Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

Tharamis

Members
  • Posts

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tharamis

  1. hi, update for: MaxxMEM² - PreView * v1.80, maintenance update, Quick compare added (19/04/2010) cu
  2. hi, well, this "Super Pi" for GPUs will misslead graphiccards performance. this means: a card which will be able to calculate PI as the *fastest one, does *not mean that its the fastest while playing or doing other graphical things. be carefull. so i think there must be some benchs, which meansure (for example) Vertex performance via opengl. so why opengl? because identical interface on all systmes, Dx independent. cu
  3. hi, for interested readers: Vcore characteristics cu
  4. thx update for: MaxxPI²-Multi-PreView * v1.55, support for upcomming new 6/12 core CPU's added (03/01/2010) NEW! MaxxMEM² - PreView * v1.74, minor bugfixes (03/01/2010) NEW! Download cu
  5. update, MaxxMEM²-PreView: * v1.73, MaxxPI.net / HWbot.org submit added (30/12/2009)
  6. hi, some (new)update MaxxMEM²-PreView-Multi: and some interesting link, memory comparsion DDR I/II/III (dual/tripple): http://www.maxxpi.net/pages/result-browser/memory---all-inclusive.php best
  7. hi, hmm... normally you don't have to wait for him , but I will talk about this with him.
  8. hi, MaxxMIPS² - PreView v1.45 Pure CPU benchmark (CPU String/Integer -part, ALU) v1.45, initial public release (10/09/2009) NEW! cu
  9. hi, update to v1.45, all preview's: * systeminformation's added. cu
  10. hi, MaxxPI² - PreView - Multi This benchmark uses as formula the Chudnovsky algorithm, unlike the MaxxPI ² - PreView - Single, that use the Gauss-Legendre algorithm. The advantage of the Chudnovsky algorithm is, that principally, multi-core capability is possible. MaxxPI ² - PreView - Multi use this. That means: That all available CPU cores work together on a single calculation. Technical: MaxxPI² - PreView - Multi needs at least a dual-core processor and supports in the current version 1.07, CPU's with 2,3,4 and 8 Core's. Note: HT core counts as real core, so 1+1HT core will accepted). Maximum depth of calculation: 268.435.456 decimal places • v1.07, initial public release (16/07/2009) NEW! cu
  11. hi, update MaxxPI² - PreView - Single to v1.41 • v1.41, Batchmode added (18/06/2009) NEW! cu
  12. hi, hmm I think you partly misunderstood me, I was not asking for anything. It was a pure declarative statement. cu Tharamis
  13. hi, here: http://www.maxxpi.net/pages/reviews/rev.php Review/preview of: "MaxxPI² - PreView - Multi" (english translation) it scales *very well, on any kind of cpu (cpu/type/manufacturer) cu
  14. hi, Review/preview of: upcomming "MaxxPI² - PreView - Multi" (unpublished until now) Review done by Frank Hempel, at: http://www.radeon3d.org (review in german) Direkt link to review: http://www.radeon3d.org/artikel/sonstiges/maxxpi_multi cu
  15. hi, now new! as a part of MaxxPI²'s memory benchmark, as a preview-version: MaxxMEM² (Memory/Latency, v1.05): http://www.maxxpi.net cu
  16. hi, little update to v1.40: * v1.40, application name change, to MaxxPI² - PreView - Single (28/05/2009) * v1.40, change in OS name detection (28/05/2009) * v1.40, added 256M calculation option for x64 (28/05/2009) NEW! cu
  17. hi, yes for now, the *memory score is the arithmetic average between: "read" and "write", same as the big brother MaxxPI² does. Memory copy is not part of the memory score, because big MaxxPI² doesn't use memory copy at all (no need for). Reaced memory / latency score's will be comparable to MaxxPI². For further suggestions concerning hwbot, you should contact him directly, via: http://www.maxxpi.net/pages/contact.php Regards Tharamis
  18. hi all, some little news, now i'm *authorised to post this: 1, MaxxPI² MultiCore ( Pre Alpha ): screen with an Q6600 at 4100mhz, first 1core below 4cores (scaling) will support 2,3,4 and 8cores (for now), calculate up to 256M (for now) chudnovsky used, incl. splitting. put about >78%! constant load (PMU), on *all cores, so be carefull. has no CPU-specific optimizations for any CPU manufaturers. uses mmx/sse main problem was, load balancing (especially with chudnovsky) and not to prefer any CPU manufacturer. this both slow down the calc. speed, but i think at CPU/PC -benchmarking, this doesn't matter at all, because comparability is the key. optimized for an major CPU manufacturer a performance gain from +12% to +18% is possible. @allegratorial, i know it's important for you: MaxxPI² MultiCore ( Pre Alpha all x86): 256M, with i7 at 4ghz, with 4cores/4threads (not 8): 473sec. 256M, same machine, with 4cores/4threads (not 8): QPI: 402sec. 256M, same machine, with 4cores/??threads, (not 8??): y-chruncher: 229sec. 2, much more intressing I think, is this: MaxxMEM² this will released soon cu
  19. hi, no, i mean that y-cruncher's characteristics match in wide areas with GMP... for MaxxPI i don't know this at all, but i don't think so because it will use the gauss algo. no problem, fine cu
  20. hi, nearly linear scaling with cores/threads is not possible. i personally think, that y-cruncher also uses binary splitting and a strong usage of gmp. so if this is true (or near by truth) linear scaling is im-possible. this is one of the reasons why MaxxPI² will calculate parallel PI results for each core. to keep much load as possible on the cores. only one thing matters here: TIME, if you had time, everything is possible and as i was in college... i had time. much time. hmm... GMP... i think, but anyways i wish him luck! and again: MaxxPI² is only comparable (PI and all other calc.benchs) to it self. well, for me personally, MaxxPI is fast enough, it provides reliable consistent results. this is the most important thing. There is no need to hassle about 512M in 1sec. this is useless and the author of MaxxPI² shares this opinion with me (i strongly think). and don't forget this thread is written for MaxxPI², not for y-cruncher and comparing against them. cu
  21. hi, great results!, here with i7 at 4ghz: pifast4.3: 65.6 sec maxxpi1.35: 127.1 sec superpi: 581.5 sec. pretty fast... :-) again: maxxpi does *not claim to be the fastest PI application. it does not need to be. fast enough to bench without sleeping *and long enough to show clearly differences between different setups. speed doesnt matter at all. it's the comparative between pc's that makes a benchmark a benchmark. hmm good question...!?! i think you have to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmark_(computing) to understand. if you willing to get a worldrecord by calculation PI with xxxxM then your are right=speed matters. well as i said *binary splitting*, that means multicore(thread) for one calculation. chudnovsky *is the fastest formula at current, but it will give not that consistently cpu load as gauss do. surely do, look at MaxxPI :-) but anyways, if your favorite is y-cruncher then use it! it's a pice of wonderfull and incedible fast software. that's the point! cu
  22. hi, it's pretty fast, fast enough for benching *and! comparing. it doesnt have to be the *fastest. it's precise, uses CRC and the HW based clock (not winclock) and provides one result (k/sec.) witch is very easy to compare. it does not need *any additional librarys / installation. I know him, he specially choosed the gauss algo. because of its high *and continues (no fluctuation) cpu load. there are no optimizations for any cpu-manufacturer on board. all of them will benched with the same non-optimized code. As he said, this will show the real world, better. he also has an *incredible fast chudnovsky algorithm (incl. binary splitting), but this one will not produce that clean load on the cpu/memory as the gauss do. You can see that via performance monitoring Unit (PMU-CPU). so i don't think he will include this into maxxpi. His MaxxPI² is very professional, i was one of the first beta-testers on board. example: is there an difference between dual/tripple channel on x58? search the web, you will find nothing. try maxxpi2 and you will see it (memory <> overall-memory) this is also very interesting: and viewing/exporting own results (excel): cu
×
×
  • Create New...