PLease check the E6500K result, if its possible.

I know my memory isn t good (i used the worst memory), but i think that the diference is higger than normal

 

 

PiFast Hall Of Fame: (view top 100)

893022

1. PiFast - 24.1 sec - Eiswolf93 (PC Games Hardware) - (Core 2 E6500K (2.93... @ 4462mhz on Air) 2.1 points - [ ]

 

892883

2. PiFast - 27.06 sec - rbuass (Team Adrenaline) - (Core 2 E6500K (2.93... @ 5284mhz ) 1.7 points - [ ]

 

SuperPi Hall Of Fame: (view top 100)

893019

1. SuperPi - 11sec 870ms - Eiswolf93 (PC Games Hardware) - (Core 2 E6500K (2.93... @ 4900mhz on LN2) 2.1 points - [ ]

 

892884

2. SuperPi - 14sec 730ms - rbuass (Team Adrenaline) - (Core 2 E6500K (2.93... @ 5383mhz ) 1.7 points - [ ]

 

SuperPi 32m Hall Of Fame: (view top 100)

893023

1. SuperPi 32m - 12min 14sec 30ms - Eiswolf93 (PC Games Hardware) - (Core 2 E6500K (2.93... @ 4427mhz on Air) 2.1 points - [ ]

 

892886

2. SuperPi 32m - 16min 3sec 140ms - rbuass (Team Adrenaline) - (Core 2 E6500K (2.93... @ 5184mhz ) 1.7 points - [ ]

 

Do not say you hear failure, but may have been some bug of the program (that I do not know).

Just ask them to check to verify that it is ok

Thanks

The difference is significant indeed. Too bad there are so little results available to compare to.

 

Comparing to the results of the Pentium E6300 (http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/pentium_e6300_2.80ghz) the results of Eiswolf seem to be correct, so yours are way off.