Super Pi 1M score?

[ryanbatc]

I'm getting around 28 secs with my current machine....is that right for the 3GHz AMD6000?

[juneau]

Yup, that's about right. Currently getting 18seconds with my stock e6750, and iirc pigworthy is getting 14 seconds with his new e8400.

[pigworthy]

E8400 OC'ed to 3.6GHz 12.563sec. Thats on a fresh install of XP pro.

[GoatX12]

What version of SuperPi and is that per Iteration or for the ccomplete run?

[-IRC-MIKE]

When I run the initial program (v1.5) it opens up a window and says "Not Calculated" on everything. Are you guys calculating them individually?... I don't understand how you are getting those readings unless I'm doing something wrong.

From what I see you have to run the tests individually.. I.E.

16K
32K
64K

and so on.

[th3st1ck]

yeah, individually


took me 20 seconds on my:

E6600 @ 2.4 Stock
4GB Ram


fixed incorrect time...i looked at the wrong number, go me

[pigworthy]

I'm running version 1.5 and the timing I gave is for the 1m test which uses 19 iterations/loops. 1 time through.

[juneau]

I'm running version 1.5 and the timing I gave is for the 1m test which uses 19 iterations/loops. 1 time through.

That is what i use also. It's the most widely used test out of them all.

@thestick - Your e6600 is beating my e6750. Something not right there. In fact your time is 1 second slower then pigworthy's new e8400 @ stock.

[BenKenobi]

yeah, individually


took me 16 seconds on my:

E6600 @ 2.4 Stock
4GB Ram

What! I got 23 seconds on my e6600 at stock! 4 gb ram as well. 8800 gtx if that matters

[CHOPS123]

12 seconds on my 6850 oc to 3.5

[GoatX12]

I was scared I was running it and it was taking over 1min for 1m when i ran super-pi from my memstick, however moving it to my desktop changed it to 15.6 sec for 1m on my Q6600.

[th3st1ck]

yeah, individually


took me 16 seconds on my:

E6600 @ 2.4 Stock
4GB Ram

What! I got 23 seconds on my e6600 at stock! 4 gb ram as well. 8800 gtx if that matters

just kidding, turns out it was more like 20.

[ryanbatc]

crap, my amd6000 sucks!!

Sheesh, 3.0ghz stock..... it was supposed to be similar to the E6600 stock.... what a waste of money....ARGH

[CarbonFire]

crap, my amd6000 sucks!!

Sheesh, 3.0ghz stock..... it was supposed to be similar to the E6600 stock.... what a waste of money....ARGH

Got about 20 on my OC'ed e6300@2.8Ghz

Yeah, I'm afraid AMD lagged quite a bit on their previous generation parts. They're by no means slow, but their just not the fastest things out by a long shot (those numbers mean little by the way). So not a complete waste of money, but for a little more you can get a lot more performance

[juneau]

crap, my amd6000 sucks!!

Sheesh, 3.0ghz stock..... it was supposed to be similar to the E6600 stock.... what a waste of money....ARGH

Got about 20 on my OC'ed e6300@2.8Ghz

Yeah, I'm afraid AMD lagged quite a bit on their previous generation parts. They're by no means slow, but their just not the fastest things out by a long shot (those numbers mean little by the way). So not a complete waste of money, but for a little more you can get a lot more performance

And in real world terms like gaming etc they're just as good. Remember, benchmarks aren't everything.