# CPU Gflop Performance Database



## Darkknight512

I think it would be a great idea to build a database of the Flops performance of all CPU's.

To get these numbers run Linx with a problem size of 10000 for 3 runs, and average the Gflop numbers.

LinX Download Link

This would show us the difference in performance between CPU's.

Quote:

Example:
CPU Name: Intel E4600
Clockspeed: 3.00 Ghz
Gflops: 11.7278
If we keep the naming system consistent we can easily compare between CPU's

Please post a picture of CPUz and LinX when you submit data.

Data Entry Form

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tONE28lwT8clO8MrXe4ILpg&w=100&h=500 Google Spreadsheet

Let's collect some data people!


----------



## savagebunny

Just for reference: Are we posting the PEAK Gflops, Average, Lowest?

And title fix: Performance, unless u meant Proformance

Edit: nm, u said average

Just Submitted Mine

Q6600 @ 3.6

44.2874


----------



## trueg50

Done.

Core i7 4.2 ghz
Gflops: 50.35

Though IBT x64 reads ~56 Gflops.


----------



## FtW 420

Info added to spreadsheet

core i7 920 @ 4.2

53.771 gflop average


----------



## Darkknight512

Great, hopefully once we get more data it would be easy to see just how much faster a Core i7 is then a Pentium 4 by pure CPU flops performance


----------



## Darkknight512

Thanks for the data!

bump!


----------



## Lige

I am not sure if this matters, but, wouldn't you want to distinguish if the HT is off for the I* series so that you can distinguish the - actual cores vs total cores.


----------



## Darkknight512

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GH0* 
I am not sure if this matters, but, wouldn't you want to distinguish if the HT is off for the I* series so that you can distinguish the - actual cores vs total cores.

Should I make a cores and threads columns?


----------



## IaVoR

does amd cpu's count?


----------



## Darkknight512

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IaVoR* 
does amd cpu's count?

Yes


----------



## IaVoR

i've posted mine









Edit: no need of proof or something?


----------



## scottsee

Proof should be screen shot..


----------



## Darkknight512

Yea I think it would be a good idea to have a screen shot of CPUz and LinX before you submit.

I have added a column that says "Verified", when I get proof of you benchmark I will put a Yes in, a blank means No or Pending.


----------



## Darkknight512

Iavor - verified


----------



## weidass

CPU Name: Intel i7 920
Clockspeed: 4.20 Ghz
Gflops: 60.0168

sig rig, check other screenshot in sig.










Btw, wouldn't this be better off in the benchmarking forum?


----------



## Darkknight512

^Both i7's added

Also added my sisters old old laptop (Celeron M 1.5Ghz)


----------



## chatch15117

46Gflops


----------



## Darkknight512

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chatch15117* 
46Gflops

Verified, Thanks


----------



## Canada Guy

Intel E8400
3.4875 Ghz
23.3761

and

Intel E4600
Gflops 10.4084
3.435 Ghz


----------



## Darkknight512

Thanks

verified and cleaned up the spread sheet


----------



## scottsee

Dell XPS M140!! Everyday livingroom laptop!!!
0.5 Gflops.. beat that!


----------



## Retoric

CPU Name: Intel i5-750
Clockspeed: 3.6 Ghz
Gflops: 49.74


----------



## Darkknight512

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scottsee* 
Dell XPS M140!! Everyday livingroom laptop!!!
0.5 Gflops.. beat that!









I need the problemsize at 10 000 not 1000, it might be why your getting such a low Gflop score, your Pentium M 1.8 should be better then the Celeron M 1.5 up there.


----------



## Canada Guy

It seems weird that my E4600 at 3.4 is getting a significantly lower score than Darkknight512's E4600 at 3.0.

I would think that higher Ghz would equal higher Gflops on the exact same chip, but I guess not.

Edit: Also, thanks Darkknight512 for cleaning up the table, I accidentally double posted to it last night.


----------



## Darkknight512

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Canada Guy* 
It seems weird that my E4600 at 3.4 is getting a significantly lower score than Darknight512's E4600 at 3.0.

I would think that higher Ghz would equal higher Gflops on the exact same chip, but I guess not.

Maybe you have something running in the background that you forgot to close


----------



## scottsee




----------



## Darkknight512

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scottsee* 









Thank you, added

I'm surprised the Pentium M is so slow.


----------



## Canada Guy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Darkknight512* 
Maybe you have something running in the background that you forgot to close

Nope, freshly restarted and closed any extra background processes.

Maybe the chip is on it's last legs, it now takes 1.6ish volts to hit 3.4, when I used to be able to get about 3.8 out of it at 1.5 volts. Oh well, I'm just gonna keep feeding it more volts till it dies and upgrade.


----------



## Darkknight512

I have never pushed the voltage on mine because I can't pay for it if it goes bam.


----------



## FtW 420

Already added my stats a while back, I'll include a screenshot.


----------



## dham

CPU Name: Intel Core i5 750
Clockspeed: 4010 mhz
Gflops: 55.2118


----------



## Darkknight512

Thanks for your input

To everyone else:

Would love to see some older chips and see how CPU's have changed in the past 5-10 years.


----------



## dham

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Darkknight512* 
Thanks for your input

To everyone else:

Would love to see some older chips and see how CPU's have changed in the past 5-10 years.

Hey man I'm going to do my Pentium 4 right now in a few.


----------



## Darren9

QX9650
3.825MHz
50.8529GFlop


----------



## quaaark

Here's an E5200 @ 3.6


----------



## dzalias

AMD Phenom II X4 955BE (C2 stepping) at 3.8GHz. 47.0744GFlops


----------



## scottsee




----------



## Darkknight512

Thanks, added


----------



## NrGx

Done. 51.5065 peak with sig settings.


----------



## Darkknight512

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NrGx* 
Done. 51.5065 peak with sig settings.

I need the avg. of at least 3 and a screenshot to verify


----------



## NrGx

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Darkknight512* 
I need the avg. of at least 3 and a screenshot to verify

I have no reason to lie and the average is 51.344.


----------



## C.Jackson

CPU: E6300
Clock: 1.86GHz
Average: 7.4387 GFlops


----------



## Laforet

I will upload results soon (accidentally closed a benchmark window) but just wondering if LinX is a reliable tool for measing raw performance

In my case, QX9650 stock, rated 48GFlops by Intel, Sandra returns 44.6GFlops w/ SSE3, yet LinX only give something around 35GFlops


----------



## grd003

CPU: i7 920 
Clock: 4.11GHz
Average: 58.7661 GFlops


----------



## Darkknight512

Thank you


----------



## R00ST3R

CPU: Intel Q9550 
Clockspeed: 4.012Ghz
Average: 56.6Gflops


----------



## Darkknight512

*Bump*


----------



## grd003

Quote:



Originally Posted by *R00ST3R*


CPU: Intel Q9550 
Clockspeed: 4.012Ghz
Average: 56.6Gflops


Isn't this 55.6, not 56.6?


----------



## bluebunny

Quote:



Originally Posted by *grd003*


Isn't this 55.6, not 56.6?


yea it should be must be a typo


----------



## Darkknight512

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bluebunny* 
yea it should be must be a typo

It's correct on the spreadsheet


----------



## Darkknight512

Bumparoos


----------



## freakb18c1

cmon i7 =)


----------



## XFreeRollerX

Quote:


Originally Posted by *freakb18c1* 


















cmon i7 =)

Whaaaat

My i7 at 4.33 gets 57 GFLOP... how is urs more?


----------



## freakb18c1

4.3 Problem Size 10000 3 pass


----------



## freakb18c1

Quote:


Originally Posted by *XFreeRollerX* 
Whaaaat

My i7 at 4.33 gets 57 GFLOP... how is urs more?

lol i dunno sorry.


----------



## 88EVGAFTW

i7 C0
4.0 Ghz
Avg Gflops= 56.858666









A lot of people in this thread are not running 10K problem size, but running much higher or slightly higher.


----------



## freakb18c1

DOH was only supposed to run 10000 problem size


----------



## Darkknight512

Added, and I added a notes column that shows if the problem size was wrong.

Frekb18c1: I added your run at 4.3 Ghz


----------



## Retoric

CPU Name: Intel i5 750
Clockspeed: 3.81 Ghz
Gflops: 50.75


----------



## Darkknight512

Thanks


----------



## TonyGrunt

CPU Name: Intel i7 920 C0 - HT off
Clockspeed: 4.2 Ghz
Gflops: 61.20


----------



## weidass

Quote:



Originally Posted by *TonyGrunt*


CPU Name: Intel i7 920 C0 - HT off
Clockspeed: 4.2 Ghz
Gflops: 61.20


Dang and blast, now i have to overclock some more xD

Brb with 62 Gflops









EDIT : Ok, here we go









62.6203 Gflops, 4.515 Ghz, appears to be linx stable.


----------



## grd003

CPU: i7 920 D0
Clock: 4.3569GHz
Average: 62.8752 GFlops


----------



## weidass

What's your ram timings? That's pretty sweet for 4.3


----------



## grd003

Quote:



Originally Posted by *weidass*


What's your ram timings? That's pretty sweet for 4.3


For this run 1660MHz, 7-8-7-21

[*edit*] GFlops lower with HT on


----------



## Darkknight512

^All updated and verified


----------



## Win == True

CPU: AMD Turion 64 Mobile TK-53
Clock: 1.7GHz
Gflops: 4.1197


----------



## Win == True

CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E7200
Clock: 3.16GHz
Gflops: 18.4286


----------



## fang_laluna

Quote:


Originally Posted by *weidass* 
Dang and blast, now i have to overclock some more xD

Brb with 62 Gflops









EDIT : Ok, here we go









62.6203 Gflops, 4.515 Ghz, appears to be linx stable.

That vcore is pretty sweet for 4.5 dude. How did you get it that low? I got BSOD if vcore lower than 1.35










Anyone know why my glops is pretty low? Is my CPU throttling?


----------



## grd003

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fang_laluna* 
That vcore is pretty sweet for 4.5 dude. How did you get it that low? I got BSOD if vcore lower than 1.35










Anyone know why my glops is pretty low? Is my CPU throttling?

32-bit OS; memory headroom, i.e., what else is loaded? available cpu cycles, again, what else is running?

Given your low temperatures, I don't think you're throttling.


----------



## fang_laluna

Quote:



Originally Posted by *grd003*


32-bit OS; memory headroom, i.e., what else is loaded? available cpu cycles, again, what else is running?

Given your low temperatures, I don't think you're throttling.


What's memory headroom?

Umm, letme see... avg, super anti spyware, evga precision, peer guardian. That's pretty much it...


----------



## weidass

Quote:



Originally Posted by *fang_laluna*


That vcore is pretty sweet for 4.5 dude. How did you get it that low? I got BSOD if vcore lower than 1.35


Just got a good batch chip. On the i7 920 Batch thread around here somewhere, peeps with the same batch as me are gettin similar volts to mine, at a given clock speed.


----------



## grd003

Quote:



Originally Posted by *fang_laluna*


What's memory headroom?
Umm, letme see... avg, super anti spyware, evga precision, peer guardian. That's pretty much it...


fang_laluna, your Problem size is 15,000 instead of the prescribed 10,000.

This is the way I run, although I do it to get some memory headroom (available to be used for running processes, especially like Windows stuffs, and like LinX), it is also to have optimum CPU cycles available for LinX,

1. Wait for Windows to complete its many housekeeping functions after boot, can be a lot longer than you think
2. Stop all unnecessary Services
3. Go to Task Manager and 'End Process Tree' for all unnecessary processes
4. Be sure to quit Task Manager before you run
5. Stop your Anti Virus scanner
6. Check process priority on LinX -- with 'Above Normal' I have problems
7. Run with HT off.

Memory speed seems to be one key. Uncore frequency is also said to contribute (but I don't play with mine since I get BSOD).


----------



## wierdo124

added


----------



## Bastiaan_NL

ive got an Phenom II 965BE running at stock speed. 
I did 19k problem size, so i will do 10k soon, with all the unnecessary tasks shut down. 
@ 19k the first 3 runs the average is: 41.7710Gflops


----------



## grd003

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Bastiaan_NL*


ive got an Phenom II 965BE running at stock speed. 
I did 19k problem size, so i will do 10k soon, with all the unnecessary tasks shut down. 
@ 19k the first 3 runs the average is: 41.7710Gflops


I like that 3.4GHz -- stock. Kinda sweet.


----------



## Bastiaan_NL

Quote:


Originally Posted by *grd003* 
I like that 3.4GHz -- stock. Kinda sweet.

thanx, me too







costs some money but its worth it, im happy i bought it.

Here are 3 runs @ 10k with 3.8ghz 46.4111Gflops, couldnt resist it....








Ill do 3.4 after im done with some homework.

The run was with explorer.exe, antivirus etc all shut down, and only raised the cpu to 19x200= 3800mhz










[edit]I think if you want to get a neutral result you should have all these chips (775/LGA1366/LGA1155/am2/2+/am3) on the same motherboards, so all the amd chips on the same mobo etc. Cause it would be strange that a 3.8ghz 955be would beat a 965be also at 3.8 cause its basicly the same cpu....







i know its impossible but still.......







/ot


----------



## FtW 420

I was playing around with this a bit, I had my 53.7 gflops at my regular 24/7 overclock in the thread already here: http://www.overclock.net/7364504-post30.html

Here I tried using only 4 cores since most are getting higher numbers with HT off









Overclocked the memory, not much difference









High overclock to get max, best I could manage with temps, 68 gigaflops


----------



## grd003

Quote:


Originally Posted by *FtW 420* 
I was playing around with this a bit, I had my 53.7 gflops at my regular 24/7 overclock in the thread already here: http://www.overclock.net/7364504-post30.html

Here I tried using only 4 cores since most are getting higher numbers with HT off









Overclocked the memory, not much difference









High overclock to get max, best I could manage with temps, 68 gigaflops









Your examples here may help answer some people's question about why someone's Gflops are different than theirs with the same clock rate (but as someone pointed out above, motherboards could be a real kicker).

We _all_ appreciate your 4.725GHz, 68Gflop run! Thank you.


----------



## weidass

Damn it, i dont think im gonna be able to best 68 Gflops


----------



## FtW 420

Hey! You also have a 3849A batch, I don't see many others. 4.5 @ 1.28 vcore is pretty good, my highest 100 pass all memory LinX stable was 4.4 @ 1.36 for my 3849a832 batch.


----------



## weidass

mine is slightly different, its a 3849A827

Haven't seen that exact batch number anywhere....


----------



## grd003

Quote:


Originally Posted by *weidass* 
Damn it, i dont think im gonna be able to best 68 Gflops









LOL. I ain't even gonna try, can't even imagine.

There is some *serious* benefit to that 4.7252GHz clock!

It does give one something to consider.


----------



## grd003

Quote:


Originally Posted by *FtW 420* 
Here I tried using only 4 cores since most are getting higher numbers with HT off

Overclocked the memory, not much difference

*High overclock to get max, best I could manage with temps, 68 gigaflops*

Well your temps are actually quite low at load.

Are you water cooled? of course you are.

Many people would consider your 4.7252GHz a 24/7 value with such effective cooling. Okay, maybe _you'd_ want to lower your Vcore which might lower your Bclk some.

Excellent Run! Congrats.


----------



## FtW 420

I like to run it within specs, till benchmarking time. I only run it at higher overclocks & voltage for short periods & I tend to go on the higher side for vcore for quick benchies..

The temps are only a problem because the board shuts down at about 80Â°, I've run the cpu hotter in my bloodrage board so pretty sure it isn't the cpu, but as soon as I see the temp at 79 i'm usually seeing POST within seconds.


----------



## grd003

Quote:


Originally Posted by *FtW 420* 
I like to run it within specs, till benchmarking time. I only run it at higher overclocks & voltage for short periods & I tend to go on the higher side for vcore for quick benchies..

The temps are only a problem because the board shuts down at about 80Â°, I've run the cpu hotter in my bloodrage board so pretty sure it isn't the cpu, but as soon as I see the temp at 79 i'm usually seeing POST within seconds.

I'm not going to throw away money because I blow up a processor...I'm $poor but I don't think you're on the edge, yet, by a long ways.

To shut down, it must be something you have set in the BIOS PC Health, or, or, or one of those other places. There are 920's running 85--~100c. All that happens at those temps is throttling or BSOD (or blue smoke, but not yet, especially at your low temps).

I admire you CPU's performance, and do appreciate your sharing the numbers.


----------



## Ktmrida4life

CPU Name: Athlon 3700+ 
Clockspeed: 2.21 GHz (stock) 
Gflops: 2.9802

Socket 939 FTW.


----------



## Darkknight512

^Everything updated to this point

@Ktmrida4life screen shot for verification please.


----------



## Unknownm

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Darkknight512*


I think it would be a great idea to build a database of the Flops performance of all CPU's.

To get these numbers run Linx with a problem size of 10000 for 3 runs, and average the Gflop numbers.


huh... redo this chart. LinX has better Gflop in 64-bit OS compared to 32-bit. Make a 32-bit CPU / 64-bit CPU charts


----------



## Unknownm

point proven here


----------



## philhalo66

well here is mine


----------



## Darkknight512

Quote:


Originally Posted by *philhalo66* 
not to be a noob but how do i average the numbers?

Add them all up and divide by the number of numbers you added together.


----------



## dzalias

I don't know if I mentioned this in my previous post, but I ran AMD Fusion before running the test. That could be why the 965BE ran slightly slower than my 955BE at the same speed. I would recommend using it all across the board, but the idea's to get relative results.

EDIT: Once I get my DDR2 RAM, I'll overclock my P4 WITH hyperthreading to get an idea of how much of a difference HT really makes.


----------



## Bastiaan_NL

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dzalias* 
I don't know if I mentioned this in my previous post, but I ran AMD Fusion before running the test. That could be why the 965BE ran slightly slower than my 955BE at the same speed. I would recommend using it all across the board, but the idea's to get relative results.

hmm, ill try Fusion. I couldnt get overdrive to work...








otherwise i could run 4.4ghz maybe a bit more... not stable, but i could run it...xD

nice speeds btw, i wish i could run 4.3ghz stable on my chip...


----------



## grd003

Quote:
Originally Posted by *philhalo66* 
_not to be a noob but how do i average the numbers?_

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Darkknight512* 
Add them all up and divide by the number of numbers you added together.

Click on the "Log" tab at the bottom right of the LinX screen. The average is in the log.


----------



## Ecchi-BANZAII!!!

I find this very biased to those who have lots of RAM...
Shouldn't be better if we used 1/4 of our total RAM?
Currently using 2x1GB RAM only.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Hum, very strange. I get different Gflop numbers depending on the problem size.

The first picture is the standardized result.

CPU Name: AMD Athlon II X4 620
Clockspeed: 3.25 GHz
Gflops: 15.0584

Note the problem sizes in the different screenshots below. The second one with a problem size of 20000 was for stress testing.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Addendum: I'm surprised my CPU gets such low Gflop results compared to some others. Thermal throttling happening, perhaps?


----------



## Fallen Angel -X

Heres my result

27 Gflops with Phenom II 940BE stock


----------



## Quantum Reality

Well, this is interesting. I rebooted, waited for Vista 64-bit to do all its housekeeping tasks, and then ran LinX.

Surprise, surprise.

Now I get an average of 39.8334 Gflops.


----------



## Fallen Angel -X

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality* 
Well, this is interesting. I rebooted, waited for Vista 64-bit to do all its housekeeping tasks, and then ran LinX.

Surprise, surprise.

Now I get an average of 39.8334 Gflops.

Huh









How did your Athlon x 4 get a higher score than My Phenom 940BE?


----------



## Quantum Reality

Don't ask me. I have no idea how reliable the thing is, TBH. As you can see changing the problem size can be enough to change the Gflop rating, too. (Keep in mind my CPU *is* overclocked to 3.25 GHz)

Also: Unknownm has demonstrated that 32-bit and 64-bit Vista versions can cause differences in the ratings as well. I use 64-bit Vista Ultimate. (see this post)


----------



## Fallen Angel -X

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality* 
Don't ask me. I have no idea how reliable the thing is, TBH. As you can see changing the problem size can be enough to change the Gflop rating, too. (Keep in mind my CPU *is* overclocked to 3.25 GHz)

Also: Unknownm has demonstrated that 32-bit and 64-bit Vista versions can cause differences in the ratings as well. I use 64-bit Vista Ultimate.

Ahh okay i use 32bit

I will overclock to 3.5 see if it maeks a difference









brb


----------



## jackeyjoe

i think i'l give this a go. I'll post what my E8400 is at stock and overclocked to 4ghz tomorrow.


----------



## grd003

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jackeyjoe* 
i think i'l give this a go. I'll post what my E8400 is at stock and overclocked to 4ghz tomorrow.

These are pretty good questions we're getting about performance. We know about the x32-x64 differences, and HT On-Off; and we ought to know that other interrupting processes running simultaneously would probably also affect scores, too. I don't think LinX is a good measure of processing capability, but is there something more reliable for pure power? and in what realm?


----------



## Ktmrida4life

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Darkknight512* 
^Everything updated to this point

@Ktmrida4life screen shot for verification please.

Oh my bad, Ill run the program again tonight and post screenie soon. Also my CPU is OCed to 2.75 now so the score might be different ;P


----------



## Retoric

CPU Name: Intel i5 750
Clockspeed: 3.81 Ghz
Gflops: 54,0014


----------



## -n7-

59.6827 GFlops average.
_
i5 750 @ 4158 MHz DDR3-1980 9-9-8-25 1N_


----------



## -n7-

25.7328 GFlops average.

_Pentium E5300 @ 4008 MHz DDR2-1113 5-5-5-15_


----------



## chatch15117

Quote:


Originally Posted by *grd003* 
These are pretty good questions we're getting about performance. We know about the x32-x64 differences, and HT On-Off; and we ought to know that other interrupting processes running simultaneously would probably also affect scores, too. I don't think LinX is a good measure of processing capability, but is there something more reliable for pure power? and in what realm?

SuperPi on one core/thread. Then you can compare the performance accurately among all processors regardless of the amount of cores and threads they have.


----------



## grd003

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chatch15117* 
SuperPi on one core/thread. Then you can compare the performance accurately among all processors regardless of the amount of cores and threads they have.

Certainly in some realm, because I always take a peek at SuperPi to see how I'm running. Right at the moment I can't get very close to my best (9.347s (and worse) Vs. 9.328s, single core, single thread), so SuperPi does give me good data, I think, which may be the difference between running with SpeedStep or running without it.

Okay, so, does SuperPi or anything else measure performance based solely on the cpu cycles that the operating systems gives it? i.e., it would be nice if testing benchmarks calculated only when it was actually running and not paused while something else works a while taking cycles away from the benching program.


----------



## Quantum Reality

So hmm

After some tweaking of my overclocking and HT/NB frequencies, here's my new LinX Gflop rating: 40.3910 Gflops (avg).

Seems that LinX is fairly sensitive to CPU speeds.


----------



## Bitemarks and bloodstains

Example:
CPU Name: AMD Phemon II X3 720BE 4th core unlocked
Clockspeed: 3.8 Ghz
Gflops: 44.6708


----------



## Unknownm

here is mine


----------



## freakb18c1

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Bitemarks and bloodstains*


Example: 
CPU Name: AMD Phemon II X3 720BE 4th core unlocked
Clockspeed: 3.8 Ghz
Gflops: 44.6708










impressive


----------



## knights191

Hmm... I am getting a very good performance compared to other 4+ ghz Core i7 systems here








920 D0 @ 3800 mhz (19x181) @ 1448 7-7-7-20-88-1N
61+ GFlops in LinX 64 bit (5300 MB RAM test)

This is the correct one 60 GFlops with 3800 MHZ Core i7


----------



## Bozebo

should the graph not also include some other system info, like motherboard?

because I know my q6600 on my board is worse than on my flatmate's dfi lanparty board (need to test that again and get some more figures)

edit:
intersting, an i5 750 performs relatively close to the i7 920 in some of the circumstances. Definately looking to i5 for my next build


----------



## _Marvin_

Cpu: Q6600
Clock: 3.6 Ghz
Gflops: 45.7681


----------



## freakb18c1

here my lappy @ 2.4ghz


----------



## F1ForFrags

Sorry for the necro-thread revival, but here's my i5


----------



## Bastiaan_NL

thats a pretty nice result F1ForFrags


----------



## freakb18c1

is this thread still being updated?


----------



## eurotrade07

Phenom 550 X4 B50 3.6 Ghz -> 35.9928 GFlops


----------



## Horsemama1956

Athlon II x4 [email protected] = 43.62 GFlops


----------



## ntuason

68.0777


----------



## freakb18c1

^ wow


----------



## mm67

Q9550 @ 3.91 GHz, 51.9913 GFlops
Attachment 161735


----------



## BeepBeep

72-73avg


----------



## lightsout

So I tried it with speed step enabled and avg.'d 29. Turned off speed step and I'm only doing 17, ***???????

I then re-enabled speed step and got 22. Strange


----------



## freakb18c1

Quote:


Originally Posted by *beepbeep* 
72-73avg










woah!


----------



## Unknownm

A NEC A2100 Laptop with no GPU drivers (Not supported in Windows 7).


----------



## hbfs

i5-750 @ 4.02GHz, average 57.9077

Edit: forgot to keep CPU name consistent, fix for me please, thanks!


----------



## mm67

E7400 @ 3.87, average 24.9048
Attachment 162262


----------



## cory1234

i5 750 @ 4ghz 20x200: ~57Gflops









i7 875K @ 3.7ghz with HT: ~47Gflops


----------



## freakb18c1

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cory1234* 
i5 750 @ 4ghz 20x200: ~57Gflops









i7 875K @ 3.7ghz with HT: ~47Gflops










problem size needs to be 10,000 w/ linx not max runs


----------



## cory1234

linx/ibt same thing. O well don't feel like redoing tests atm


----------



## mm67

Q9550 @ 4.12 GHz, average 54.8676 GFlops
Attachment 162512


----------



## freakb18c1

q9550 @ 4.08 avg 55.8084


----------



## Shogon

Intel Xeon E5620 @ 4018Mhz Avg. 51.4844 Gflops


----------



## bubu0000




----------



## mm67

Q9550 @ 4.25 GHz, average 57.1398 GFlops


----------



## overclockerjames

Quote:



Originally Posted by *mm67*


Q9550 @ 4.25 GHz, average 57.1398 GFlops










that's crazy seeing a socket 775 q9550 scoring nearly as well as a i7-975, makes you wonder why anyone paid big $$$ for an expensive i7 mb and DDR3 ram


----------



## overclockerjames

here's mine. I looked at the chart and I don't know if this is good or not since I see e4600's at 3.4ghz scoring 10.4 but a T9300 at 2.5ghz getting a 15 and e7200's at 3.1ghz getting 18 so I dunno.


----------



## Bozebo

Quote:


Originally Posted by *overclockerjames* 
that's crazy seeing a socket 775 q9550 scoring nearly as well as a i7-975, makes you wonder why anyone paid big $$$ for an expensive i7 mb and DDR3 ram

Yeah

I built a q9550 machine for a friend, got almost 50Gflops. These newer ones tend to have very high VIDs (> 1.3!!!!) though, unfortunately - so you need a first-batch 9550 or 9650 to get the great overclocks









On another note. My q6600 (G0, 1.1 VID) at 3.2 will only get 29GFlops? Why so much less than the othere q6600? Could my mobo be to blame?

edit:
Here, I might aswell submit it (at 3GHz atm - I was lowering mobo voltages left right and centre the other week and I can't be bothered sorting them at the moment):

















I don't have a worm or anything like that







What's going on? Maybe my mobo is holding me back, but I don't see how it could affect raw cpu performance.


----------



## mm67

Have you tried with a slightly higher Vcore, at least my Cpu runs with much lower Gflops if I use too low Vcore settings.


----------



## freakb18c1




----------



## G3RG

Just set the record for this thread...74gflops

CPU shows 1160mhz but it's really 4060...it just underclocked itself


----------



## DiHydrogenMonOxide

Q6600
3.6 GHz
47.0137 Avg. GFlops


----------



## wint0nic

980x @ 4GHz 1.2v, 81.3682 GFLOPS
Screenie:


----------



## TwistedDane

E8400 @ 4255MHz 1.304v, 27.8456 GFLOPS


----------



## tout

1090T @ 4.0 GHz 72.275 GFlops average.

View attachment 200559


----------



## 636cc of fury

2500k at 4.7 with nice memory timings

avg glops: 130.33


----------



## vutqy

Are you interested in relics?
Quote:


> AMD Athlon 64 3200+
> 2.2 Ghz
> 1.039 Gflops


CPU-Z shows 1.0 Ghz because of Cool'n'Quiet.


----------



## Lucky 13 SpeedShop

Seems like this thread needs a little more action. Soooo...










New AMD top dog.







Oh yeah, almost forgot. This is my everyday settings.


----------



## Z13

Submitted my Pentium T4500.


----------

