May 10, 201015 yr Any trick for a WPrime32??? http://hwbot.org/community/submission/999143_rbuass_wprime_32m_core_i5_670_7sec_703ms Does anyone know why wprime 32 ran pretty strong, but the time was worse than the guys who ran up to 350 mhz less? I used XP32 clean, with and without real time QPI 3200, 3800, 4266 and 4800 ... but times have not improved ... If anyone has an idea thanks in advance
May 10, 201015 yr Same here, XP is mostly better. Vista was for the older generation of hardware (think Wolfdale)
May 10, 201015 yr Install the GPU drivers. The smoother text display as the % updates scroll by gives a faster time
May 10, 201015 yr I've run xp-----win7 unstripped and at first glance server2008 was faster at stock clocks but at OC xp still held faster runs.
May 10, 201015 yr Crew Install the GPU drivers. The smoother text display as the % updates scroll by gives a faster time Why not just minimize the window? think it should do the same. I'd like to know a way to change the process priority - does anyone know?
May 10, 201015 yr Install the GPU drivers. The smoother text display as the % updates scroll by gives a faster time this
May 10, 201015 yr Same here, XP is mostly better. Vista was for the older generation of hardware (think Wolfdale) really? I must bench my 980X again... but first i want to bench Athlon XP for OC Challenge May 2010. :-)
May 13, 201015 yr If you ask me for P55 platform xp rullez, for x58 platform win7 does better, just benched a I7 870 and on winxp came with 5.297@4524Mhz on air...
May 13, 201015 yr Not sure, but on P55 Seven performed better than XP for me. Seems like OS choice is overclocker-dependent.
May 13, 201015 yr I'd like to know a way to change the process priority - does anyone know? For XP: task manager> right click wprime.exe>set priority>realtime.
May 13, 201015 yr Crew Yeah, Scotty, there's only one problem. The wprime.exe is not the one to calculate the task. When you click the run button, DCOM service creates a new process (as I remember called wPrime.exe too, but with another process ID) and this is the one to do the math. If you select multiple threads, then an appropriate number of processes is being launched. So changing priority like you said will make realtime to the GUI, the window and as I suggest (don't remember the tests) will make it worse. You can't change the priority of the math processes after they are calculated neither - despite they are not killed after calculation being done, they do die when you start it next time. So your realtime calculation threads will be killed and new ones with regular priority will be created. If the answer was so simple, I wouldn't ask You can use for example Process explorer to check this out.
May 14, 201015 yr Antinomy is right. But in my opinion priority is not a big matter - the more important thing is to get those threads to calculate math simultaneously. In my case there were a lot of times when 1 thread was calculated a bit faster than others - and that made 1 core idle when 3 others were only 96% complete.
May 14, 201015 yr Crew Yes, it's the bug that is about to be fixed in next version: http://hwbot.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6393 If you had experience with 1 thread being faster why not switch all affinity of all processes to only this core? Vista is kind of bitch that likes to switch processes from core to core making the C&Q work badly and other stuff.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.