[compnovo]

Hi all,
There's been some discussion lately about fantasy rigs and benchmarks, so I thought I'd start a thread where everybody could post their benchmarks if they so choose.
I was going to be the first, naturally, but when I ran pcmark it didn't work (see image). What are you folks using that works and is free?

Attached thumbnail(s)

• 

[Car54]

Fantasy rigs...lol

I bought the Advanced version of PCMark05 ($20.), and have 3DMark also.
To run the PCMark05, you need to make sure that you have the Runtime Update for DX9 installed, also Windows Media Encoder 9 Series (64-bit Edition for those who have 64-bit), and also the PCMark05 64-bit Patch, again, for those w/ 64-bit. If you're using dual monitors, you need to disable your "2nd" one through the video drivers, in my case, Nvidia. I disabled my AV, and even Firewall, just to be sure of no running background processes would interfere. I had even disabled my desktop Gadgets, but that didn't seem to matter the 2nd time I benchmarked with them enabled.

This post has been edited by Car54: 31 October 2010 - 10:10 AM

[SnyperTodd]

Compnovo, the easiest and most foolproof way to prove your machine is to run CPU-Z and validate the system. After that, just post the validation link. Here's one of mine: http://valid.canardp....php?id=1128640

If you want to benchmark to compare performance, there are a few free ones you can use. I've got several of them, I'll have to go through and find some good ones and post a list here. I'm sure WJ has some suggestions, too. I use the paid versions of PCMark Vantage, 3DMark06, and 3DMark Vantage. The free version of 3DMark06 will allow you to post compare links, but I don't remember if Vantage will or not, I don't think it will. Here's one of my 3DMark06 compare links (I haven't run it in a while): http://service.futur...?3dm06=12772847

I haven't had much time to do much benchmarking this year, between a busy season at work and the house fire we had back in July and subsequent trouble with contractors and Allstate (loooooong story). However, I'll be taking a few months off soon, and we'll be moving back into our house around the same time, so maybe I'll have some time then to do some more benchmarking.

This post has been edited by SnyperTodd: 31 October 2010 - 10:25 AM

[Car54]

Sorry to hear about the fire I had read in one of your posts awhile back about you had to go and pick up some flooring, I thought it was for a re-model job, and not for fire damage reasons. Can't imagine what a hassle, nightmare that's been for you all. Hope it all eventually ends up well.

edit: by the way Snyper, I still have the Indigo Xtreme in my drawer waiting for me to try it out.

This post has been edited by Car54: 31 October 2010 - 10:52 AM

[coastie65]

This was just a quickie: http://novabench.com/view/27933

Actually outscored this:
1073
Intel Core i7 960 3.20GHz running at 3206MHz
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate
GPU: ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series
RAM: 6136 MB
Submitted by Anonymous

This post has been edited by coastie65: 31 October 2010 - 11:28 AM

[Car54]

coastie65, on 31 October 2010 - 11:20 AM, said:

This was just a quickie: http://novabench.com/view/27933

Actually outscored this:
1073
Intel Core i7 960 3.20GHz running at 3206MHz
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate
GPU: ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series
RAM: 6136 MB
Submitted by Anonymous

That is so cool coastie, nice, quick, and personal. It even showed me what to close to get a more accurate benchmark.



My score, 1029: http://novabench.com...9d7083a13627939

This post has been edited by Car54: 31 October 2010 - 11:44 AM

[coastie65]

Geez, I was still live on the internet with umpteen pages open when I ran it. Not a bad score though.

This post has been edited by coastie65: 31 October 2010 - 12:01 PM

[Car54]

coastie65, on 31 October 2010 - 11:53 AM, said:

Geez, I was still live on the internet with umpteen pages open when I ran it. Not a bad score though.

lol, not bad at all

[coastie65]

Actaually, I was referring to your score, which is pretty good all things considered. You do have a heck of a Quad core in there. Speedy at 3+ Ghz. Don't know if having all that stuff open as well as the interent made that much difference any way.

[Car54]

coastie65, on 31 October 2010 - 12:40 PM, said:

Actaually, I was referring to your score, which is pretty good all things considered. You do have a heck of a Quad core in there. Speedy at 3+ Ghz. Don't know if having all that stuff open as well as the interent made that much difference any way.

oops, didn't catch that, so thanks coastie I still would like to try OC my processor some time, just to see if I can do it. Yet as you and I have talked about in the past, it can be a little grievous and finicky, so who knows.

[coastie65]

Car54, on 31 October 2010 - 12:52 PM, said:

coastie65, on 31 October 2010 - 12:40 PM, said:

Actaually, I was referring to your score, which is pretty good all things considered. You do have a heck of a Quad core in there. Speedy at 3+ Ghz. Don't know if having all that stuff open as well as the interent made that much difference any way.

oops, didn't catch that, so thanks coastie I still would like to try OC my processor some time, just to see if I can do it. Yet as you and I have talked about in the past, it can be a little grievous and finicky, so who knows.

My idea of OCing a processor, is to buy a faster processor. Same with memory. Unfortunately, the Core i7 960 ( 3.2 Ghz ) is somewhere north of $500. At that price, it'll have to stay on the shelf.

[Car54]

I agree with you, as that's why I bought the processor I did. I think there was an QX9650 version, but I stuck with the standard version, that way if I didn't OC it, at least knew I had a good powerful processor anyway. Less grief and headaches that way.

This post has been edited by Car54: 31 October 2010 - 01:13 PM

[coastie65]

In the eMachines, I put the fastest thet the MOBO would support. It only supported an FSB up to 800. There were two more Pentium D's, the 960 @ 3.6 GHz and the 965 @ 3.73 Ghz, but the FSB was 1333 Mhz.

This post has been edited by coastie65: 31 October 2010 - 03:31 PM

[compnovo]

Well, the CPUID site was not responding and I was starting to think I was going to have to post a picture of my rig or you guys would never buy my excuses but I ran and validated CPU-Z. Here is the link:
http://valid.canardp....php?id=1458698

[Car54]

lol, ok, now we believe you

[compnovo]

Car54, on 31 October 2010 - 03:32 PM, said:

lol, ok, now we believe you

And here is the link to NovaBench for further proof
http://novabench.com/view/27970
Thanks to SnyperTodd and coastie for the links. I really hadn't wanted anybody to have to spend money just to post in this thread.

Edit: You can see from my score that I really didn't have anything to lie about.

This post has been edited by compnovo: 31 October 2010 - 03:39 PM

[coastie65]

compnovo, on 31 October 2010 - 03:37 PM, said:

Car54, on 31 October 2010 - 03:32 PM, said:

lol, ok, now we believe you

And here is the link to NovaBench for further proof
http://novabench.com/view/27970
Thanks to SnyperTodd and coastie for the links. I really hadn't wanted anybody to have to spend money just to post in this thread.

Edit: You can see from my score that I really didn't have anything to lie about.

That was a quickie I looked up and was FREE. Does pretty good.

[SnyperTodd]

Nice find with NovaBench, Coastie! I just ran it quick, here's the results: http://novabench.com/view/27981

And here's the CPU-Z validation for these settings: http://valid.canardp....php?id=1458799

[compnovo]

OK, where's Win7boy? This is his chance to redeem himself.

[SnyperTodd]

Well, there are a few things I see that I don't like about NovaBench now that I look at the group of results a little closer. For one thing, the RAM score is based largely on the amount of RAM and seems to be based less on the throughput of the RAM. To me, above a certain amount (I'll arbitrarily say 4GB for today's applications, and that's on the high side) speed becomes far more important than amount. For example, a system with 4GB of RAM transferring at 6GB/sec is going to outperform a system with 16GB of RAM moving data at 4GB/sec 99% of the time if all other factors are equal. The same goes for the size of the primary partition of the hard drive. In that case, size doesn't matter at all, but speed is of the utmost importance and will affect the overall feel of the entire system to a point. However, bigger, slower hard drives tend to score higher than smaller, faster hard drives in NovaBench. Thirdly, we all know that a GTX 285 is considerably faster than a GTX 260, but look at my graphics results compared to Car's. For whatever reason, my GTX 260 slightly outperformed his GTX 285 even though in the real world, his 285 would trounce my 260. It's not uncommon for benchmarks to not necessarily reflect real-world performance, but the GPU portion of NovaBench is weighted too heavily toward one aspect of the graphics card. With a little more experimenting, we could figure out what aspect that was, but I don't have time right now- maybe a good winter project.

Don't get me wrong, this is a good little benchmark program- probably one of the better free ones that I've seen, it just has its quirks. Still, this'll be a fun thread and a good way for these guys with 'Incredible Machines' to prove themselves.