AMD or Intel as well as the memory brand - page 22
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Well yes, Svinozavr, half an hour only. I've added a test to the opening test. Waiting for begemot61's results.
2 four2one: I ate it (though I didn't pretend to do anything special; my pebble is budget version of E8xxx), but Intel didn't. We haven't yet had a Core i7 family with a dramatically improved memory controller. And I know who has that stone...
Yep. Yours/my: 46/52=0.88 in script and 169/206=0.82 in optimization. Perhaps it's the larger cache that's affecting it. But not that much.
Now I wish somebody would run it again. Also, it would be nice to specify the OS. I have XP SP3.
I'll add by adding ))) frequency ratio: 2.2/2.53 = 0.87. Cache - unambiguously. Well, maybe also work with RAM.
Well, here's my turtle.
For comparison, the script had a Core 2 Duo Mathemata 46/103 lag = 0.44 (although, to be fair, the best score was 95, not 103). Just over 2x.
In optimization, 169/438 = 0.38. The trend is evident. One may say that the greater the amount of data being processed, the greater the importance of cache and RAM.
I won't bother with the ticks, it's basically understandable.Four2one, please show us your configuration through CPU-Z. We need to understand how you beat Mathemata and the others.
All the others (shown so far), by all appearances, should be beaten by Xeon, which test on the script was posted by begemot61. We are waiting for its optimization test.
P.S. I suspect, that 6-core Opteron (of course, the crossafcheg) is a bit ahead of my budget guy only due to frequency.
benik писал(а) >>
...please show us your configuration via CPU-Z. I need to understand how you beat Mathemata and the others.
Well, this is for Mathemat ( who's cold?) :)
Thanks, four2one. I don't really believe in such figures.
And by the way, where can I find this software? I'd like to see it, too.
And another thing: your test script on page 18 (about 60) is much worse than mine (46). Interesting how the girls dance...
Thank you, four2one. I don't really believe in such figures.
And by the way, where can I find this software? I'd like to see it, too.
Thanks, four2one. I don't really believe in such figures.
And by the way, where can I find this software? I'd like to see it, too.
The figures are a lie. I don't know if it's deliberate or if the software is wrong. But it's clear to anyone (even a schoolboy!) that either the temperature is measured immediately after switching the computer on, i.e. almost room temperature and not under load, or the software measures whatever the hell it is.
Everest is not good enough for you? You can see everything there, but the temperature is better measured with other software.
==========
Check it out over here. There's links to software and stuff...
Alas, the program doesn't start (probably because I have a 32-bit OS, and so does the processor).
Alas, the program doesn't start (probably because I have a 32-bit OS, and so does the processor).
Your processor supports 64bit - look at CPU-Z first tab for supported instruction set extensions.