TBCS - Super Pi

[crenn]

I did 4 instances of Super Pi and it took me 21s xD

[Drew]

I did 4 instances of Super Pi and it took me 21s xD

Git.

[Scotty]

Well Crenn you do own a Quad Core... So you should do 8 instances

Two instances of Pi to 1 Mil on mine takes 43secs :'(

Not telling how long it takes to do 4 instances of it.

But then again it's not bad for a Mobile Core Duo, not even Core 2 Duo.

[Helix666]

What Everest Home ED. has to say about my box.
http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t...snapshot16.png
http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t...snapshot17.png

I am definitely going to re-visit this thread when I build my next box.

[Drew]

This is where we need definite rules...

My 5 instances were to 4M, not 1M......

So let's have Crenns 20 instances of SuperPi to 4M....... (I did 5 on a single core... and 5 x 4 for quad core... it's only fair....).

Hehheheeeee

[crenn]

lol, I'll run it this afternoon. It's going to be quite slow xD

[crenn]

I just noticed, this thread and my overclocking thread has been featured

[Crazy Buddhist]

I ran it on my 3.06Ghz Celeron D. Don't try that while surfing forums on one screen and watching TV on the second monitor. It took 16 minutes to do the 4M Super Pi....

Bet the TV picture wasn't jumpy at all.

[Crazy Buddhist]

This is where we need definite rules...

My 5 instances were to 4M, not 1M......

So let's have Crenns 20 instances of SuperPi to 4M....... (I did 5 on a single core... and 5 x 4 for quad core... it's only fair....).

Hehheheeeee

Interesting point this. SuperPi is a single threaded application (correct me if I am wrong). For peeps with multiple core processors try running it as standard accross both/all four of your cores and then limit it to one.

In theory the time difference will not be that great. In practice that is exactly what I find. Running it on one core does not take twice as long as running it on two. It takes about five seconds more perhaps on a three minute run. I put that down to some sort of overhead I am creating on the system by limiting it to one core.

Thoughts?

Matthew

[Crazy Buddhist]

Top 10 Times on a 4M run:
1. crenn- 1m 38.688s | Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 2997MHz | 2GB OCZ 666MHz 5-5-5-15 | Win XP 32-bit
2. Scotty - 3m 6.5s | Intel Core Duo T2300E @ 1663MHz | 1GB Dell 533MHz 4-4-4-12 | Win XP 32-bit

This bit vvvvvvvvv

3. Crazy Buddhist - 3m 21.344s | Athlon X2 4200+ @ 2212MHz | 2GB 402MHz 3-3-8-11 | Win XP 32-Bit
4. Helix666 - 3m 45.955s | Athlon 64 2200+ @ 2200MHz | 512MB 400MHz 3-3-3-8 | Linux 2.6.22.1

This bit ^^^^^

5. dgrmkrp - 4m 21.343s | Athlon XP 1700+ @ 2105MHz | 1GB 402MHz 3-3-3-8 | Vista 32-bit
6. Drew- 4m 57.547s | Intel Celeron D 331 @ 2998MHz | 1GB 600MHz 4-4-4-12 | Win XP 32-bit
7.
8.
9.
10.

Proves my point I think. One of my two cores at 2214 Mhz only just beat helix's one core at 2200 Mhz and both cores wouldn't do much better. Because its a single thread it doesn't make a big difference however many processors it's shared amongst.

Scotty: half the processor speed and almost exactly double the time of crenn.

Me: 2Ghz crenn: 3Ghz = 150% processing power + a 50% boost on memory speed. his time 98 seconds mine 201.

Key factors in this test are raw Ghz (Crenn beats s&*% out of us all) and memory efficiency (ditto).

dgr and drew are using older processors. Well OC'd in dgr's case. Maybe the maths processing is less efficient or the overhead of running the OS slowing it (vista in dgr's case). Be interesting to see a result from dgr under XP or win2k for comparison.


CB