Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 133

Thread: TBCS - Super Pi

  1. #41
    Fox Furry crenn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    In the shadows behind you
    Posts
    4,067

    Default Re: TBCS - Super Pi

    I did 4 instances of Super Pi and it took me 21s xD
    Antec Sonata II | Pioneer DVR-212
    Good news! You can follow my website or follow me on twitter!

  2. #42
    Post count? Get over it. Drew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Pembrokeshire, middle earth.....
    Posts
    899

    Default Re: TBCS - Super Pi

    Quote Originally Posted by crenn View Post
    I did 4 instances of Super Pi and it took me 21s xD
    Git.

  3. #43
    LOLWUT?! Scotty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    P'boro, England
    Posts
    1,769

    Default Re: TBCS - Super Pi

    Well Crenn you do own a Quad Core... So you should do 8 instances

    Two instances of Pi to 1 Mil on mine takes 43secs :'(

    Not telling how long it takes to do 4 instances of it.

    But then again it's not bad for a Mobile Core Duo, not even Core 2 Duo.

  4. #44
    You seem to be stood on my tail... Helix666's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    449

    Default Re: TBCS - Super Pi

    What Everest Home ED. has to say about my box.
    http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t...snapshot16.png
    http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t...snapshot17.png

    I am definitely going to re-visit this thread when I build my next box.
    Quote Originally Posted by gntlkilr
    warranties are meant to be voided.
    Turns out, they'll let any idiot with a wrench work on hydraulics.

  5. #45
    Post count? Get over it. Drew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Pembrokeshire, middle earth.....
    Posts
    899

    Default Re: TBCS - Super Pi

    This is where we need definite rules...

    My 5 instances were to 4M, not 1M......

    So let's have Crenns 20 instances of SuperPi to 4M....... (I did 5 on a single core... and 5 x 4 for quad core... it's only fair....).

    Hehheheeeee

  6. #46
    Fox Furry crenn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    In the shadows behind you
    Posts
    4,067

    Default Re: TBCS - Super Pi

    lol, I'll run it this afternoon. It's going to be quite slow xD
    Antec Sonata II | Pioneer DVR-212
    Good news! You can follow my website or follow me on twitter!

  7. #47
    Fox Furry crenn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    In the shadows behind you
    Posts
    4,067

    Default Re: TBCS - Super Pi

    I just noticed, this thread and my overclocking thread has been featured
    Antec Sonata II | Pioneer DVR-212
    Good news! You can follow my website or follow me on twitter!

  8. #48

    Default Re: TBCS - Super Pi

    Quote Originally Posted by Bucko View Post
    I ran it on my 3.06Ghz Celeron D. Don't try that while surfing forums on one screen and watching TV on the second monitor. It took 16 minutes to do the 4M Super Pi....
    Bet the TV picture wasn't jumpy at all.

  9. #49

    Default Re: TBCS - Super Pi

    Quote Originally Posted by Drew View Post
    This is where we need definite rules...

    My 5 instances were to 4M, not 1M......

    So let's have Crenns 20 instances of SuperPi to 4M....... (I did 5 on a single core... and 5 x 4 for quad core... it's only fair....).

    Hehheheeeee
    Interesting point this. SuperPi is a single threaded application (correct me if I am wrong). For peeps with multiple core processors try running it as standard accross both/all four of your cores and then limit it to one.

    In theory the time difference will not be that great. In practice that is exactly what I find. Running it on one core does not take twice as long as running it on two. It takes about five seconds more perhaps on a three minute run. I put that down to some sort of overhead I am creating on the system by limiting it to one core.

    Thoughts?

    Matthew
    Last edited by Crazy Buddhist; 08-20-2007 at 03:32 AM. Reason: smelling pistake

  10. #50

    Default Re: TBCS - Super Pi

    Quote Originally Posted by crenn View Post
    Top 10 Times on a 4M run:
    1. crenn- 1m 38.688s | Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 2997MHz | 2GB OCZ 666MHz 5-5-5-15 | Win XP 32-bit
    2. Scotty - 3m 6.5s | Intel Core Duo T2300E @ 1663MHz | 1GB Dell 533MHz 4-4-4-12 | Win XP 32-bit

    This bit vvvvvvvvv

    3. Crazy Buddhist - 3m 21.344s | Athlon X2 4200+ @ 2212MHz | 2GB 402MHz 3-3-8-11 | Win XP 32-Bit
    4. Helix666 - 3m 45.955s | Athlon 64 2200+ @ 2200MHz | 512MB 400MHz 3-3-3-8 | Linux 2.6.22.1

    This bit ^^^^^

    5. dgrmkrp - 4m 21.343s | Athlon XP 1700+ @ 2105MHz | 1GB 402MHz 3-3-3-8 | Vista 32-bit
    6. Drew- 4m 57.547s | Intel Celeron D 331 @ 2998MHz | 1GB 600MHz 4-4-4-12 | Win XP 32-bit
    7.
    8.
    9.
    10.
    Proves my point I think. One of my two cores at 2214 Mhz only just beat helix's one core at 2200 Mhz and both cores wouldn't do much better. Because its a single thread it doesn't make a big difference however many processors it's shared amongst.

    Scotty: half the processor speed and almost exactly double the time of crenn.

    Me: 2Ghz crenn: 3Ghz = 150% processing power + a 50% boost on memory speed. his time 98 seconds mine 201.

    Key factors in this test are raw Ghz (Crenn beats s&*% out of us all) and memory efficiency (ditto).

    dgr and drew are using older processors. Well OC'd in dgr's case. Maybe the maths processing is less efficient or the overhead of running the OS slowing it (vista in dgr's case). Be interesting to see a result from dgr under XP or win2k for comparison.


    CB

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •