wwwww Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 (edited) In an effort to solve the problem of unbeatable scores achieved with older wPrime versions, I've completely re-done the calculation and threading section of wPrime in an effort to bring the score on par with or slightly faster than v1.53. I could use some testers to compare scores with older versions, in particular on higher processor count SMP systems as I've completely redesigned the threading model so I'm not sure of the effect it'll have on 8 core + systems (only have quads here to test on). - Wprime 2.00 Beta6: http://www.wprime.net/?q=download&f=wprime_200_beta6.zip - Wprime 2.00 Beta3: http://www.wprime.net/?q=download&f=wprime_200_beta3.zip - Wprime 2.00 Beta2: http://www.wprime.net/?q=download&f=wprime_200_beta2.zip - Wprime 2.00 Beta1: http://www.wprime.net/?q=download&f=wprime_200_beta1.zip - Wprime 2.00 Beta0: http://www.wprime.net/?q=download&f=wprime_200_beta.zip Compare with: - Wprime 1.55 (current stable): http://www.wprime.net/?q=download&f=wprime_155.zip - Wprime 1.53: http://www.hwbot.org/blog/wp-content/wprime_153.zip - Wprime 1.43: http://www.hwbot.org/blog/wp-content/wprime_gui143.zip Basically would like to know, too fast or still too slow? Note that you won't be able to submit scores at this stage. Thanks :thumpsup: Edited September 15, 2008 by jmke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killer55555 Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 I think it's about 2.5 sec faster(the v2).I have run it twice to make sure of it. V2 gave me 30.6 sec and the V1.55 33.1 sec Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 About 2,9 sec. faster than v.1.55 on my X2 5200+. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoOx3r[Pt] Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Were i found the biggest differences on timings where on amd k6 machines so i've tested version 1.53 1.55 and 2.00 on a stock amd k6-2+ 570mhz to see the differences. - version 1.53 - 441.184 version 1.55 - 528.781 version 2.00 - 353.238 - image - http://img187.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wprimeversionsperformanxn7.jpg The version 2.00 didn't detected the cpu as it should but version 1.53 and 1.55 did that perfectly - image - http://img87.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wprimeversionshardwaredqk3.jpg As we all can see the overall look of wprime 2.00 it's much more attractive than it's older fellas - image - http://img529.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wprimeversionsappearancpf6.jpg As many people know the old hardware like k6 processor based machines isn't known by making very accurate scores BUT this version of wprime is a little bit more accurate than the others but all of them showed a maximum variation on timings of 0.075% wich is very impressive considering that SuperPi sometimes give me a 0.25% variation under the same conditions. Overall evaluation - If this wPrime version identified the CPU as it should it would deserve a 110% approval by me but it doesn't, so i give it only 100% approval because wPrime was made to test the perfomance, not to detect CPU's, for that we have CPU-Z but if this small error gets corrected i think that this isn't just one more version of wPrime, i think this is THE VERSION of wPrime Thanks for making this new version and for the huge efforts to do it. Please let this version or an improved/corrected one be the official, you guys will be making the delights of many overclockers around here . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j1g1t Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 I downloaded this version. Tomorrow I'll post my opinion about this beta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wwwww Posted September 12, 2008 Author Share Posted September 12, 2008 Thanks for the feedback - The approved hwbot version is up to Frederik, but with those types of scores, I'd say I need to slow it down a little - I'm aiming for it to be on par with version 1.53. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wwwww Posted September 12, 2008 Author Share Posted September 12, 2008 Ok how about this: http://www.wprime.net/?q=download&f=wprime_200_beta1.zip Should be slightly slower - how does it perform on the K6? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrCape Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Please hit us with a big red warning when this new version becomes a requirement. I put a good amount of LN into v1.55 testing a couple slow cpus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoOx3r[Pt] Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 (edited) k6-2+ 570mhz version 1.53 - 441.184 version 1.55 - 528.781 version 2.00 - 353.238 version 2.00 beta 1 - 382.79 version 2.00 beta 1 is more closer to the 1.53 than the version 2.00 beta but it's still booming way faster than version 1.53 Edited September 12, 2008 by WoOx3r[Pt] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jabski Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 0.136 difference here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Again comparison on X2 5200+ Perhaps I will test the different versions on my K6-2 450mhz this weekend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toutatoc Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 I've tested all versions on my laptop @Stock AMD Mobile 3400+@1.8GHz 512Mo DDR2 - 1.43 102.485s http://img373.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wprime143yx1.png - 1.53 104.844s http://img137.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wprime153zb2.png - 1.55 97.906s http://img145.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wprime155mr7.png - 2.00 beta0 93.047s http://img373.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wprime200beta0ct4.png - 2.00 beta1 93.062s http://img145.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wprime200td4.png No problem for detection Next version ,that's sub 90s for the same frequency Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KTE Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Not a CPU most of you would check out with wP but oh heck... its the thought that counts Vista Ultimate 32b 1.43 - 1.53 -1.55 - 2.0 - 2.0b1 34.017s - 33.432s - 33.41s - 31.788s - 33.025s I can add XP SP3 32b if anyone wants (dual boot). Also I've just got rid of some P4, K6 and K7 but still have one last P4 2.8G left I'll try adding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wwwww Posted September 12, 2008 Author Share Posted September 12, 2008 is it possible to set the amount of threads in Wprime 2.0 ? in the older one you could adjust the amount in the "advanced" menu 1.43 1.53 1.55 2.0b0 2.0b1 results below: [ATTACH]345[/ATTACH] Yeah, just hit ~, type ft x where x is the thread count <enter> then gui <enter> I might put a thread change option in the interface before release though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wwwww Posted September 12, 2008 Author Share Posted September 12, 2008 http://www.wprime.net/?q=download&f=wprime_200_beta2.zip Still too fast, this should be slightly slower again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
der8auer Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 32m 2x AMD FX-74 @ 3000MHz Beta : Doesn't detect 4 Cores - Just 2 Beta 1: 14,08s Beta 2: 14,099s v.1.55: 13,141s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wwwww Posted September 13, 2008 Author Share Posted September 13, 2008 (edited) Hmm , seems too slow. http://www.wprime.net/?q=download&f=wprime_200_beta3.zip Another thing, 2.00 will be perfectly consistent between versions (as the calculation modules won't be recompiled). Edited September 13, 2008 by wwwww Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
der8auer Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 Yes beta3 is faster 32m 2x AMD FX-74 @ 3000MHz Beta : Doesn't detect 4 Cores - Just 2 Beta 1: 14,08s Beta 2: 14,099s Beta 3: 13,341s v.1.55: 13,141s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loonym Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 Odd that the zip package says beta3 but the file version inside says beta1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George_o/c Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 (edited) There is something weird going on here ... But I can't figure out exactly what can be blamed for that ... I did my testing in two different Win XP installations (sorry gpr, but my Vista + SP1 nLited installation wouldn't run wPrime - have to create a new one ) ... One of them is my crappy one year installation (win xp pro + sp2), and the other one a fresh Win XP pro + sp2 nLited one ... In the first one I used Olive Luna theme (from my tests, it's giving me a 0.5 - 0.7sec boost against the Classical one), and in the second one the Windows Classical Theme ... Now, as far as the first one is concerned ... Take a look : v1.43 v1.53 v1.55 v2.00 beta 3 after five runs, with v2.00 beta 3 Then I changed to an other hdd, the one with XP + SP2 nLited (nLited setup) ... classical theme used ... Now I have the photos on my other hdd (so can't post 'em), but I have some videos ... Same mobo, bios settings, rams, ram timings/sub-timings, cpu frequency ... v1.55 = 85.187sec v1.53 = 84.391sec v1.43 = 81.360sec v2.00 beta 3 = 80.422sec What the heck is going on here ??? I have the videos and the photos, I can upload them tomorrow if you want In the meanwhile, you can check out the boost I get from Olive Luna theme ... P.S. Tweaks used ... Real Time priority ... only one ... //EDIT: Just read the thing about beta 2, beta 3 and how they are automatically re-named in beta 1 I've downloaded the beta 3 package, so it's beta 3 anyway Edited September 13, 2008 by George_o/c Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wwwww Posted September 14, 2008 Author Share Posted September 14, 2008 (edited) Beta2 also says Beta 1;) he just forgot the rename Nah I did it to confuse everyone By the way, Realtime priority won't boost performance as the calculations are not done in the parent process (unless you do it to the children process). Edited September 14, 2008 by wwwww Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wwwww Posted September 15, 2008 Author Share Posted September 15, 2008 http://www.wprime.net/?q=download&f=wprime_200_beta6.zip Can someone with a multi-CPU system test that this correctly sets the thread count (as in cores*processors - eg dual Clovers should run with 8 threads) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbjaust Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 (edited) I ran each version 10 times on an underclocked Brisbane A62 X2 4800+ EDIT: Windows XP AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ @ 2167MHz [HT Link @ 812.5MHz (3 x 270.8)] G.Skill F2-8800CL5D-4GBPI. 4GB @ 270.8MHz (RAM divider set to DDR2 400) Abit Fatal1ty AN9 32X (nForce 590 SLI - C51XE-MCP55XE) Run wprime 1.43 wprime 1.53 wprime 1.55 wprime 2.00 beta6 1 37.375 39.172 38.577 38.828 2 37.468 38.921 38.593 38.859 3 37.468 38.750 38.609 38.781 4 37.390 39.000 38.609 38.859 5 37.546 38.641 38.702 38.844 6 37.421 38.828 38.562 38.891 7 37.281 39.000 38.625 38.781 8 37.531 39.000 38.609 39.000 9 37.312 38.813 38.593 38.906 10 37.672 38.625 38.609 38.921 mean 37.446 38.875 38.609 38.867 stdev 0.117023454 0.175161513 0.037490147 0.066392771 hope this helps! Edited September 16, 2008 by cbjaust Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knopflerbruce Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 excellent tests all those scores are very close to one another, I think issues with inconstancy is mostly with multi sockets & older machines Nice work so far, but it's important that older systems can be benched - even if it means that there will be slightly more problems with newer rigs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wwwww Posted September 16, 2008 Author Share Posted September 16, 2008 See some of the K6 scores the first page, it's much faster on older setups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.