tiborrr Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 (edited) That's a wierd font you got there in SuperPI, buddy. You sure you aren't running this through Linux's WINE emulator? Here's a comparison between WinXP and Linux i did a while ago: http://www.oc-lab2.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1047 Note the font selection, it is default by Wine/Linux. Edited January 31, 2009 by tiborrr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealth Posted January 31, 2009 Author Share Posted January 31, 2009 (edited) That's a wierd font you got there in SuperPI, buddy. You sure you aren't running this through Linux's WINE emulator? Clever.... This is my Athlon XP system at work. Now if you turn off the wallpaper,then right click on desktop>properties>appearance>Set to classic style. After right click on My Computer>advanced>performance>settings>visual effects>adjust for best performance>apply. Now tell me what is the wierd in the font and what is the difference between my font and this one. And to answer to your question...no i don't run through Linux's WINE emulator,i use win XP Home Greek. PS.I have some more tips you can make your system faster,you just have to ask;) stealth Edited January 31, 2009 by stealth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealth Posted February 1, 2009 Author Share Posted February 1, 2009 Massman, any news? You got to find an answer to this, it's a pity to make me stop benching in the young age of 49 years. stealth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 I never said you should stop benching . I got the information I wanted regarding the first 'bug', but that does not explain why your score is even more efficient (you're 0.2-0.25s too fast) Are the scores in post #25 very tweaked or just a clean XP boot and run? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealth Posted February 1, 2009 Author Share Posted February 1, 2009 (edited) I got the information I wanted regarding the first 'bug', but that does not explain why your score is even more efficient (you're 0.2-0.25s too fast) Do you have an explanation for this,do you know why this happen? Is it mean you going to unblock my score? Are the scores in post #25 very tweaked or just a clean XP boot and run? You mean post #26. I ran these scores one after the other without reboot,i used every tweak i know and ran it before every run,memory tweaks is what you see in the images. stealth Edited February 1, 2009 by stealth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crew Vivi Posted February 1, 2009 Crew Share Posted February 1, 2009 yea i agree.. if his efficiency was 50000 vs 60000 then you have reason for doubt. but this is 62k vs 58k, which isnt that impossible , like jmk said, p35 vs x48 is a huge difference, not to mention ddr3. And i didnt look at the scores but maybe the other guys where bad tweakers or didnt tweak at all. i think in this matter you have to keep the results valid until proven wrong, rather then invalid til proven right. You are doing a good job investigating though , but i think there is enough evidence now Goddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 I ran these scores one after the other without reboot,i used every tweak i know and ran it before every run,memory tweaks is what you see in the images. Would it be possible to run a few 1M's using a normal, clean XP? Just for comparison reason Massman it is the only Celeron running on X48 and DDR3 as far as I can see in the benchmark list? No it's not: http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=805789 I've been checking out other DDR3 runs as well and the difference between efficiencies was around 0.5k-0.6k, not way over 1k like in this case. Like I said, most of the scores are not really out of line (outliers, yes, but not by far), there's just one that's so much faster than anything I've seen before that I want to know why exactly it's so much faster . 18.219 - 3322 - 623 CL5 - X48 (60523) 17.500 - 3368 - 842 CL7 - X48 (58940) An efficiency of 60200 is doable with a (very specific tweak/bug). If the efficiency would've been the same, his second run would've been .47s slower. Can one shave off half a second only by switching to DDR3, or is there something else playing a role (1M boost bios, another oddity or so)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 maybe DDR3 623 CL5 completely ownz 842 CL7 ?memory speed & timings do matter a lot for SuperPi afaik? 623 CL5 is quite fast as well, don't underestimate it . 1M is different from 32M, by the way, it's a lot less memory oc dependant. However, you do make a valid point as it may be possible that the memory has more influence than I can currently give it credit for. After all, the Celeron isn't that powerful. I'll check more score and see what I find out . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealth Posted February 1, 2009 Author Share Posted February 1, 2009 (edited) Would it be possible to run a few 1M's using a normal, clean XP? Just for comparison reason Yes,but you have to wait until tonight when i go home,i am working on Sundays is well. When you say "to run a few 1M's using a normal, clean XP" you mean not to use any tweaks,not even system cache and performance mode? From what i can see i get better efficiency as i go higher in CPU speed. stealth Edited February 1, 2009 by stealth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Only the basic tweaks (performance mode and system cache - ok) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealth Posted February 1, 2009 Author Share Posted February 1, 2009 (edited) should be 18.219 - 3322 - 842 CL7 - X48 (60523) 17.500 - 3368 - 623 CL5 - X48 (58940) How can this happen? 3322 : 8=415, 415 X (1/2)=415 X 2= 830 DDR3 1660 CL7 3368 : 8=421, 421 X (2/3)=421 X 1.5= 631.5 DDR2 1263 CL5 Both boards use the X48 chipset but the one is DDR2 and the other DDR3 (RF and RE). At CPU speed 3322 you can't have 842MHz DDR3 1684 memory speed and in the other case with CPU speed 3368 at 2/3 you will have a memory speed of 631.5MHz DDR2 1263. stealth Edited February 1, 2009 by stealth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 (edited) efficiency vs memory frequency (categorised per Cas latency) efficiency vs memory frequency (categorised in efficiency groups) -Sub60k = under 60k efficiency -Tweak/bug = results with the known tweak/bug = 60,2k - 62k -Tweaked = results with good efficiency, but no tweak/bug = 62k - 64k -Minimal tweak = normal scores without/little tweaking = 64k - 67k -Slow = efficiency sucks Both graphs show no significant difference in efficiency between DDR2 and DDR3 memory. Now, I did find one other score that had an efficiency below 60k: http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=656720 19.515 - 3068 - 575 CL4 - 59872 (Masell) 16.203 - 3693 - 821 CL7 - 59837 (Stealth - http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=804884) So, like I said before, around 60k is not impossible, although one needs the tweak/bug and additional tweaking. 58,9k is almost 1k lower than that ... which still leaves me in the unknown . Edited February 1, 2009 by Massman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealth Posted February 1, 2009 Author Share Posted February 1, 2009 (edited) I understand what you say,also i understand why you don't believe me but this is what is happening and i can't help it. I don't do anything more or less than most benchers do,with the Celeron 420 i can get an efficiency around 59.4-59.5 very easy. I can't test it at 3368 again ( i can't go higher than 3347 any more) so i don't know if i can repeat the 17.5s run but from what i can remember when i was trying to do this,the second best score i did was around 17.6s. Give me an hour time to finish work and i will give you the runs you ask for.Do i have to tweak the ram or leave it at defaults? Thanks for the help. stealth Edited February 1, 2009 by stealth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Normal vs tweaked, if possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealth Posted February 1, 2009 Author Share Posted February 1, 2009 (edited) Ok,here it is...i did five runs at 3200-3250-3300-3320-3340MHz as you said,clean XP boot and run. Top five without any tweaks (PL10). Middle five only ram tweaks (PL5). Last five full tweaked. I hope this helps to come to a conclusion. stealth Edited February 2, 2009 by stealth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealth Posted February 2, 2009 Author Share Posted February 2, 2009 Massman, did my scores gave you an idea of what is happening, any conclusions? The lowest efficency i did in my scores in post #47 was 59349, with this efficiency at 3368 i should get 17.62s SuperPi 1M score. So how difficult can be to hit a 17.5s score?I think i can do it again when i be able to reach this speed. stealth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 (edited) Okay. Although the test runs provided by you don't give me any conclusive information regarding the one score I have issues with, I am willing to unblock the score in question for the following reasons: 1) You have a very good reputation at HWBot; not ever were you mentioned in the threads over at the crew moderation subforum and I have no record of any score of you ever being blocked. 2) You have taken the time to clear your name and help us figure this out without being either aggressive or trying to cause problems; a constructive discussion. 3) You have been able to show a series of similar highly efficient results and that efficiency has been matched by another, non-related, bencher. Case closed. Edited February 2, 2009 by Massman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts