|
2011-02-14, 19:46
|
#100 |
Aug 2002
North San Diego County
10101011012 Posts |
I think I made a mistake when running that benchmark. There must have been a background process running, as it is notably slower than when it was clocked at 3.2gHz. If I get access later I'll re-run it.
This is a partial result from before @ 3.2: Code:
Prime95 64-bit version 26.3, RdtscTiming=1 Best time for 768K FFT length: 9.842 ms., avg: 9.963 ms. Best time for 896K FFT length: 12.088 ms., avg: 12.261 ms. Best time for 1024K FFT length: 13.349 ms., avg: 13.444 ms. Best time for 1280K FFT length: 17.199 ms., avg: 17.278 ms. Best time for 1536K FFT length: 21.077 ms., avg: 21.171 ms. Best time for 1792K FFT length: 25.878 ms., avg: 25.984 ms. Best time for 2048K FFT length: 28.287 ms., avg: 28.429 ms. Best time for 2560K FFT length: 36.407 ms., avg: 36.546 ms. Best time for 3072K FFT length: 45.043 ms., avg: 45.168 ms. Best time for 3584K FFT length: 54.607 ms., avg: 54.738 ms. Best time for 4096K FFT length: 60.257 ms., avg: 60.452 ms. Best time for 5120K FFT length: 78.992 ms., avg: 79.270 ms. Best time for 6144K FFT length: 99.608 ms., avg: 99.875 ms. Best time for 7168K FFT length: 123.402 ms., avg: 123.595 ms. Best time for 8192K FFT length: 136.919 ms., avg: 137.173 ms. |
|
|
|
2011-02-14, 20:25
|
#101 | |
"James Heinrich"
May 2004
ex-Northern Ontario
342710 Posts |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-02-14, 20:30
|
#102 | |
|
Aug 2002
North San Diego County
5·137 Posts |
Quote:
3.2 TF Results: Code:
Best time for 58 bit trial factors: 1.954 ms. Best time for 59 bit trial factors: 2.000 ms. Best time for 60 bit trial factors: 1.998 ms. Best time for 61 bit trial factors: 2.175 ms. Best time for 62 bit trial factors: 2.215 ms. Best time for 63 bit trial factors: 2.636 ms. Best time for 64 bit trial factors: 2.958 ms. Best time for 65 bit trial factors: 3.672 ms. Best time for 66 bit trial factors: 4.389 ms. Best time for 67 bit trial factors: 4.355 ms. |
|
|
|
|
|
2011-02-14, 20:32
|
#103 |
|
"James Heinrich"
May 2004
ex-Northern Ontario
23×149 Posts |
Re-purged, re-updated
|
|
|
|
|
2011-05-23, 16:44
|
#104 |
Sep 2008
Kansas
338910 Posts |
Is there a final or recommended inventory list for the SB system?
|
|
|
|
|
2011-05-24, 00:32
|
#105 |
Mar 2003
Melbourne
20316 Posts |
Just an update from me, my 2133 ram now has unrecoverable read errors.
I did some more reading, and sandy bridge cpus are only rated for 1.5V ram. It can do 1.65V ram, but your technically over-volting the memory parts of the cpu. This is what i'm running with atm: http://www.gskill.com/products.php?index=349 1600MHz @1.5V I haven't found anything faster that is still at 1.5V. I do notice the difference. In my pseudo-scientific testing I've found that faster ram does yield better performance for prime hunting (P-1 saw the biggest improvement). Sorry I don't have proper figures, but it takes so damn long to do tests properly :) Also I found too the biggest improvement in stability came from increasing the "QPI/Vtt voltage" from 1.05 to 1.16V. -- Craig |
|
|
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| So Sandy Bridge Xeons are now launched | fivemack | Hardware | 6 | 2012-03-14 11:27 |
| Overclocking, Sandy Bridge-E : Don't | firejuggler | Hardware | 6 | 2012-03-08 19:38 |
| 2 disabled cores in new Sandy Bridge-E :( | stars10250 | Hardware | 8 | 2011-11-16 13:55 |
| Sandy Bridge CPU Usage only 50 percent | dmoran | Software | 3 | 2011-06-14 21:21 |
| Sandy Bridge benchmarks are out. | nucleon | Hardware | 0 | 2011-01-04 11:41 |
