Quad core benching like a dual

March 28, 2008

The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as far as

performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE being utilized.

The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software. The thing

that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager performance

results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but, thats

outside the norm.

I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with the

benchmark has me concerned.

Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?

--

Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

March 28, 2008

RE: Quad core benching like a dual

Hi,

What benchmarking program you are running?

You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP Charlie Russel,

"The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:

http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2007/11/11/the-multi-core-fallacy.aspx

Carlos

"Power Obsessed" wrote:

> The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as far as

> performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE being utilized.

>

> The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software. The thing

> that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager performance

> results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but, thats

> outside the norm.

>

> I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with the

> benchmark has me concerned.

>

> Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?

> --

> Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

> Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

> 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

March 28, 2008

RE: Quad core benching like a dual

Passmark I have used this many times in the past and the results for my CPU

were about 3 or four times as much. the overall score for my system was 1660

now its 850.

--

Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

"Carlos" wrote:

> Hi,

> What benchmarking program you are running?

>

> You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP Charlie Russel,

> "The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:

> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2007/11/11/the-multi-core-fallacy.aspx

>

> Carlos

>

> "Power Obsessed" wrote:

>

> > The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as far as

> > performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE being utilized.

> >

> > The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software. The thing

> > that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager performance

> > results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but, thats

> > outside the norm.

> >

> > I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with the

> > benchmark has me concerned.

> >

> > Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?

> > --

> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

March 28, 2008

RE: Quad core benching like a dual

Hi,

I would then start asking myself what changes in hardware and/or software

ocurred since the last known "good" benchmark.

Carlos

"Power Obsessed" wrote:

> Passmark I have used this many times in the past and the results for my CPU

> were about 3 or four times as much. the overall score for my system was 1660

> now its 850.

> --

> Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

> Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

> 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

>

> "Carlos" wrote:

>

> > Hi,

> > What benchmarking program you are running?

> >

> > You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP Charlie Russel,

> > "The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:

> > http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2007/11/11/the-multi-core-fallacy.aspx

> >

> > Carlos

> >

> > "Power Obsessed" wrote:

> >

> > > The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as far as

> > > performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE being utilized.

> > >

> > > The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software. The thing

> > > that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager performance

> > > results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but, thats

> > > outside the norm.

> > >

> > > I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with the

> > > benchmark has me concerned.

> > >

> > > Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?

> > > --

> > > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

> > > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

> > > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

March 28, 2008

RE: Quad core benching like a dual

Yeah thats what I'm racking my brain about. I did update the bios but, since

then reflashed it to the old version. (due to these benchmark results). Other

than that nothing comes to mind.

--

Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

"Carlos" wrote:

> Hi,

> I would then start asking myself what changes in hardware and/or software

> ocurred since the last known "good" benchmark.

> Carlos

>

> "Power Obsessed" wrote:

>

> > Passmark I have used this many times in the past and the results for my CPU

> > were about 3 or four times as much. the overall score for my system was 1660

> > now its 850.

> > --

> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

> >

> > "Carlos" wrote:

> >

> > > Hi,

> > > What benchmarking program you are running?

> > >

> > > You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP Charlie Russel,

> > > "The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:

> > > http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2007/11/11/the-multi-core-fallacy.aspx

> > >

> > > Carlos

> > >

> > > "Power Obsessed" wrote:

> > >

> > > > The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as far as

> > > > performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE being utilized.

> > > >

> > > > The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software. The thing

> > > > that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager performance

> > > > results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but, thats

> > > > outside the norm.

> > > >

> > > > I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with the

> > > > benchmark has me concerned.

> > > >

> > > > Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?

> > > > --

> > > > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

> > > > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

> > > > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

March 28, 2008

Re: Quad core benching like a dual

You are limited to 2.4ghz for single thread execution, which almost all

programs not designed for a supercomputer are. Single core processors got

over 4ghz which is 80% faster. If you are multi-tasking quad cores are

great and some of windows functions will run on the other cores making the

overall performance of a single thread program faster since it doesn't have

to multiplex the functions like the on single cores. Read Charlies article.

"Power Obsessed" <screenedemail@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:CE40E4D5-939D-4D05-BEFE-D958210BA2A3@microsoft.com...

> Passmark I have used this many times in the past and the results for my

> CPU

> were about 3 or four times as much. the overall score for my system was

> 1660

> now its 850.

> --

> Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

> Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

> 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

>

> "Carlos" wrote:

>

>> Hi,

>> What benchmarking program you are running?

>>

>> You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP Charlie

>> Russel,

>> "The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:

>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2007/11/11/the-multi-core-fallacy.aspx

>>

>> Carlos

>>

>> "Power Obsessed" wrote:

>>

>> > The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as far

>> > as

>> > performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE being

>> > utilized.

>> >

>> > The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software. The

>> > thing

>> > that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager

>> > performance

>> > results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but, thats

>> > outside the norm.

>> >

>> > I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with the

>> > benchmark has me concerned.

>> >

>> > Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?

>> > --

>> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

>> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,

>> > Nvidia

>> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

March 28, 2008

Re: Quad core benching like a dual

Atcually I would be limited to 3.12ghz (I have it overclocked). That still

doesn't address the problem. According to past benchmark tests the results

from CPU testing blew away all baselines that come with the software.

(passmark). Single core and dual.

The majority of the time the task manager shows three if not four of the

processors being utilized by whatever processes are running.

--

Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

"John Barnes" wrote:

> You are limited to 2.4ghz for single thread execution, which almost all

> programs not designed for a supercomputer are. Single core processors got

> over 4ghz which is 80% faster. If you are multi-tasking quad cores are

> great and some of windows functions will run on the other cores making the

> overall performance of a single thread program faster since it doesn't have

> to multiplex the functions like the on single cores. Read Charlies article.

>

> "Power Obsessed" <screenedemail@comcast.net> wrote in message

> news:CE40E4D5-939D-4D05-BEFE-D958210BA2A3@microsoft.com...

> > Passmark I have used this many times in the past and the results for my

> > CPU

> > were about 3 or four times as much. the overall score for my system was

> > 1660

> > now its 850.

> > --

> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

> >

> > "Carlos" wrote:

> >

> >> Hi,

> >> What benchmarking program you are running?

> >>

> >> You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP Charlie

> >> Russel,

> >> "The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:

> >> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2007/11/11/the-multi-core-fallacy.aspx

> >>

> >> Carlos

> >>

> >> "Power Obsessed" wrote:

> >>

> >> > The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as far

> >> > as

> >> > performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE being

> >> > utilized.

> >> >

> >> > The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software. The

> >> > thing

> >> > that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager

> >> > performance

> >> > results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but, thats

> >> > outside the norm.

> >> >

> >> > I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with the

> >> > benchmark has me concerned.

> >> >

> >> > Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?

> >> > --

> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,

> >> > Nvidia

> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

>

March 28, 2008

Re: Quad core benching like a dual

If you are quoting a KB that cites 3.12GB as a limit be aware that the

author cites that number as an example only. The actual range I have seen

is 2.0GB to 3.5GB. It depends on what the BIOS has set aside for device

buffering, like video cards. It depends on the hardware on the system.

"Power Obsessed" <screenedemail@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:37B438CC-D9FC-4C5F-976B-114C711C70D7@microsoft.com...

> Atcually I would be limited to 3.12ghz (I have it overclocked). That still

> doesn't address the problem. According to past benchmark tests the results

> from CPU testing blew away all baselines that come with the software.

> (passmark). Single core and dual.

> The majority of the time the task manager shows three if not four of the

> processors being utilized by whatever processes are running.

> --

> Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

> Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

> 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

>

> "John Barnes" wrote:

>

>> You are limited to 2.4ghz for single thread execution, which almost all

>> programs not designed for a supercomputer are. Single core processors

>> got

>> over 4ghz which is 80% faster. If you are multi-tasking quad cores are

>> great and some of windows functions will run on the other cores making

>> the

>> overall performance of a single thread program faster since it doesn't

>> have

>> to multiplex the functions like the on single cores. Read Charlies

>> article.

>>

>> "Power Obsessed" <screenedemail@comcast.net> wrote in message

>> news:CE40E4D5-939D-4D05-BEFE-D958210BA2A3@microsoft.com...

>> > Passmark I have used this many times in the past and the results for my

>> > CPU

>> > were about 3 or four times as much. the overall score for my system was

>> > 1660

>> > now its 850.

>> > --

>> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

>> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,

>> > Nvidia

>> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

>> >

>> > "Carlos" wrote:

>> >

>> >> Hi,

>> >> What benchmarking program you are running?

>> >>

>> >> You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP Charlie

>> >> Russel,

>> >> "The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:

>> >> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2007/11/11/the-multi-core-fallacy.aspx

>> >>

>> >> Carlos

>> >>

>> >> "Power Obsessed" wrote:

>> >>

>> >> > The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as

>> >> > far

>> >> > as

>> >> > performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE being

>> >> > utilized.

>> >> >

>> >> > The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software. The

>> >> > thing

>> >> > that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager

>> >> > performance

>> >> > results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but,

>> >> > thats

>> >> > outside the norm.

>> >> >

>> >> > I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with

>> >> > the

>> >> > benchmark has me concerned.

>> >> >

>> >> > Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?

>> >> > --

>> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink,

>> >> > 4gb

>> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,

>> >> > Nvidia

>> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

>>

March 29, 2008

Re: Quad core benching like a dual

I do appreciate all you input but, we're veering off the subject. The bottom

line is the benchmark rating I was getting before ,whether or not it is using

four threads, was about 4 times as high as now.

So the quad core doesn't live up to the bells and whistles. All I know is it

worked VERY good and now it doesn't.

Could someone please give me a clue as to the cause.

--

Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote:

> If you are quoting a KB that cites 3.12GB as a limit be aware that the

> author cites that number as an example only. The actual range I have seen

> is 2.0GB to 3.5GB. It depends on what the BIOS has set aside for device

> buffering, like video cards. It depends on the hardware on the system.

>

> "Power Obsessed" <screenedemail@comcast.net> wrote in message

> news:37B438CC-D9FC-4C5F-976B-114C711C70D7@microsoft.com...

> > Atcually I would be limited to 3.12ghz (I have it overclocked). That still

> > doesn't address the problem. According to past benchmark tests the results

> > from CPU testing blew away all baselines that come with the software.

> > (passmark). Single core and dual.

> > The majority of the time the task manager shows three if not four of the

> > processors being utilized by whatever processes are running.

> > --

> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

> >

> > "John Barnes" wrote:

> >

> >> You are limited to 2.4ghz for single thread execution, which almost all

> >> programs not designed for a supercomputer are. Single core processors

> >> got

> >> over 4ghz which is 80% faster. If you are multi-tasking quad cores are

> >> great and some of windows functions will run on the other cores making

> >> the

> >> overall performance of a single thread program faster since it doesn't

> >> have

> >> to multiplex the functions like the on single cores. Read Charlies

> >> article.

> >>

> >> "Power Obsessed" <screenedemail@comcast.net> wrote in message

> >> news:CE40E4D5-939D-4D05-BEFE-D958210BA2A3@microsoft.com...

> >> > Passmark I have used this many times in the past and the results for my

> >> > CPU

> >> > were about 3 or four times as much. the overall score for my system was

> >> > 1660

> >> > now its 850.

> >> > --

> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,

> >> > Nvidia

> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

> >> >

> >> > "Carlos" wrote:

> >> >

> >> >> Hi,

> >> >> What benchmarking program you are running?

> >> >>

> >> >> You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP Charlie

> >> >> Russel,

> >> >> "The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:

> >> >> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2007/11/11/the-multi-core-fallacy.aspx

> >> >>

> >> >> Carlos

> >> >>

> >> >> "Power Obsessed" wrote:

> >> >>

> >> >> > The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as

> >> >> > far

> >> >> > as

> >> >> > performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE being

> >> >> > utilized.

> >> >> >

> >> >> > The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software. The

> >> >> > thing

> >> >> > that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager

> >> >> > performance

> >> >> > results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but,

> >> >> > thats

> >> >> > outside the norm.

> >> >> >

> >> >> > I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with

> >> >> > the

> >> >> > benchmark has me concerned.

> >> >> >

> >> >> > Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?

> >> >> > --

> >> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink,

> >> >> > 4gb

> >> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,

> >> >> > Nvidia

> >> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

> >>

>

March 29, 2008

Re: Quad core benching like a dual

Power Obsessed:

If you're using 4x1GB sticks of ram, try clocking the ram at 667mhz

or removing the stick from the 4th slot. Have a great day.

--

Dennis Pack

XP x64 SP2, Vista Enterprise x64 SP1

WHS, Office Professional Plus 2007

"Power Obsessed" <screenedemail@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:315C7D74-C179-40C9-BFF7-EACB58DFE597@microsoft.com...

>I do appreciate all you input but, we're veering off the subject. The

>bottom

> line is the benchmark rating I was getting before ,whether or not it is

> using

> four threads, was about 4 times as high as now.

> So the quad core doesn't live up to the bells and whistles. All I know is

> it

> worked VERY good and now it doesn't.

>

> Could someone please give me a clue as to the cause.

> --

> Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

> Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

> 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

>

> "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:

>

>> If you are quoting a KB that cites 3.12GB as a limit be aware that the

>> author cites that number as an example only. The actual range I have

>> seen

>> is 2.0GB to 3.5GB. It depends on what the BIOS has set aside for device

>> buffering, like video cards. It depends on the hardware on the system.

>>

>> "Power Obsessed" <screenedemail@comcast.net> wrote in message

>> news:37B438CC-D9FC-4C5F-976B-114C711C70D7@microsoft.com...

>> > Atcually I would be limited to 3.12ghz (I have it overclocked). That

>> > still

>> > doesn't address the problem. According to past benchmark tests the

>> > results

>> > from CPU testing blew away all baselines that come with the software.

>> > (passmark). Single core and dual.

>> > The majority of the time the task manager shows three if not four of

>> > the

>> > processors being utilized by whatever processes are running.

>> > --

>> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

>> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,

>> > Nvidia

>> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

>> >

>> > "John Barnes" wrote:

>> >

>> >> You are limited to 2.4ghz for single thread execution, which almost

>> >> all

>> >> programs not designed for a supercomputer are. Single core processors

>> >> got

>> >> over 4ghz which is 80% faster. If you are multi-tasking quad cores

>> >> are

>> >> great and some of windows functions will run on the other cores making

>> >> the

>> >> overall performance of a single thread program faster since it doesn't

>> >> have

>> >> to multiplex the functions like the on single cores. Read Charlies

>> >> article.

>> >>

>> >> "Power Obsessed" <screenedemail@comcast.net> wrote in message

>> >> news:CE40E4D5-939D-4D05-BEFE-D958210BA2A3@microsoft.com...

>> >> > Passmark I have used this many times in the past and the results for

>> >> > my

>> >> > CPU

>> >> > were about 3 or four times as much. the overall score for my system

>> >> > was

>> >> > 1660

>> >> > now its 850.

>> >> > --

>> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink,

>> >> > 4gb

>> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,

>> >> > Nvidia

>> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

>> >> >

>> >> > "Carlos" wrote:

>> >> >

>> >> >> Hi,

>> >> >> What benchmarking program you are running?

>> >> >>

>> >> >> You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP Charlie

>> >> >> Russel,

>> >> >> "The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:

>> >> >> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2007/11/11/the-multi-core-fallacy.aspx

>> >> >>

>> >> >> Carlos

>> >> >>

>> >> >> "Power Obsessed" wrote:

>> >> >>

>> >> >> > The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as

>> >> >> > far

>> >> >> > as

>> >> >> > performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE

>> >> >> > being

>> >> >> > utilized.

>> >> >> >

>> >> >> > The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software.

>> >> >> > The

>> >> >> > thing

>> >> >> > that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager

>> >> >> > performance

>> >> >> > results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but,

>> >> >> > thats

>> >> >> > outside the norm.

>> >> >> >

>> >> >> > I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with

>> >> >> > the

>> >> >> > benchmark has me concerned.

>> >> >> >

>> >> >> > Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?

>> >> >> > --

>> >> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1

>> >> >> > heatsink,

>> >> >> > 4gb

>> >> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor

>> >> >> > X,

>> >> >> > Nvidia

>> >> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

>> >>

>>

March 29, 2008

Re: Quad core benching like a dual

Nevermind, that makes absolutely no sense. Why would I run my memory slower

and remove some of it? Between people changing the subject or being too

busy trying to point out the downfalls of my processor I guess I'll never get

an answer.

--

Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

"Dennis Pack" wrote:

> Power Obsessed:

> If you're using 4x1GB sticks of ram, try clocking the ram at 667mhz

> or removing the stick from the 4th slot. Have a great day.

>

> --

> Dennis Pack

> XP x64 SP2, Vista Enterprise x64 SP1

> WHS, Office Professional Plus 2007

> "Power Obsessed" <screenedemail@comcast.net> wrote in message

> news:315C7D74-C179-40C9-BFF7-EACB58DFE597@microsoft.com...

> >I do appreciate all you input but, we're veering off the subject. The

> >bottom

> > line is the benchmark rating I was getting before ,whether or not it is

> > using

> > four threads, was about 4 times as high as now.

> > So the quad core doesn't live up to the bells and whistles. All I know is

> > it

> > worked VERY good and now it doesn't.

> >

> > Could someone please give me a clue as to the cause.

> > --

> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

> >

> > "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:

> >

> >> If you are quoting a KB that cites 3.12GB as a limit be aware that the

> >> author cites that number as an example only. The actual range I have

> >> seen

> >> is 2.0GB to 3.5GB. It depends on what the BIOS has set aside for device

> >> buffering, like video cards. It depends on the hardware on the system.

> >>

> >> "Power Obsessed" <screenedemail@comcast.net> wrote in message

> >> news:37B438CC-D9FC-4C5F-976B-114C711C70D7@microsoft.com...

> >> > Atcually I would be limited to 3.12ghz (I have it overclocked). That

> >> > still

> >> > doesn't address the problem. According to past benchmark tests the

> >> > results

> >> > from CPU testing blew away all baselines that come with the software.

> >> > (passmark). Single core and dual.

> >> > The majority of the time the task manager shows three if not four of

> >> > the

> >> > processors being utilized by whatever processes are running.

> >> > --

> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,

> >> > Nvidia

> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

> >> >

> >> > "John Barnes" wrote:

> >> >

> >> >> You are limited to 2.4ghz for single thread execution, which almost

> >> >> all

> >> >> programs not designed for a supercomputer are. Single core processors

> >> >> got

> >> >> over 4ghz which is 80% faster. If you are multi-tasking quad cores

> >> >> are

> >> >> great and some of windows functions will run on the other cores making

> >> >> the

> >> >> overall performance of a single thread program faster since it doesn't

> >> >> have

> >> >> to multiplex the functions like the on single cores. Read Charlies

> >> >> article.

> >> >>

> >> >> "Power Obsessed" <screenedemail@comcast.net> wrote in message

> >> >> news:CE40E4D5-939D-4D05-BEFE-D958210BA2A3@microsoft.com...

> >> >> > Passmark I have used this many times in the past and the results for

> >> >> > my

> >> >> > CPU

> >> >> > were about 3 or four times as much. the overall score for my system

> >> >> > was

> >> >> > 1660

> >> >> > now its 850.

> >> >> > --

> >> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink,

> >> >> > 4gb

> >> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,

> >> >> > Nvidia

> >> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

> >> >> >

> >> >> > "Carlos" wrote:

> >> >> >

> >> >> >> Hi,

> >> >> >> What benchmarking program you are running?

> >> >> >>

> >> >> >> You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP Charlie

> >> >> >> Russel,

> >> >> >> "The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:

> >> >> >> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2007/11/11/the-multi-core-fallacy.aspx

> >> >> >>

> >> >> >> Carlos

> >> >> >>

> >> >> >> "Power Obsessed" wrote:

> >> >> >>

> >> >> >> > The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as

> >> >> >> > far

> >> >> >> > as

> >> >> >> > performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE

> >> >> >> > being

> >> >> >> > utilized.

> >> >> >> >

> >> >> >> > The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software.

> >> >> >> > The

> >> >> >> > thing

> >> >> >> > that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager

> >> >> >> > performance

> >> >> >> > results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but,

> >> >> >> > thats

> >> >> >> > outside the norm.

> >> >> >> >

> >> >> >> > I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with

> >> >> >> > the

> >> >> >> > benchmark has me concerned.

> >> >> >> >

> >> >> >> > Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?

> >> >> >> > --

> >> >> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1

> >> >> >> > heatsink,

> >> >> >> > 4gb

> >> >> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor

> >> >> >> > X,

> >> >> >> > Nvidia

> >> >> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

> >> >>

> >>

>

March 29, 2008

Re: Quad core benching like a dual

On Mar 28, 6:29 pm, Power Obsessed <screenedem...@comcast.net> wrote:

> I do appreciate all you input but, we're veering off the subject. The bottom

> line is the benchmark rating I was getting before ,whether or not it is using

> four threads, was about 4 times as high as now.

> So the quad core doesn't live up to the bells and whistles. All I know is it

> worked VERY good and now it doesn't.

>

> Could someone please give me a clue as to the cause.

> --

> Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

> Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

> 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

>

> "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:

> > If you are quoting a KB that cites 3.12GB as a limit be aware that the

> > author cites that number as an example only. The actual range I have seen

> > is 2.0GB to 3.5GB. It depends on what the BIOS has set aside for device

> > buffering, like video cards. It depends on the hardware on the system.

>

> > "Power Obsessed" <screenedem...@comcast.net> wrote in message

> >news:37B438CC-D9FC-4C5F-976B-114C711C70D7@microsoft.com...

> > > Atcually I would be limited to 3.12ghz (I have it overclocked). That still

> > > doesn't address the problem. According to past benchmark tests the results

> > > from CPU testing blew away all baselines that come with the software.

> > > (passmark). Single core and dual.

> > > The majority of the time the task manager shows three if not four of the

> > > processors being utilized by whatever processes are running.

> > > --

> > > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

> > > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

> > > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

>

> > > "John Barnes" wrote:

>

> > >> You are limited to 2.4ghz for single thread execution, which almost all

> > >> programs not designed for a supercomputer are. Single core processors

> > >> got

> > >> over 4ghz which is 80% faster. If you are multi-tasking quad cores are

> > >> great and some of windows functions will run on the other cores making

> > >> the

> > >> overall performance of a single thread program faster since it doesn't

> > >> have

> > >> to multiplex the functions like the on single cores. Read Charlies

> > >> article.

>

> > >> "Power Obsessed" <screenedem...@comcast.net> wrote in message

> > >>news:CE40E4D5-939D-4D05-BEFE-D958210BA2A3@microsoft.com...

> > >> > Passmark I have used this many times in the past and the results for my

> > >> > CPU

> > >> > were about 3 or four times as much. the overall score for my system was

> > >> > 1660

> > >> > now its 850.

> > >> > --

> > >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

> > >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,

> > >> > Nvidia

> > >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

>

> > >> > "Carlos" wrote:

>

> > >> >> Hi,

> > >> >> What benchmarking program you are running?

>

> > >> >> You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP Charlie

> > >> >> Russel,

> > >> >> "The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:

> > >> >>http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2007/11/11/the-multi-core-fa...

>

> > >> >> Carlos

>

> > >> >> "Power Obsessed" wrote:

>

> > >> >> > The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as

> > >> >> > far

> > >> >> > as

> > >> >> > performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE being

> > >> >> > utilized.

>

> > >> >> > The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software. The

> > >> >> > thing

> > >> >> > that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager

> > >> >> > performance

> > >> >> > results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but,

> > >> >> > thats

> > >> >> > outside the norm.

>

> > >> >> > I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with

> > >> >> > the

> > >> >> > benchmark has me concerned.

>

> > >> >> > Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?

> > >> >> > --

> > >> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink,

> > >> >> > 4gb

> > >> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,

> > >> >> > Nvidia

> > >> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

Things that used to work and don't work later are pretty hard to

diagnose. [i've posted my share of them with no solution ever found.]

Any chance you set some power saving feature? Are you sure all the

background jobs are off?

March 29, 2008

Re: Quad core benching like a dual

Its true though. The four-stick problem is a fact on a lot of consumer

mobos. At 800 the memory controller is straining with a fully populated

board. There have been dozens of cases in the Vista hardware_devices ng

where that was the resolution for systems not booting with 4GB or 8GB of

PC6400 ram installed. The nVidia chipsets seem particularly prone to this

(nForce4, 650i, 680i and some others). In fact, I have such a board. I

cannot run 8GB of PC6400 ram but I can take out one stick and all is well.

I can run all four sticks at 667 though.

"Power Obsessed" <screenedemail@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:D5B9F7AE-63CA-4695-8743-29AB9C5F98C7@microsoft.com...

> Nevermind, that makes absolutely no sense. Why would I run my memory

> slower

> and remove some of it? Between people changing the subject or being too

> busy trying to point out the downfalls of my processor I guess I'll never

> get

> an answer.

> --

> Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

> Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

> 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

>

> "Dennis Pack" wrote:

>

>> Power Obsessed:

>> If you're using 4x1GB sticks of ram, try clocking the ram at

>> 667mhz

>> or removing the stick from the 4th slot. Have a great day.

>>

>> --

>> Dennis Pack

>> XP x64 SP2, Vista Enterprise x64 SP1

>> WHS, Office Professional Plus 2007

>> "Power Obsessed" <screenedemail@comcast.net> wrote in message

>> news:315C7D74-C179-40C9-BFF7-EACB58DFE597@microsoft.com...

>> >I do appreciate all you input but, we're veering off the subject. The

>> >bottom

>> > line is the benchmark rating I was getting before ,whether or not it is

>> > using

>> > four threads, was about 4 times as high as now.

>> > So the quad core doesn't live up to the bells and whistles. All I know

>> > is

>> > it

>> > worked VERY good and now it doesn't.

>> >

>> > Could someone please give me a clue as to the cause.

>> > --

>> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

>> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,

>> > Nvidia

>> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

>> >

>> > "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:

>> >

>> >> If you are quoting a KB that cites 3.12GB as a limit be aware that the

>> >> author cites that number as an example only. The actual range I have

>> >> seen

>> >> is 2.0GB to 3.5GB. It depends on what the BIOS has set aside for

>> >> device

>> >> buffering, like video cards. It depends on the hardware on the

>> >> system.

>> >>

>> >> "Power Obsessed" <screenedemail@comcast.net> wrote in message

>> >> news:37B438CC-D9FC-4C5F-976B-114C711C70D7@microsoft.com...

>> >> > Atcually I would be limited to 3.12ghz (I have it overclocked). That

>> >> > still

>> >> > doesn't address the problem. According to past benchmark tests the

>> >> > results

>> >> > from CPU testing blew away all baselines that come with the

>> >> > software.

>> >> > (passmark). Single core and dual.

>> >> > The majority of the time the task manager shows three if not four of

>> >> > the

>> >> > processors being utilized by whatever processes are running.

>> >> > --

>> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink,

>> >> > 4gb

>> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,

>> >> > Nvidia

>> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

>> >> >

>> >> > "John Barnes" wrote:

>> >> >

>> >> >> You are limited to 2.4ghz for single thread execution, which almost

>> >> >> all

>> >> >> programs not designed for a supercomputer are. Single core

>> >> >> processors

>> >> >> got

>> >> >> over 4ghz which is 80% faster. If you are multi-tasking quad cores

>> >> >> are

>> >> >> great and some of windows functions will run on the other cores

>> >> >> making

>> >> >> the

>> >> >> overall performance of a single thread program faster since it

>> >> >> doesn't

>> >> >> have

>> >> >> to multiplex the functions like the on single cores. Read Charlies

>> >> >> article.

>> >> >>

>> >> >> "Power Obsessed" <screenedemail@comcast.net> wrote in message

>> >> >> news:CE40E4D5-939D-4D05-BEFE-D958210BA2A3@microsoft.com...

>> >> >> > Passmark I have used this many times in the past and the results

>> >> >> > for

>> >> >> > my

>> >> >> > CPU

>> >> >> > were about 3 or four times as much. the overall score for my

>> >> >> > system

>> >> >> > was

>> >> >> > 1660

>> >> >> > now its 850.

>> >> >> > --

>> >> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1

>> >> >> > heatsink,

>> >> >> > 4gb

>> >> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor

>> >> >> > X,

>> >> >> > Nvidia

>> >> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

>> >> >> >

>> >> >> > "Carlos" wrote:

>> >> >> >

>> >> >> >> Hi,

>> >> >> >> What benchmarking program you are running?

>> >> >> >>

>> >> >> >> You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP

>> >> >> >> Charlie

>> >> >> >> Russel,

>> >> >> >> "The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:

>> >> >> >> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2007/11/11/the-multi-core-fallacy.aspx

>> >> >> >>

>> >> >> >> Carlos

>> >> >> >>

>> >> >> >> "Power Obsessed" wrote:

>> >> >> >>

>> >> >> >> > The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level

>> >> >> >> > as

>> >> >> >> > far

>> >> >> >> > as

>> >> >> >> > performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE

>> >> >> >> > being

>> >> >> >> > utilized.

>> >> >> >> >

>> >> >> >> > The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or

>> >> >> >> > software.

>> >> >> >> > The

>> >> >> >> > thing

>> >> >> >> > that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager

>> >> >> >> > performance

>> >> >> >> > results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there

>> >> >> >> > but,

>> >> >> >> > thats

>> >> >> >> > outside the norm.

>> >> >> >> >

>> >> >> >> > I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled

>> >> >> >> > with

>> >> >> >> > the

>> >> >> >> > benchmark has me concerned.

>> >> >> >> >

>> >> >> >> > Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?

>> >> >> >> > --

>> >> >> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1

>> >> >> >> > heatsink,

>> >> >> >> > 4gb

>> >> >> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb

>> >> >> >> > Raptor

>> >> >> >> > X,

>> >> >> >> > Nvidia

>> >> >> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

>> >> >>

>> >>

>>

March 29, 2008

Re: Quad core benching like a dual

To:colin,

It sounded totally off the wall, I apologize dennis. I was just getting

frustrated that the core point kept being missed and I thought that was the

case again.

I figured out what was going on it was the benchmark software or at least

the way it was configured.

The one good point about the side-tracking onto my processor was I got to

thinking about threads and I wondered if there was a way to set the number of

threads or processes.

Therewas I never saw it before because there was never a need to set it

anyhow, I set it to four processes and got the results I used to get (1650).

Thanks for checking me,

Jim

--

Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote:

> Its true though. The four-stick problem is a fact on a lot of consumer

> mobos. At 800 the memory controller is straining with a fully populated

> board. There have been dozens of cases in the Vista hardware_devices ng

> where that was the resolution for systems not booting with 4GB or 8GB of

> PC6400 ram installed. The nVidia chipsets seem particularly prone to this

> (nForce4, 650i, 680i and some others). In fact, I have such a board. I

> cannot run 8GB of PC6400 ram but I can take out one stick and all is well.

> I can run all four sticks at 667 though.

>

> "Power Obsessed" <screenedemail@comcast.net> wrote in message

> news:D5B9F7AE-63CA-4695-8743-29AB9C5F98C7@microsoft.com...

> > Nevermind, that makes absolutely no sense. Why would I run my memory

> > slower

> > and remove some of it? Between people changing the subject or being too

> > busy trying to point out the downfalls of my processor I guess I'll never

> > get

> > an answer.

> > --

> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

> >

> > "Dennis Pack" wrote:

> >

> >> Power Obsessed:

> >> If you're using 4x1GB sticks of ram, try clocking the ram at

> >> 667mhz

> >> or removing the stick from the 4th slot. Have a great day.

> >>

> >> --

> >> Dennis Pack

> >> XP x64 SP2, Vista Enterprise x64 SP1

> >> WHS, Office Professional Plus 2007

> >> "Power Obsessed" <screenedemail@comcast.net> wrote in message

> >> news:315C7D74-C179-40C9-BFF7-EACB58DFE597@microsoft.com...

> >> >I do appreciate all you input but, we're veering off the subject. The

> >> >bottom

> >> > line is the benchmark rating I was getting before ,whether or not it is

> >> > using

> >> > four threads, was about 4 times as high as now.

> >> > So the quad core doesn't live up to the bells and whistles. All I know

> >> > is

> >> > it

> >> > worked VERY good and now it doesn't.

> >> >

> >> > Could someone please give me a clue as to the cause.

> >> > --

> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,

> >> > Nvidia

> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

> >> >

> >> > "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:

> >> >

> >> >> If you are quoting a KB that cites 3.12GB as a limit be aware that the

> >> >> author cites that number as an example only. The actual range I have

> >> >> seen

> >> >> is 2.0GB to 3.5GB. It depends on what the BIOS has set aside for

> >> >> device

> >> >> buffering, like video cards. It depends on the hardware on the

> >> >> system.

> >> >>

> >> >> "Power Obsessed" <screenedemail@comcast.net> wrote in message

> >> >> news:37B438CC-D9FC-4C5F-976B-114C711C70D7@microsoft.com...

> >> >> > Atcually I would be limited to 3.12ghz (I have it overclocked). That

> >> >> > still

> >> >> > doesn't address the problem. According to past benchmark tests the

> >> >> > results

> >> >> > from CPU testing blew away all baselines that come with the

> >> >> > software.

> >> >> > (passmark). Single core and dual.

> >> >> > The majority of the time the task manager shows three if not four of

> >> >> > the

> >> >> > processors being utilized by whatever processes are running.

> >> >> > --

> >> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink,

> >> >> > 4gb

> >> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,

> >> >> > Nvidia

> >> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

> >> >> >

> >> >> > "John Barnes" wrote:

> >> >> >

> >> >> >> You are limited to 2.4ghz for single thread execution, which almost

> >> >> >> all

> >> >> >> programs not designed for a supercomputer are. Single core

> >> >> >> processors

> >> >> >> got

> >> >> >> over 4ghz which is 80% faster. If you are multi-tasking quad cores

> >> >> >> are

> >> >> >> great and some of windows functions will run on the other cores

> >> >> >> making

> >> >> >> the

> >> >> >> overall performance of a single thread program faster since it

> >> >> >> doesn't

> >> >> >> have

> >> >> >> to multiplex the functions like the on single cores. Read Charlies

> >> >> >> article.

> >> >> >>

> >> >> >> "Power Obsessed" <screenedemail@comcast.net> wrote in message

> >> >> >> news:CE40E4D5-939D-4D05-BEFE-D958210BA2A3@microsoft.com...

> >> >> >> > Passmark I have used this many times in the past and the results

> >> >> >> > for

> >> >> >> > my

> >> >> >> > CPU

> >> >> >> > were about 3 or four times as much. the overall score for my

> >> >> >> > system

> >> >> >> > was

> >> >> >> > 1660

> >> >> >> > now its 850.

> >> >> >> > --

> >> >> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1

> >> >> >> > heatsink,

> >> >> >> > 4gb

> >> >> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor

> >> >> >> > X,

> >> >> >> > Nvidia

> >> >> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

> >> >> >> >

> >> >> >> > "Carlos" wrote:

> >> >> >> >

> >> >> >> >> Hi,

> >> >> >> >> What benchmarking program you are running?

> >> >> >> >>

> >> >> >> >> You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP

> >> >> >> >> Charlie

> >> >> >> >> Russel,

> >> >> >> >> "The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:

> >> >> >> >> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2007/11/11/the-multi-core-fallacy.aspx

> >> >> >> >>

> >> >> >> >> Carlos

> >> >> >> >>

> >> >> >> >> "Power Obsessed" wrote:

> >> >> >> >>

> >> >> >> >> > The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level

> >> >> >> >> > as

> >> >> >> >> > far

> >> >> >> >> > as

> >> >> >> >> > performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE

> >> >> >> >> > being

> >> >> >> >> > utilized.

> >> >> >> >> >

> >> >> >> >> > The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or

> >> >> >> >> > software.

> >> >> >> >> > The

> >> >> >> >> > thing

> >> >> >> >> > that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager

> >> >> >> >> > performance

> >> >> >> >> > results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there

> >> >> >> >> > but,

> >> >> >> >> > thats

> >> >> >> >> > outside the norm.

> >> >> >> >> >

> >> >> >> >> > I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled

> >> >> >> >> > with

> >> >> >> >> > the

> >> >> >> >> > benchmark has me concerned.

> >> >> >> >> >

> >> >> >> >> > Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?

> >> >> >> >> > --

> >> >> >> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1

> >> >> >> >> > heatsink,

> >> >> >> >> > 4gb

> >> >> >> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb

> >> >> >> >> > Raptor

> >> >> >> >> > X,

> >> >> >> >> > Nvidia

> >> >> >> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

> >> >> >>

> >> >>

> >>

>

March 29, 2008

Re: Quad core benching like a dual

I ended up figuring it out. If your interested it was the way the benchmark

software was configured. I do want to thank all of you for being so helpful.

Jim

--

Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

"miso@sushi.com" wrote:

> On Mar 28, 6:29 pm, Power Obsessed <screenedem...@comcast.net> wrote:

> > I do appreciate all you input but, we're veering off the subject. The bottom

> > line is the benchmark rating I was getting before ,whether or not it is using

> > four threads, was about 4 times as high as now.

> > So the quad core doesn't live up to the bells and whistles. All I know is it

> > worked VERY good and now it doesn't.

> >

> > Could someone please give me a clue as to the cause.

> > --

> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

> >

> > "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:

> > > If you are quoting a KB that cites 3.12GB as a limit be aware that the

> > > author cites that number as an example only. The actual range I have seen

> > > is 2.0GB to 3.5GB. It depends on what the BIOS has set aside for device

> > > buffering, like video cards. It depends on the hardware on the system.

> >

> > > "Power Obsessed" <screenedem...@comcast.net> wrote in message

> > >news:37B438CC-D9FC-4C5F-976B-114C711C70D7@microsoft.com...

> > > > Atcually I would be limited to 3.12ghz (I have it overclocked). That still

> > > > doesn't address the problem. According to past benchmark tests the results

> > > > from CPU testing blew away all baselines that come with the software.

> > > > (passmark). Single core and dual.

> > > > The majority of the time the task manager shows three if not four of the

> > > > processors being utilized by whatever processes are running.

> > > > --

> > > > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

> > > > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

> > > > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

> >

> > > > "John Barnes" wrote:

> >

> > > >> You are limited to 2.4ghz for single thread execution, which almost all

> > > >> programs not designed for a supercomputer are. Single core processors

> > > >> got

> > > >> over 4ghz which is 80% faster. If you are multi-tasking quad cores are

> > > >> great and some of windows functions will run on the other cores making

> > > >> the

> > > >> overall performance of a single thread program faster since it doesn't

> > > >> have

> > > >> to multiplex the functions like the on single cores. Read Charlies

> > > >> article.

> >

> > > >> "Power Obsessed" <screenedem...@comcast.net> wrote in message

> > > >>news:CE40E4D5-939D-4D05-BEFE-D958210BA2A3@microsoft.com...

> > > >> > Passmark I have used this many times in the past and the results for my

> > > >> > CPU

> > > >> > were about 3 or four times as much. the overall score for my system was

> > > >> > 1660

> > > >> > now its 850.

> > > >> > --

> > > >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

> > > >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,

> > > >> > Nvidia

> > > >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

> >

> > > >> > "Carlos" wrote:

> >

> > > >> >> Hi,

> > > >> >> What benchmarking program you are running?

> >

> > > >> >> You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP Charlie

> > > >> >> Russel,

> > > >> >> "The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:

> > > >> >>http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2007/11/11/the-multi-core-fa...

> >

> > > >> >> Carlos

> >

> > > >> >> "Power Obsessed" wrote:

> >

> > > >> >> > The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as

> > > >> >> > far

> > > >> >> > as

> > > >> >> > performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE being

> > > >> >> > utilized.

> >

> > > >> >> > The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software. The

> > > >> >> > thing

> > > >> >> > that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager

> > > >> >> > performance

> > > >> >> > results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but,

> > > >> >> > thats

> > > >> >> > outside the norm.

> >

> > > >> >> > I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with

> > > >> >> > the

> > > >> >> > benchmark has me concerned.

> >

> > > >> >> > Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?

> > > >> >> > --

> > > >> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink,

> > > >> >> > 4gb

> > > >> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,

> > > >> >> > Nvidia

> > > >> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

>

> Things that used to work and don't work later are pretty hard to

> diagnose. [i've posted my share of them with no solution ever found.]

>

> Any chance you set some power saving feature? Are you sure all the

> background jobs are off?

>

March 29, 2008

Re: Quad core benching like a dual

On Mar 28, 8:36 pm, Power Obsessed <screenedem...@comcast.net> wrote:

> I ended up figuring it out. If your interested it was the way the benchmark

> software was configured. I do want to thank all of you for being so helpful.

>

> Jim

> --

> Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

> Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

> 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

>

> "m...@sushi.com" wrote:

> > On Mar 28, 6:29 pm, Power Obsessed <screenedem...@comcast.net> wrote:

> > > I do appreciate all you input but, we're veering off the subject. The bottom

> > > line is the benchmark rating I was getting before ,whether or not it is using

> > > four threads, was about 4 times as high as now.

> > > So the quad core doesn't live up to the bells and whistles. All I know is it

> > > worked VERY good and now it doesn't.

>

> > > Could someone please give me a clue as to the cause.

> > > --

> > > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

> > > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

> > > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

>

> > > "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:

> > > > If you are quoting a KB that cites 3.12GB as a limit be aware that the

> > > > author cites that number as an example only. The actual range I have seen

> > > > is 2.0GB to 3.5GB. It depends on what the BIOS has set aside for device

> > > > buffering, like video cards. It depends on the hardware on the system.

>

> > > > "Power Obsessed" <screenedem...@comcast.net> wrote in message

> > > >news:37B438CC-D9FC-4C5F-976B-114C711C70D7@microsoft.com...

> > > > > Atcually I would be limited to 3.12ghz (I have it overclocked). That still

> > > > > doesn't address the problem. According to past benchmark tests the results

> > > > > from CPU testing blew away all baselines that come with the software.

> > > > > (passmark). Single core and dual.

> > > > > The majority of the time the task manager shows three if not four of the

> > > > > processors being utilized by whatever processes are running.

> > > > > --

> > > > > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

> > > > > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

> > > > > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

>

> > > > > "John Barnes" wrote:

>

> > > > >> You are limited to 2.4ghz for single thread execution, which almost all

> > > > >> programs not designed for a supercomputer are. Single core processors

> > > > >> got

> > > > >> over 4ghz which is 80% faster. If you are multi-tasking quad cores are

> > > > >> great and some of windows functions will run on the other cores making

> > > > >> the

> > > > >> overall performance of a single thread program faster since it doesn't

> > > > >> have

> > > > >> to multiplex the functions like the on single cores. Read Charlies

> > > > >> article.

>

> > > > >> "Power Obsessed" <screenedem...@comcast.net> wrote in message

> > > > >>news:CE40E4D5-939D-4D05-BEFE-D958210BA2A3@microsoft.com...

> > > > >> > Passmark I have used this many times in the past and the results for my

> > > > >> > CPU

> > > > >> > were about 3 or four times as much. the overall score for my system was

> > > > >> > 1660

> > > > >> > now its 850.

> > > > >> > --

> > > > >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

> > > > >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,

> > > > >> > Nvidia

> > > > >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

>

> > > > >> > "Carlos" wrote:

>

> > > > >> >> Hi,

> > > > >> >> What benchmarking program you are running?

>

> > > > >> >> You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP Charlie

> > > > >> >> Russel,

> > > > >> >> "The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:

> > > > >> >>http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2007/11/11/the-multi-core-fa...

>

> > > > >> >> Carlos

>

> > > > >> >> "Power Obsessed" wrote:

>

> > > > >> >> > The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as

> > > > >> >> > far

> > > > >> >> > as

> > > > >> >> > performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE being

> > > > >> >> > utilized.

>

> > > > >> >> > The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software. The

> > > > >> >> > thing

> > > > >> >> > that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager

> > > > >> >> > performance

> > > > >> >> > results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but,

> > > > >> >> > thats

> > > > >> >> > outside the norm.

>

> > > > >> >> > I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with

> > > > >> >> > the

> > > > >> >> > benchmark has me concerned.

>

> > > > >> >> > Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?

> > > > >> >> > --

> > > > >> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink,

> > > > >> >> > 4gb

> > > > >> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,

> > > > >> >> > Nvidia

> > > > >> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

>

> > Things that used to work and don't work later are pretty hard to

> > diagnose. [i've posted my share of them with no solution ever found.]

>

> > Any chance you set some power saving feature? Are you sure all the

> > background jobs are off?

Sure, tell us more.

March 29, 2008

Re: Quad core benching like a dual

In addition to all of the varied comments that others have added....I might

suggest that you not put a lot of emphasis or confidence on any one

benchmark. Processors vary greatly internally, and so do benchmarks. It's

not difficult to tune a benchmark to favor a specific architecture or

configuration. This happens, and not always intentionally. Anytime we change

something in a compiler or cpu config, etc., we run a half dozen or so

benchmarks so that we get a better profiling of what the change did, and

expose potential problems. No one benchmark can tell it all, and none of

them are representative of what you will actually be doing with your

computer.

<miso@sushi.com> wrote in message

news:e4934900-f01b-4282-a008-829053bb7823@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

> On Mar 28, 8:36 pm, Power Obsessed <screenedem...@comcast.net> wrote:

>> I ended up figuring it out. If your interested it was the way the

>> benchmark

>> software was configured. I do want to thank all of you for being so

>> helpful.

>>

>> Jim

March 29, 2008

Re: Quad core benching like a dual

To Zootal:

The thing that really threw me was the HUGE difference in the results.

(from 1600+ to 800+). I had used this software in the past "right out of the

box" I guess you could say. No configuration at all.

The setting I'm talking about is the number of processes to test the CPU

with. I have no idea why that setting was different

Thank,

Jim

--

Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

"Zootal" wrote:

> In addition to all of the varied comments that others have added....I might

> suggest that you not put a lot of emphasis or confidence on any one

> benchmark. Processors vary greatly internally, and so do benchmarks. It's

> not difficult to tune a benchmark to favor a specific architecture or

> configuration. This happens, and not always intentionally. Anytime we change

> something in a compiler or cpu config, etc., we run a half dozen or so

> benchmarks so that we get a better profiling of what the change did, and

> expose potential problems. No one benchmark can tell it all, and none of

> them are representative of what you will actually be doing with your

> computer.

>

> <miso@sushi.com> wrote in message

> news:e4934900-f01b-4282-a008-829053bb7823@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

> > On Mar 28, 8:36 pm, Power Obsessed <screenedem...@comcast.net> wrote:

> >> I ended up figuring it out. If your interested it was the way the

> >> benchmark

> >> software was configured. I do want to thank all of you for being so

> >> helpful.

> >>

> >> Jim

>

March 29, 2008

Re: Quad core benching like a dual

Modern processors throttle down to conserve energy and improve thermal

conditions.

"Power Obsessed" <screenedemail@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:88425497-9428-4AC6-AC76-0A82D2FD275E@microsoft.com...

> To Zootal:

> The thing that really threw me was the HUGE difference in the results.

> (from 1600+ to 800+). I had used this software in the past "right out of

> the

> box" I guess you could say. No configuration at all.

> The setting I'm talking about is the number of processes to test the CPU

> with. I have no idea why that setting was different

> Thank,

> Jim

> --

> Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

> Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

> 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

>

> "Zootal" wrote:

>

>> In addition to all of the varied comments that others have added....I

>> might

>> suggest that you not put a lot of emphasis or confidence on any one

>> benchmark. Processors vary greatly internally, and so do benchmarks. It's

>> not difficult to tune a benchmark to favor a specific architecture or

>> configuration. This happens, and not always intentionally. Anytime we

>> change

>> something in a compiler or cpu config, etc., we run a half dozen or so

>> benchmarks so that we get a better profiling of what the change did, and

>> expose potential problems. No one benchmark can tell it all, and none of

>> them are representative of what you will actually be doing with your

>> computer.

>>

>> <miso@sushi.com> wrote in message

>> news:e4934900-f01b-4282-a008-829053bb7823@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

>> > On Mar 28, 8:36 pm, Power Obsessed <screenedem...@comcast.net> wrote:

>> >> I ended up figuring it out. If your interested it was the way the

>> >> benchmark

>> >> software was configured. I do want to thank all of you for being so

>> >> helpful.

>> >>

>> >> Jim

>>

March 29, 2008

Re: Quad core benching like a dual

Ya but that only happens when its idle right? Not in the middle of the

processor being called upon. I know it will automatically shut the system

down if you reach critical temps.

--

Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote:

> Modern processors throttle down to conserve energy and improve thermal

> conditions.

>

> "Power Obsessed" <screenedemail@comcast.net> wrote in message

> news:88425497-9428-4AC6-AC76-0A82D2FD275E@microsoft.com...

> > To Zootal:

> > The thing that really threw me was the HUGE difference in the results.

> > (from 1600+ to 800+). I had used this software in the past "right out of

> > the

> > box" I guess you could say. No configuration at all.

> > The setting I'm talking about is the number of processes to test the CPU

> > with. I have no idea why that setting was different

> > Thank,

> > Jim

> > --

> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

> >

> > "Zootal" wrote:

> >

> >> In addition to all of the varied comments that others have added....I

> >> might

> >> suggest that you not put a lot of emphasis or confidence on any one

> >> benchmark. Processors vary greatly internally, and so do benchmarks. It's

> >> not difficult to tune a benchmark to favor a specific architecture or

> >> configuration. This happens, and not always intentionally. Anytime we

> >> change

> >> something in a compiler or cpu config, etc., we run a half dozen or so

> >> benchmarks so that we get a better profiling of what the change did, and

> >> expose potential problems. No one benchmark can tell it all, and none of

> >> them are representative of what you will actually be doing with your

> >> computer.

> >>

> >> <miso@sushi.com> wrote in message

> >> news:e4934900-f01b-4282-a008-829053bb7823@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

> >> > On Mar 28, 8:36 pm, Power Obsessed <screenedem...@comcast.net> wrote:

> >> >> I ended up figuring it out. If your interested it was the way the

> >> >> benchmark

> >> >> software was configured. I do want to thank all of you for being so

> >> >> helpful.

> >> >>

> >> >> Jim

> >>

>

March 29, 2008

Re: Quad core benching like a dual

Most have multiple layers of sensitivity. Say, one speed at 25%, another at

40% and above say 66% full speed. You should be able to check Intel's site

for where their models adjust.

"Power Obsessed" <screenedemail@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:0D6ABD17-7C3A-4D27-BAA3-51D1AC33008D@microsoft.com...

> Ya but that only happens when its idle right? Not in the middle of the

> processor being called upon. I know it will automatically shut the system

> down if you reach critical temps.

> --

> Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

> Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

> 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

>

> "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:

>

>> Modern processors throttle down to conserve energy and improve thermal

>> conditions.

>>

>> "Power Obsessed" <screenedemail@comcast.net> wrote in message

>> news:88425497-9428-4AC6-AC76-0A82D2FD275E@microsoft.com...

>> > To Zootal:

>> > The thing that really threw me was the HUGE difference in the results.

>> > (from 1600+ to 800+). I had used this software in the past "right out

>> > of

>> > the

>> > box" I guess you could say. No configuration at all.

>> > The setting I'm talking about is the number of processes to test the

>> > CPU

>> > with. I have no idea why that setting was different

>> > Thank,

>> > Jim

>> > --

>> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

>> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,

>> > Nvidia

>> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

>> >

>> > "Zootal" wrote:

>> >

>> >> In addition to all of the varied comments that others have added....I

>> >> might

>> >> suggest that you not put a lot of emphasis or confidence on any one

>> >> benchmark. Processors vary greatly internally, and so do benchmarks.

>> >> It's

>> >> not difficult to tune a benchmark to favor a specific architecture or

>> >> configuration. This happens, and not always intentionally. Anytime we

>> >> change

>> >> something in a compiler or cpu config, etc., we run a half dozen or so

>> >> benchmarks so that we get a better profiling of what the change did,

>> >> and

>> >> expose potential problems. No one benchmark can tell it all, and none

>> >> of

>> >> them are representative of what you will actually be doing with your

>> >> computer.

>> >>

>> >> <miso@sushi.com> wrote in message

>> >> news:e4934900-f01b-4282-a008-829053bb7823@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

>> >> > On Mar 28, 8:36 pm, Power Obsessed <screenedem...@comcast.net>

>> >> > wrote:

>> >> >> I ended up figuring it out. If your interested it was the way the

>> >> >> benchmark

>> >> >> software was configured. I do want to thank all of you for being so

>> >> >> helpful.

>> >> >>

>> >> >> Jim

>> >>

>>

March 30, 2008

Re: Quad core benching like a dual

Yeah, that would definitely be significant :D:D:D

"Power Obsessed" <screenedemail@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:88425497-9428-4AC6-AC76-0A82D2FD275E@microsoft.com...

> To Zootal:

> The thing that really threw me was the HUGE difference in the results.

> (from 1600+ to 800+). I had used this software in the past "right out of

> the

> box" I guess you could say. No configuration at all.

> The setting I'm talking about is the number of processes to test the CPU

> with. I have no idea why that setting was different

> Thank,

> Jim

> --

> Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

> Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

> 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

>

> "Zootal" wrote:

>

>> In addition to all of the varied comments that others have added....I

>> might

>> suggest that you not put a lot of emphasis or confidence on any one

>> benchmark. Processors vary greatly internally, and so do benchmarks. It's

>> not difficult to tune a benchmark to favor a specific architecture or

>> configuration. This happens, and not always intentionally. Anytime we

>> change

>> something in a compiler or cpu config, etc., we run a half dozen or so

>> benchmarks so that we get a better profiling of what the change did, and

>> expose potential problems. No one benchmark can tell it all, and none of

>> them are representative of what you will actually be doing with your

>> computer.

>>

>> <miso@sushi.com> wrote in message

>> news:e4934900-f01b-4282-a008-829053bb7823@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

>> > On Mar 28, 8:36 pm, Power Obsessed <screenedem...@comcast.net> wrote:

>> >> I ended up figuring it out. If your interested it was the way the

>> >> benchmark

>> >> software was configured. I do want to thank all of you for being so

>> >> helpful.

>> >>

>> >> Jim

>>

March 30, 2008

Re: Quad core benching like a dual

Desktop processors (pentiums, core, athlon, phenom, etc.) won't do it under

load unless they are overheating. Lowering the voltage to unused functional

units is an old technique, but they only do it when they think it's not

needed. Specialty processors, OTOH, will do it even under load, depending on

what it's currently doing. If we can scale the voltage down and still get

the work done on time, then we do it. If I can distribute the load among two

cores and lower the voltage and clock, I get the work done in the same

amount of time, but use half the power. I don't need balls-to-the-wall

processing 95% of the time.

"Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:44CD7C1B-C8D8-4E31-8D7C-3BC7412942B2@microsoft.com...

> Modern processors throttle down to conserve energy and improve thermal

> conditions.

>

> "Power Obsessed" <screenedemail@comcast.net> wrote in message

> news:88425497-9428-4AC6-AC76-0A82D2FD275E@microsoft.com...

>> To Zootal:

>> The thing that really threw me was the HUGE difference in the results.

>> (from 1600+ to 800+). I had used this software in the past "right out of

>> the

>> box" I guess you could say. No configuration at all.

>> The setting I'm talking about is the number of processes to test the CPU

>> with. I have no idea why that setting was different

>> Thank,

>> Jim

>> --

>> Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

>> Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

>> 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

>>

>> "Zootal" wrote:

>>

>>> In addition to all of the varied comments that others have added....I

>>> might

>>> suggest that you not put a lot of emphasis or confidence on any one

>>> benchmark. Processors vary greatly internally, and so do benchmarks.

>>> It's

>>> not difficult to tune a benchmark to favor a specific architecture or

>>> configuration. This happens, and not always intentionally. Anytime we

>>> change

>>> something in a compiler or cpu config, etc., we run a half dozen or so

>>> benchmarks so that we get a better profiling of what the change did, and

>>> expose potential problems. No one benchmark can tell it all, and none of

>>> them are representative of what you will actually be doing with your

>>> computer.

>>>

>>> <miso@sushi.com> wrote in message

>>> news:e4934900-f01b-4282-a008-829053bb7823@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

>>> > On Mar 28, 8:36 pm, Power Obsessed <screenedem...@comcast.net> wrote:

>>> >> I ended up figuring it out. If your interested it was the way the

>>> >> benchmark

>>> >> software was configured. I do want to thank all of you for being so

>>> >> helpful.

>>> >>

>>> >> Jim

>>>

>

March 30, 2008

Re: Quad core benching like a dual

Like I meantioned before the cpu load rarely exceeded 50%, so it is

unnessasary to O.C. my system. Like my screenname says though if the

potential is there I am going to use it to the point where I feel safe I

won't break it. Kind of like having a lamborgini and just idling around town.

--

Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

"Zootal" wrote:

> Desktop processors (pentiums, core, athlon, phenom, etc.) won't do it under

> load unless they are overheating. Lowering the voltage to unused functional

> units is an old technique, but they only do it when they think it's not

> needed. Specialty processors, OTOH, will do it even under load, depending on

> what it's currently doing. If we can scale the voltage down and still get

> the work done on time, then we do it. If I can distribute the load among two

> cores and lower the voltage and clock, I get the work done in the same

> amount of time, but use half the power. I don't need balls-to-the-wall

> processing 95% of the time.

>

> "Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote in message

> news:44CD7C1B-C8D8-4E31-8D7C-3BC7412942B2@microsoft.com...

> > Modern processors throttle down to conserve energy and improve thermal

> > conditions.

> >

> > "Power Obsessed" <screenedemail@comcast.net> wrote in message

> > news:88425497-9428-4AC6-AC76-0A82D2FD275E@microsoft.com...

> >> To Zootal:

> >> The thing that really threw me was the HUGE difference in the results.

> >> (from 1600+ to 800+). I had used this software in the past "right out of

> >> the

> >> box" I guess you could say. No configuration at all.

> >> The setting I'm talking about is the number of processes to test the CPU

> >> with. I have no idea why that setting was different

> >> Thank,

> >> Jim

> >> --

> >> Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb

> >> Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia

> >> 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

> >>

> >> "Zootal" wrote:

> >>

> >>> In addition to all of the varied comments that others have added....I

> >>> might

> >>> suggest that you not put a lot of emphasis or confidence on any one

> >>> benchmark. Processors vary greatly internally, and so do benchmarks.

> >>> It's

> >>> not difficult to tune a benchmark to favor a specific architecture or

> >>> configuration. This happens, and not always intentionally. Anytime we

> >>> change

> >>> something in a compiler or cpu config, etc., we run a half dozen or so

> >>> benchmarks so that we get a better profiling of what the change did, and

> >>> expose potential problems. No one benchmark can tell it all, and none of

> >>> them are representative of what you will actually be doing with your

> >>> computer.

> >>>

> >>> <miso@sushi.com> wrote in message

> >>> news:e4934900-f01b-4282-a008-829053bb7823@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

> >>> > On Mar 28, 8:36 pm, Power Obsessed <screenedem...@comcast.net> wrote:

> >>> >> I ended up figuring it out. If your interested it was the way the

> >>> >> benchmark

> >>> >> software was configured. I do want to thank all of you for being so

> >>> >> helpful.

> >>> >>

> >>> >> Jim

> >>>

> >

>

Sign In

Quad core benching like a dual

Recommended Posts

Guest Power Obsessed

Popular Days

Popular Days

Guest Carlos

Guest Power Obsessed

Guest Carlos

Guest Power Obsessed

Guest John Barnes

Guest Power Obsessed

Guest Colin Barnhorst

Guest Power Obsessed

Guest Dennis Pack

Guest Power Obsessed

Guest miso@sushi.com

Guest Colin Barnhorst

Guest Power Obsessed

Guest Power Obsessed

Guest miso@sushi.com

Guest Zootal

Guest Power Obsessed

Guest Colin Barnhorst

Guest Power Obsessed

Guest John Barnes

Guest Zootal

Guest Zootal

Guest Power Obsessed

Similar Content

Dual Booting

Error 0xc000021a, on a dual boot system, one hard drive. any fixes?

my windows 11 is frequently crashing(like thrice this week)

Core Licensing, I’m feeling really dumb…

Dual monitor Windows 11 24h2

Browse

Activity

Site Info