*OFFICIAL* Pi-to-1M Calculating Contest. How fast can YOU be?

  • Thread starter Evolution.
  • 203 comments
  • 17,485 views
JNasty4G63
Can you post a screen shot of your calculation again, with a shot of CPU-Z showing your processor??? The reason I ask is, your time is only slightly slower than that of people running some moderately overclocked C2D chips.
Click to expand...

Here is a new faster time (19.468s), and the screen you were asking for. I haven't overclocked the chip at all - it is still with the factory settings. Maybe that is why my time is slower? I managed to get the faster time by disabling that speedstep thingy. :dopey:

Super pi:

19468io4.jpg


Cpu-z:

cpuzul6.jpg


Can you see anything odd with the Cpu-z screen?
 
superpiftlpg9.jpg


specsftwwo5.jpg


Intel Core2 Duo E6400, 1GB RAM (Single Channel, wanting to upgrade to 2GB so I can have dual channel), Asus P5B Mobo, 80GB hdd, 120GB hdd / external enclosure.
 
Cool, 4th place :D

Wonder how long I'll be able to hold that position :(

-edit-

I'm going to get it under 25 seconds eventually... I really need to :lol: And I'll add the CPU-Z when I do.
 
magburner
Here is a new faster time (19.468s), and the screen you were asking for.....Can you see anything odd with the Cpu-z screen?
Click to expand...
No, its not the CPU-Z that I'm wondering about. Its the unusually fast Pi time. Most stock E6700 chips usually put down a base run of 21sec +/- for the 1M test. Hell, the X6800 only does like 18-19s at stock speeds. But, yours does a 19.4 at stock speeds. Just weird, thats all.

Everything is perfectly stock on the CPU-Z, so there is nothing that should be giving the boost. Like I said before, you are only a pinch slower than jammyozzy with his overclocked X6600 running a good chunk faster FSB speed. Something just isn't normal here. Not sure what.

Hilg
 
3-Wheel Drive
Rats. Someone's actually managed a slower time than me.
Click to expand...
:lol::lol::lol:

OH, you don't even want to TRY and test my computer at work for speed. It is slower than slow. Its a decent old Athlon 900, FX5200, SBLive, and 160GB drive. But, it only has 128MB of RAM. So running XP it just gets slaughtered at anything memory intensive, which these days is just about EVERYTHING. Its almost comical using it. I get the "Virtual Memory is low....." pop up window a couple times a day. But, for what we use it for work-wise, its perfect. It really isn't meant to be a high-end net machine.

I was going to put up a time for one of my machines here at home, but I kind of enjoy last place. I have a pretty fast A64 4000+ machine that will do about a 30 sec time. My Core Duo 20" iMac does around 32 sec. And, I tested it on my Mac Pro dual-3.0, and got a decent time of about 20 sec. But, it wasn't the fastest here, so I don't really care.

Not the best test for the Mac Pro anyway. Super Pi isn't multi-core aware, let alone DP aware. So a dual-dual setup like the Mac Pro is just spinning its wheels. Add that to the fact that the FB-DIMMS the Xeons use are a little slower, and it just isn't quite there. These babies are fast, but just not quite as quick as a standard Core 2 with faster DDR2 in this test.

Hilg

My Mac Pro's Woodys
woodysly4.gif
 
JNasty4G63
No, its not the CPU-Z that I'm wondering about. Its the unusually fast Pi time. Most stock E6700 chips usually put down a base run of 21sec +/- for the 1M test. Hell, the X6800 only does like 18-19s at stock speeds. But, yours does a 19.4 at stock speeds. Just weird, thats all.

Everything is perfectly stock on the CPU-Z, so there is nothing that should be giving the boost. Like I said before, you are only a pinch slower than jammyozzy with his overclocked X6600 running a good chunk faster FSB speed. Something just isn't normal here. Not sure what.
Click to expand...

So, my time was quite fast then? You had me worried for a moment there. :sly: Could it be something to do with the motherboard then? The XPS 700 has a 'unique' (I say unique, but it is actually proprietry) Dell BTX motherboard. Its a hybrid of the Nforce4 SLI intel edition, with an Nforce 590MCP southbridge. It is claimed to be the full 590 chipset, but there is some debate on the net whether it is or not.

I have Ntune installed, but I have not used it to improve the system performance as I know zipp-nada about overclocking, and I don't want to void my warranty if I fluff it up.

Also, I've read that the C2D chips actually perform quicker (in certain circumstances) if they are multi-tasking. here is a link to the document (PDF) Performance comparison of four XPS 700 systems with various Intel processors. Check out the section that says 'Gaming Test (Sierra Entertainment F.E.A.R. +patch 1.06).

here are the other screens from Cpu-z:

screen2cp0.jpg


screen3cx4.jpg


screen4ha1.jpg


untitled5up8.jpg
 
GilesGuthrie
I think that this test is all about clock speed and L2 Cache. Once you've cleared certain factors, such as the need for 8MB system RAM, and more than 512KB Level 2 Cache, then results are driven by clock speed more than anything. I recently replaced my 2.42GHz Athlon 3800+ with a 2.45GHz Athlon x2 4800+, and added 2GB system RAM, and my reduction in time was less than a tenth of a second. The guys with the Intels > 3GHz are killing the slow-clock Athlons.
Click to expand...

I've got a 4800x2 with 2GB ram and scored 36.640 secs. I have to say i expected it to be faster.
 
donbenni
I've got a 4800x2 with 2GB ram and scored 36.640 secs. I have to say i expected it to be faster.
Click to expand...

Yes, me too.

Still, I'm not bothered about not doing so well on this particular test. Since swapping my single-core for a dual-core, plus adding RAM, I've noticed a massive speed improvement, and the computer is much better at multi-tasking. It's definitely in line with what I'd been led to believe, and I'm happy with the results. Plus, the CPU runs 35 degrees (yes, thirty-five) centigrade cooler when under load.
 
JNasty4G63
:lol::lol::lol:

OH, you don't even want to TRY and test my computer at work for speed. It is slower than slow. Its a decent old Athlon 900, FX5200, SBLive, and 160GB drive. But, it only has 128MB of RAM. So running XP it just gets slaughtered at anything memory intensive, which these days is just about EVERYTHING. Its almost comical using it. I get the "Virtual Memory is low....." pop up window a couple times a day. But, for what we use it for work-wise, its perfect. It really isn't meant to be a high-end net machine.

I was going to put up a time for one of my machines here at home, but I kind of enjoy last place. I have a pretty fast A64 4000+ machine that will do about a 30 sec time. My Core Duo 20" iMac does around 32 sec. And, I tested it on my Mac Pro dual-3.0, and got a decent time of about 20 sec. But, it wasn't the fastest here, so I don't really care.

Not the best test for the Mac Pro anyway. Super Pi isn't multi-core aware, let alone DP aware. So a dual-dual setup like the Mac Pro is just spinning its wheels. Add that to the fact that the FB-DIMMS the Xeons use are a little slower, and it just isn't quite there. These babies are fast, but just not quite as quick as a standard Core 2 with faster DDR2 in this test.

Hilg

My Mac Pro's Woodys
woodysly4.gif
Click to expand...

How'd you run that test on a Mac? :confused:
 
i got a time of 48.013 secs for 1M running p4 at 3.00 Ghz and 512 mb of ram (upgrading soon) is stock dell dimesion 3000 :( ohwell better than some :D
 

Attachments

  • clocked.gif
    clocked.gif
    16 KB · Views: 10
magburner
So, my time was quite fast then? You had me worried for a moment there.
Click to expand...
No, you have nothing to worry about. You have a smokin fast machine there for some reason. Nothing to worry about with that. Even though they are pretty expensive, those XPS machines are very fast. Don't worry about it man. Thats a nice piece.
Duċk;2427198
How'd you run that test on a Mac? :confused:
Click to expand...
I ran it just like you did. Boot into XP, run SuperPi, and see what happens. I'm guessing you don't know about the whole "Boot Camp" thing, huh??

Once Apple switched to using Intel chips, the core components they use were then basically the same thing as a normal PC. So, installing Windows on them is as easy as getting the needed drivers, and putting in your XP CD and loading it up. But, Apple went one step more, and made it a little easier.

With Boot Camp, you put a CD in the computer under OSX, and it will burn a disc with all the needed drivers, and it will setup a partition for the XP install. Then, you just install XP like normal on that new partition. And then, once you have XP installed, you install the drivers for the hardware from the disc you burnt.

Then, when starting the computer, you just hold the option key, and it gives you a choice of running XP or OSX. Easy as pie. And then, once in XP, it runs exactly like it would if it were a regular PC, because it is. Very nice. I can use OSX for some things, and if I want to do something in XP, I just reboot, and I'm there. And, since its running perfectly, not emulated, it runs VERY fast. Its nice.

Hilg

http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/
 
JNasty4G63
No, you have nothing to worry about. You have a smokin fast machine there for some reason. Nothing to worry about with that. Even though they are pretty expensive, those XPS machines are very fast. Don't worry about it man. Thats a nice piece.

I ran it just like you did. Boot into XP, run SuperPi, and see what happens. I'm guessing you don't know about the whole "Boot Camp" thing, huh??

Once Apple switched to using Intel chips, the core components they use were then basically the same thing as a normal PC. So, installing Windows on them is as easy as getting the needed drivers, and putting in your XP CD and loading it up. But, Apple went one step more, and made it a little easier.

With Boot Camp, you put a CD in the computer under OSX, and it will burn a disc with all the needed drivers, and it will setup a partition for the XP install. Then, you just install XP like normal on that new partition. And then, once you have XP installed, you install the drivers for the hardware from the disc you burnt.

Then, when starting the computer, you just hold the option key, and it gives you a choice of running XP or OSX. Easy as pie. And then, once in XP, it runs exactly like it would if it were a regular PC, because it is. Very nice. I can use OSX for some things, and if I want to do something in XP, I just reboot, and I'm there. And, since its running perfectly, not emulated, it runs VERY fast. Its nice.

Hilg

http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/
Click to expand...

:ouch: I forgot about Boot Camp.
 
piqj8.jpg

47 Seconds.
Pentium 4 3.0ghz
512mb DDR RAM (soon to be upgraded...)
Gigabyte 8IG1000MK Motherboard

Not too bad, better than I expected! I'll run a faster time tomorrow, see what I can get it down to. :D
Oh, and don't ask about the silly font on the screeny... I have no idea why its like that..
 
GilesGuthrie
Yes, me too.

Still, I'm not bothered about not doing so well on this particular test. Since swapping my single-core for a dual-core, plus adding RAM, I've noticed a massive speed improvement, and the computer is much better at multi-tasking. It's definitely in line with what I'd been led to believe, and I'm happy with the results. Plus, the CPU runs 35 degrees (yes, thirty-five) centigrade cooler when under load.
Click to expand...

Yeah, i jumped from a 2600 Athlon with 1gb ram to my current computer and the jump was immense. I agree with your view that this test doesn't really matter, it's all about the everyday usage and on that front i'm more than happy 👍

Here's my screenshot + specs:

AMD Athlon 4800+ X2
2GB RAM
ASUS A8N-SLI Deluxe

wer123.gif
 


Athlon 1.2Ghz
aBit KT7A-RAID mobo
512Mb SD RAM

Hey, at least I beat Dunc!
 
1.19 GHZ Mobile AMD Athlon[tm] XP 1400+
240MB Ram
1 Minute, 43.029 Seconds



Atleast i beat TS.

From,
Wall :D
 

Latest Posts

Back