performance lead, then you have no choice but to win price/performance. No different than when the situation was reversed and Intel had to price the P-D 820 and 805 at well below the cheapest AMD dual-cores.
 
3800+ x2 Toledo @ 2.7ghz

Score: 7169

gonna try it at 2.8 and higher ;0

EDIT: got it to 2.8 stable only for the test couldnt get any higher 🙁

@ 2.8
Score: 7512
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top