If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
just a bit of fun
regarding the post sent by muzician21 on 09/04/2009 about
Suggestions for Core 2 Duo systems that use PCI - not PCI express why don't people download the 'benchmark designed by Australian PC User magazine' web address http://darrenyates.com.au/?p=573 then post their results just to see what the difference in performance is between hardware and os. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
just a bit of fun
Hardware
CPU = AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual core 6400+ Motherboard = ASUS M2N-SLI Deluxe RAM = Elixer 1 gig x 2 GPU = ASUS EN7600S Silent PSU = Tagan 600W OS OpenSuse 10.3 Frequency policy Current Scheme Acoustic / Current cpu Frequency policy Dynamic UserBench Encode 2009 sco 2076.26 - audio component scores: 0m1s / 391.07MB/s / 1710.93 - video component scores: 0m1s / 4511.73fps / 2442.35 Component results MP3 encoding speed: 389.11MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs AAC encoding speed: 391.25MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs WMA encoding speed: 391.65MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs OGG encoding speed: 391.75MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs AC3 encoding speed: 391.47MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs MPEG2/AC3 encoding speed: 4509.5fps Encoding time: 0.33secs H.264/AAC encoding speed: 4511.44fps Encoding time: 0.33secs MPEG4/MP3 encoding speed: 4508.67fps Encoding time: 0.33secs WMV8/WMA8 encoding speed: 4514.34fps Encoding time: 0.33secs MPEG1/MP2 encoding speed: 4513.42fps Encoding time: 0.33secs Current Scheme Acoustic / Current cpu Frequency policy Performance UserBench Encode 2009 sco 2062.59 - audio component scores: 0m1s / 389.09MB/s / 1702.29 - video component scores: 0m1s / 4475.09fps / 2422.51 Component results MP3 encoding speed: 386.17MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs AAC encoding speed: 389.07MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs WMA encoding speed: 389.18MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs OGG encoding speed: 389.19MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs AC3 encoding speed: 391.78MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs MPEG2/AC3 encoding speed: 4450.52fps Encoding time: 0.33secs H.264/AAC encoding speed: 4479.76fps Encoding time: 0.33secs MPEG4/MP3 encoding speed: 4481.47fps Encoding time: 0.33secs WMV8/WMA8 encoding speed: 4511.8fps Encoding time: 0.33secs MPEG1/MP2 encoding speed: 4451.18fps Encoding time: 0.33secs Current Scheme Performance / Current cpu Frequency policy Dynamic UserBench Encode 2009 sco 2080.74 - audio component scores: 0m1s / 391.95MB/s / 1714.82 - video component scores: 0m1s / 4520.95fps / 2447.34 Component results MP3 encoding speed: 390.48MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs AAC encoding speed: 391.75MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs WMA encoding speed: 392.43MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs OGG encoding speed: 392.78MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs AC3 encoding speed: 392.22MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs MPEG2/AC3 encoding speed: 4523.97fps Encoding time: 0.33secs H.264/AAC encoding speed: 4519.58fps Encoding time: 0.33secs MPEG4/MP3 encoding speed: 4517.88fps Encoding time: 0.33secs WMV8/WMA8 encoding speed: 4521.14fps Encoding time: 0.33secs MPEG1/MP2 encoding speed: 4520.9fps Encoding time: 0.33secs Current Scheme Performance / Current cpu Frequency policy Performance UserBench Encode 2009 sco 2068.99 - audio component scores: 0m1s / 389.24MB/s / 1702.96 - video component scores: 0m1s / 4501.19fps / 2436.64 Component results MP3 encoding speed: 388.82MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs AAC encoding speed: 389.14MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs WMA encoding speed: 391.79MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs OGG encoding speed: 389.4MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs AC3 encoding speed: 386.98MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs MPEG2/AC3 encoding speed: 4512.18fps Encoding time: 0.33secs H.264/AAC encoding speed: 4454.97fps Encoding time: 0.33secs MPEG4/MP3 encoding speed: 4513.84fps Encoding time: 0.33secs WMV8/WMA8 encoding speed: 4509.18fps Encoding time: 0.33secs MPEG1/MP2 encoding speed: 4515.05fps Encoding time: 0.33secs |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
just a bit of fun
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:03:50 +0100, darklight
wrote: regarding the post sent by muzician21 on 09/04/2009 about Suggestions for Core 2 Duo systems that use PCI - not PCI express why don't people download the 'benchmark designed by Australian PC User magazine' web address http://darrenyates.com.au/?p=573 then post their results just to see what the difference in performance is between hardware and os. The problem is threefold. 1) People need PCI slots when they have cards they either can't replace, or don't want to pay to replace, so PCIe isn't an option for them. 2) Since the exact same cards are usually not available in both PCI and PCIe formats, a fair comparison cannot be made of what the performance degradation would be while using the PCI card instead of the PCIe, and if using neither than which slot type it has will make no difference but rather the particulars of the chipset performance and bios settings might make a small difference, especially since the memory controller for Core 2 Duo is still in the northbridge meaning newer chipsets will tend to be faster. Ultimately, if someone wants/needs to use a PCI card, they will still get great benefit from the newer platform even if the PCI bus occasionally bottlenecks things. The other remaining issue is if there really aren't PCIe alternatives and if not, will that situation improve in the future or are they just delaying the inevitable by a few years to still end up in the same position with even fewer alternatives since slowly but surely there will be fewer and fewer PCI slots on modern motherboards, then people will have to settle for defeatured legacy industrial boards at much higher cost. Then again, it is possible that some day someone will come up with a bridge card similar to the riser cards used years ago that converts one PCIe slot into several PCI, but using such a card would require a specialized case since it would put all the cards' slot mount brackets at 90' orientation to the an ATX case's slots, and a different location. 3) The linked benchmark does not specifically stress the operations on the PCI bus to the cards one might want to use. That would be necessary in order to show the difference in performance when there is one. Oh, there is a fourth issue too: 4) Quoting Darren Yates - "UserBench Encode 2009 is exclusive to Australian PC User magazine and you’ll only find it in the February 2009 issue, on sale now." That makes acquiring the software inconvenient at least, costly if not reasonably impossible for those outside of Australia. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
just a bit of fun
darklight wrote:
regarding the post sent by muzician21 on 09/04/2009 about Suggestions for Core 2 Duo systems that use PCI - not PCI express why don't people download the 'benchmark designed by Australian PC User magazine' web address http://darrenyates.com.au/?p=573 then post their results just to see what the difference in performance is between hardware and os. I took a look at it. I used the Linux version (tar.gz). I noticed during the run, that CPU never went over 100%, while a copy of mprime95 from mersenne.org runs 200% with the same test conditions and OS (i.e. both cores running). I only saw a few seconds at the very end of the benchmark, where the CPU hit about 128%. So for me, it looked like it was mainly benching one core. My result, using the summary on the tool's main display. 33.94 (25.08 audio, 45.12 video) 2.6GHz Core2 E4700 FSB800, 2x1GB DDR2-533 CAS3 RAM, PT880/VT8237S chipset Knoppix 5.3.1 OS, benchmark files on the Knoppix ramdisk. Swap disk available, but the benchmark did not consume enough RAM for swap to be involved. I booted back into Windows to post this. Paul |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
just a bit of fun
Somewhere on teh intarwebs Paul wrote:
darklight wrote: regarding the post sent by muzician21 on 09/04/2009 about Suggestions for Core 2 Duo systems that use PCI - not PCI express why don't people download the 'benchmark designed by Australian PC User magazine' web address http://darrenyates.com.au/?p=573 then post their results just to see what the difference in performance is between hardware and os. I took a look at it. I used the Linux version (tar.gz). I noticed during the run, that CPU never went over 100%, while a copy of mprime95 from mersenne.org runs 200% with the same test conditions and OS (i.e. both cores running). I only saw a few seconds at the very end of the benchmark, where the CPU hit about 128%. So for me, it looked like it was mainly benching one core. My result, using the summary on the tool's main display. 33.94 (25.08 audio, 45.12 video) 2.6GHz Core2 E4700 FSB800, 2x1GB DDR2-533 CAS3 RAM, PT880/VT8237S chipset Knoppix 5.3.1 OS, benchmark files on the Knoppix ramdisk. Swap disk available, but the benchmark did not consume enough RAM for swap to be involved. I booted back into Windows to post this. My main machine is running XP Pro SP3 up-to-date. E7300 with the FSB raised from 266 to 333. No alteration of vcore. Asus P5KE-WiFi/AP P35/ICH9r mobo. Prime95 stable 24 hours+. 4GB DDR2-800 RAM. UserBench Encode 2009 score of 48.81. I didn't make note of the seperate audio/video scores, I don't turn the machine on often and ran it not long after I got the magazine (and wrote it down in my benchmarking notebook). -- Shaun. "Build a man a fire, and he`ll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he`ll be warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchett, Jingo. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
just a bit of fun
kony wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:03:50 +0100, darklight wrote: regarding the post sent by muzician21 on 09/04/2009 about Suggestions for Core 2 Duo systems that use PCI - not PCI express why don't people download the 'benchmark designed by Australian PC User magazine' web address http://darrenyates.com.au/?p=573 then post their results just to see what the difference in performance is between hardware and os. The problem is threefold. 1) People need PCI slots when they have cards they either can't replace, or don't want to pay to replace, so PCIe isn't an option for them. 2) Since the exact same cards are usually not available in both PCI and PCIe formats, a fair comparison cannot be made of what the performance degradation would be while using the PCI card instead of the PCIe, and if using neither than which slot type it has will make no difference but rather the particulars of the chipset performance and bios settings might make a small difference, especially since the memory controller for Core 2 Duo is still in the northbridge meaning newer chipsets will tend to be faster. Ultimately, if someone wants/needs to use a PCI card, they will still get great benefit from the newer platform even if the PCI bus occasionally bottlenecks things. The other remaining issue is if there really aren't PCIe alternatives and if not, will that situation improve in the future or are they just delaying the inevitable by a few years to still end up in the same position with even fewer alternatives since slowly but surely there will be fewer and fewer PCI slots on modern motherboards, then people will have to settle for defeatured legacy industrial boards at much higher cost. Then again, it is possible that some day someone will come up with a bridge card similar to the riser cards used years ago that converts one PCIe slot into several PCI, but using such a card would require a specialized case since it would put all the cards' slot mount brackets at 90' orientation to the an ATX case's slots, and a different location. 3) The linked benchmark does not specifically stress the operations on the PCI bus to the cards one might want to use. That would be necessary in order to show the difference in performance when there is one. Oh, there is a fourth issue too: 4) Quoting Darren Yates - "UserBench Encode 2009 is exclusive to Australian PC User magazine and youÂ’ll only find it in the February 2009 issue, on sale now." That makes acquiring the software inconvenient at least, costly if not reasonably impossible for those outside of Australia. I Darklight live in england |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
just a bit of fun
Paul wrote:
darklight wrote: regarding the post sent by muzician21 on 09/04/2009 about Suggestions for Core 2 Duo systems that use PCI - not PCI express why don't people download the 'benchmark designed by Australian PC User magazine' web address http://darrenyates.com.au/?p=573 then post their results just to see what the difference in performance is between hardware and os. I took a look at it. I used the Linux version (tar.gz). I noticed during the run, that CPU never went over 100%, while a copy of mprime95 from mersenne.org runs 200% with the same test conditions and OS (i.e. both cores running). I only saw a few seconds at the very end of the benchmark, where the CPU hit about 128%. So for me, it looked like it was mainly benching one core. My result, using the summary on the tool's main display. 33.94 (25.08 audio, 45.12 video) 2.6GHz Core2 E4700 FSB800, 2x1GB DDR2-533 CAS3 RAM, PT880/VT8237S chipset Knoppix 5.3.1 OS, benchmark files on the Knoppix ramdisk. Swap disk available, but the benchmark did not consume enough RAM for swap to be involved. I booted back into Windows to post this. Paul why are your results different to mine? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
just a bit of fun
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:46:15 -0400, darklight wrote:
Paul wrote: Knoppix 5.3.1 OS, benchmark files on the Knoppix ramdisk. why are your results different to mine? Were you using Knoppix 5.3.1? If not, what do you get for ... zgrep SMP /proc/config.gz zgrep HIGHMEM /proc/config.gz Regards, Dave Hodgins -- Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email. (nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
just a bit of fun
David W. Hodgins wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:46:15 -0400, darklight wrote: Paul wrote: Knoppix 5.3.1 OS, benchmark files on the Knoppix ramdisk. why are your results different to mine? Were you using Knoppix 5.3.1? If not, what do you get for ... zgrep SMP /proc/config.gz zgrep HIGHMEM /proc/config.gz Regards, Dave Hodgins this is what i get linux-v099:/home/username # zgrep SMP /proc/config.gz CONFIG_SMP=y # CONFIG_X86_BIGSMP is not set CONFIG_SUSPEND_SMP=y CONFIG_X86_FIND_SMP_CONFIG=y CONFIG_X86_SMP=y linux-v099:/home/username # grep HIGHMEM /proc/config.gz linux-v099:/home/username # |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
just a bit of fun
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:46:15 +0100, darklight
wrote: Paul wrote: darklight wrote: regarding the post sent by muzician21 on 09/04/2009 about Suggestions for Core 2 Duo systems that use PCI - not PCI express why don't people download the 'benchmark designed by Australian PC User magazine' web address http://darrenyates.com.au/?p=573 then post their results just to see what the difference in performance is between hardware and os. I took a look at it. I used the Linux version (tar.gz). I noticed during the run, that CPU never went over 100%, while a copy of mprime95 from mersenne.org runs 200% with the same test conditions and OS (i.e. both cores running). I only saw a few seconds at the very end of the benchmark, where the CPU hit about 128%. So for me, it looked like it was mainly benching one core. My result, using the summary on the tool's main display. 33.94 (25.08 audio, 45.12 video) 2.6GHz Core2 E4700 FSB800, 2x1GB DDR2-533 CAS3 RAM, PT880/VT8237S chipset Knoppix 5.3.1 OS, benchmark files on the Knoppix ramdisk. Swap disk available, but the benchmark did not consume enough RAM for swap to be involved. I booted back into Windows to post this. Paul why are your results different to mine? Check the status of the benchmark; it's encountering a runtime library error. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|