I'm getting around 28 secs with my current machine....is that right for the 3GHz AMD6000?
-
[IMG]http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r43/ryanbatc/radarsig1-1.jpg[/IMG] -
Yup, that's about right. Currently getting 18seconds with my stock e6750, and iirc pigworthy is getting 14 seconds with his new e8400.
-
E8400 OC'ed to 3.6GHz 12.563sec. Thats on a fresh install of XP pro.I'm here to kill friends. Do you want to be my friend?Comment
-
What version of SuperPi and is that per Iteration or for the ccomplete run?Comment
-
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.Comment
-
yeah, individually
took me 20 seconds on my:
E6600 @ 2.4 Stock
4GB Ram
fixed incorrect time...i looked at the wrong number, go meComment
-
I'm running version 1.5 and the timing I gave is for the 1m test which uses 19 iterations/loops. 1 time through.I'm here to kill friends. Do you want to be my friend?Comment
-
That is what i use also. It's the most widely used test out of them all.Originally posted by pigworthy
@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.
Comment
-
What! I got 23 seconds on my e6600 at stock! 4 gb ram as well. 8800 gtx if that mattersOriginally posted by th3st1ck[img]http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/120/latinsigsj0.jpg[/img] [img]http://sigs.2142-stats.com/BenKenobi_player_7511.png[/img] [img]http://www.ronpaul2008.com/img/public_banners/hope-banner1.gif[/img] [url=http://www.cainslair.com/paypal2Cain.htm/]
You will donate to Cain's. Now.[/url]Comment
-
12 seconds on my 6850 oc to 3.5Comment
-
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.Comment
-
just kidding, turns out it was more like 20.Originally posted by BenKenobiComment
-
crap, my amd6000 sucks!!
Sheesh, 3.0ghz stock..... it was supposed to be similar to the E6600 stock.... what a waste of money....ARGH[IMG]http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r43/ryanbatc/radarsig1-1.jpg[/IMG]Comment
-
Got about 20 on my OC'ed e6300@2.8GhzOriginally posted by ryanbatc
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
Comment
-
And in real world terms like gaming etc they're just as good. Remember, benchmarks aren't everything.Originally posted by CarbonFireGot about 20 on my OC'ed e6300@2.8GhzOriginally posted by ryanbatc
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
Comment
Comment