The Official PC building thread -3rd Edition

well then you sent me the same one that you sent me before. cause idl'd what you sent and ran it right then and got what i just posted

 

On the basis of every Sandra being different, I don't believe in MIPS as an absolute measure of speed. Who do you believe? Why should one version be more correct than the others?

 

I don't think he means that one version is more correct than the other. He means that if two or more people are to compare, they need to use the same version of Sandra...

 

Rob can you make one and resend it then, and scroll down so we can see that section? It seems very strange that the Performance rating is on yours and not on mine, if. It should be right in between the cores and the CPU speed! You playing with PhotoShop again Rob? j/k ROFLMSOAO!! I do remember when you did that as a joke a long time ago! LOL!! Will's is clocked even higher than yours, with the same CPU and it isn't close to your result, on the Biostar motherboard that holds the overclock record yet! Believe me, I'm not accusing you of anything, honest. Just trying to figure out why the two have that difference!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

Hmmm, perhaps Sandra is Intel biased...It wouldn't be the first time i've heard of software that leans the other way...

 

Yes, but it always used to be there on any computer with any CPU, and as you can see it's not there! I've used it so many times on so many different computers, and it's always been there with the older versions, but it isn't on the newer ones or 2009!

Russ

 

Will,
I don't care what kind of memory you have! Memory is not going to improve MIPS by that much! CPU speed will improve MIPS, but not the other way around. You are talking about 17,000+ MIPS here! That's a huge difference! That's why so many people can't see any difference between 800 and 1066 memory. What stepping is yours? I don't think it would matter by that much anyway, but I'll ask! Whatever it is, Rob shouldn't change a thing in his setup. Lock the damn thing and throw away the password. And "Don't" remove the battery! LOL!!

It's a full 25% faster than yours Will, and you are at 3.93GHz. Something is simply not right! In all my years in computers, I've never seen a difference like that with the same model CPU! The only Sandra I would expect those results from is 2005, and it's expired unless you change the date and year back to before it stopped working, because SiSoft pulled the plug on it! I honestly thought it was a joke when I saw it. Just Rob having some fun with us! LOL!!

BTW, I am real impressed with the new 630 Quad. It's better than I expected! It's an encoding Fiend! LOL!! The PIC I showed of Prince caspian even went faster than that, as it did the last 24,000 frames at a speed of over 15,000. Nice and stable too! Ran Orthos on it for about 3 hours while I was sleeping. I'm going to run it again while I'm at work today! So far ir runs much better at 3.51gHz than it ran at 3.6! It didn't crash at that speed, but I got all sorts of written stream errors with DVDRB/CCE, so I knew something was wrong! Since the change to 3.51GHz, it hasn't had a single glitch!

Russ

 

Russ, that version of Sandra is blacklisted for Windows 7, and does not install.
edit: never mind, fooled it with compat. mode.

 

Ok, I ran the test, but I'm not convinced. I score lower for MIPS and MFLOPS than a Q6600. I know my Q9550's stock at the moment, but worse than a 6600, let alone a 6700, is just completely false. Methinks I will use a slightly more reliable program to test my CPU's performance with

 

Russ
honestly no photoshop. i dont have it and dont know how to use it..lol i woldnt do that anyways. like it i want to know why my score is so much higher i agree there shouldnt be a difference in mine and will's score. if anything his should be a tad higher than mine cause he has a higer OC. not much but it is higher. im at work right now SO WHEN I get home i will run it again. as a matter of fact i will re-download it again onto a different hdd and run it from there.
now just because that board has the OC record for the E8400 doesnt mean its the same for the Q9550 or any other chip. not knocking it or sticking up for my board but we all know those records are crap. they are benchmark records not everyday running records.. show me one of these board that will run anythign at 6.0ghz 24/7 then i will be impressed. once again everyone knows that 4.0ghz is what the average person shoots for when they try to OC their new toy..lol thats realistic and obtainable by most. yes there is higher OC's 4.5+ but even then those guys getting that high arent running them there 24/7..

anyhow when i get home tonight i will run it again.

 

You'd be surprised what MS paint can do LOL! NOT that I think you've done it...

 

dang now im branded as a cheater......

 

I don't think you're a cheater. Consistency is a rare thing, even in computing LOL!

 

Rob,
I was kidding you, but after I thought about it, I think it was GM that did a PhotoShop of a Sandra benchmark one time. Wrong Comedian! LOL!! Sorry!

I just can't imagine someone having the same CPU that's overclocked the way Will's is being 25% slower. I was just pleased that I was able to get almost 54,000 MIPS out of the 630! It will do much more given a little tweaking, but I'm happy with the way it runs right now, and I'm going to leave it alone and be happy! It's just that smooth! It's an outstanding buy for $122. No BE, but not too bad to overclock. Being totally unfamiliar with the way you had to OC the old AMDs. I'm still learning! LOL!! It does run downright cool, about 2C above ambient. It's idling at 29C right now, and that's only 2C above room temp, and this is the worst part of the day! The sun is going down, but it's still 85F out there right now.

I fully understand about the world record thing, but the board he has should still deliver good results, even with just an average CPU. I sent Sam a copy too, so we'll see what his benchmarks look like!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

@Russ

Somehow we are or I am running the wrong bit on my system,There are
2 different bit of Sandra 32 & 64 if.I read this right?

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows-versus-Windows-or-32-bit-versus-64bit-1349.shtml

here's Robo's He's running 32bit Home Xp look at the arrow




here's mine you sent me Russ the first time.I'm running Pro Xp X64



both same version (2007.2.11.17)

I Don't Have (Q6400) in mine at All He Do this is his test

I think you got it right

the first 9 words you said in your sentence my be true about in this test but skills mean more that just a brand of a memory or name on a stick of ram. I was meaning (ability you use one's knowledge effectively in doing something) I'm running 1066 stepping I can run alittle higher if.I had ddr2 1200. My ddr Enhanced Mode is on (Auto)
Here's what My Bio Screen Looks like on my Board

http://www.biostar-usa.com/app/en-us/event/tpi45oc/index.htm


Enjoy Building
Ya'll

 

ok just downloaded the file ya sent me Russ to a different hdd opend it up and this is what i get.


same as from earlier today. and if you look its the same as will's as he pointed out except im running 32bit not 64.
here is the results a even better score than first time.

and here is the newest version also
SiSoftware.Sandra.Professional.Home.v2009.5.15.96

 

ok heres the newest sandra.. this version is sweet.. alot added to it. more CPU's to compare to.yes i took the I7's and went up against them no need to waist your money on a new platform in my eyes.





yes i had to put my lovely E8400 in on it as well. dont care what anyone says thats one bad ass chip.

who ever wants this version pm me your email and its on the way.

 

Will,
I understand what you are saying but here's my screen from Sandra.



It's for both 32 and 64 bit! When you are runnig a 32 bit OS it comes up as 32 bit. When you install it on a 64 bit OS, it comes up as 64 bit. I've used it with both 32 and 64 bit XP-Pro, and it works equally well with either.

As far as the memory goes, you are not going to get roughly 17,000 More MIPS by changing memory and increasing the bandwidth! It will improve performance, but not 25% worth. That's the difference between yours and Robs, about 25%! Higher speed memory will improve your performance by allowing you to use a higher memory strap, or perhaps letting you OC a bit more, but again, not to the degree we are talking about here. Your BioStar example doesn't apply to AMD because AMD uses a CPU Host frequency, with a CPU mulitplier and multipliers for the Northbridge frequency and the HT link for the Hyper Transport! There is no fSB!

That being said, I'm really happy with the performance of the x4 630, and it's a absolute animal at encoding video with DVDRB/CCE. It runs cool, idling at 30C (average) and under load running OCCT, it doesn't get past 41-43C. It gives a lot of performance for a $122 chip, and I am impressed with it! Far more than I expected to be. I ran OCCT on it all day today while I was working and not so much as a hiccup. I am one very happy camper. Now if I could just find a way to get the memory to run on the 4.00 Multiplier, it would be running at 1040MHz right now, and the MIPS would be a little higher!

As far as GSkill not being just a name, to me that's nonsense. There's corsair, Mushkin, Crucial, GSkill, Geil, OCZ and so on. All have been at the top of the heap at one time or another. Some work better in certain motherboards than others, but they are still just name brands. I don't think any of them make their own memory chips, so they are just assemblies of someone else's chips in the memory manufacturers package. Some work better than others, but there is no guarantee that whoever is on top this month will be there next month. They are all good when they do the job you demand of them.

If what you are saying is correct (unless I'm misunderstanding something), why am I able to get 2000+ more MIPS at a .47GHz lower clock speed than you, using memory that's running at 880MHz on the 667 strap (3.33 multi)? I'm at 3.512GHz, while you are at 3.93GHz. It makes no sense. Please remember I haven't OC'd an Intel anything, in quite a while now so I am a bit rusty, and my memory is not as good as it once was.

Best Regards,
Russ

 

Got it running better now on my clean install of Windows - this is a bit more like what I was expecting to see!

Only running at a lightweight 3.4Ghz at the moment, with so much PCIe load in my system getting higher clocks like 3.7 stable is a real chore, so I decided to stomach a mild performance drop and have it at a nice round 400x8.5=3400 and 400x2.66D=1066 memory.