wPrime 2.00 beta

[j1g1t]

Fantastic tool!

One of the best features is save results.

[beleno]

hi! tested on an old pc with celeron lga755@2.66ghz prescott G1

 

1.55=171.968 s.

2.0 beta 6=148.187 s.

 

if i can help with some test, i'm happy to do it. I can test with p4 s478, p4 mobile s479, sempron 754, athlon 939. Thank you

[knopflerbruce]

wow, that's quite a big difference

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we need to compare to 1.43 on older chips, not 1.55;)

[WoOx3r[Pt]]

version 1.43 - 438.393

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 2 - 417.48 * **

version 2.00 beta 3 - 386.275 *

version 2.00 beta 6 - 382.99 *

 

* beta versions with correct core detection

** beta version with the closest timings to version 1.43 BUT it gave me a 0.3% of maximum difference between some runs and that isn't so accurate as all the other 2.00 beta versions that gave me a difference of less than 0.05% between runs

Edited September 17, 2008 by WoOx3r[Pt]

[wwwww]

Thanks for that. All the 2.00 versions detect hardware information the same way, there must be other reasons why it doesn't detect correctly. Do you have CPUz running in the background? If so, you should close it before starting up wPrime.

 

Beta2 is too slow for modern CPUs, I'm thinking the 1/3/6 (they all use the same calc script) is most suitable as they still perform comparatively fast to 1.55.

[WoOx3r[Pt]]

if a wprime version that it's faster than any other on every machines gets released it can have some huge differences sometimes but it's allways better than performing slower on some machines and faster on others because this way everyone is able to beat records and be beaten by the previous recordists and by the new overclockers.

 

i don't know how the calculation method is made on wprime but i had this idea that i don't know if it's possible but maybe it can help you out, to standardize the wprime timings maybe you can mix up the calculation methods of different wprime versions, i don't know if i'm saying something stupid or if you already done that but it's just a thought.

[wwwww]

I don't think there's a problem with being too fast on older CPUs, as long as it's faster, as there aren't too many scores that'll be affected and it'll just require retesting.

 

What's important that results on modern day CPUs are still in line with version 1.55 and that 2.0 is faster than 1.43 which I think 2.0 succeeds at.

[WoOx3r[Pt]]

jmke that wasn't really my idea but it's a good idea too. i don't think it would be necessary to do that because as wwwww says as long it's faster it will only require re-testing, no more unbeatable scores because of version incompatibility issues. i hope one of this 2.00 versions of wprime gets approved .

[der8auer]

Beta6 with 2x FX-74:

 

32m: 13,743s

[wwwww]

version 1.43 - 438.393

version 2.00 beta 6 - 382.99

 

that's a whole lot faster in my book

 

Yes but older CPU's represent such a small portion of the scores, all it'll mean is a few benchers will need to re-bench. As long as the bulk of the scores (modern CPUs) are consistent, it should be fine.

[HulluJanne]

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1109854&postcount=405

 

This is my best on Phenom X4 9950 BE

[Advanced]

Anything new, that I did not notice yet?

[Advanced]

Hm, but isn't there a final 2.0 version? What is missing, so that the new version will be allowed?

[Antinomy]

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.

I agree, if it's not compatible in software means, then it will be very hard to bench old systems. I don't ever want to see a Vista being installed on 486

So many get the win2K or others to work there. It would be very bad if a category will fall off because of a new version. The same was with Super pi 1.4/1.5 that don't want to launch on Win9x but this can be solved.