I've just recently went Dual Core. Pentium D 805 at 3.6GHz from Athlon XP 2800+ (2.08GHz) and man is this thing awesome at multitasking. Today I've spent almost whole night organizing over 400 Gigs of files. Made great directories, renamed properly, photo/video organizing. Well a big thing in quite few years. So I've been running Remote Desktop 800x600, copying 10Gb folders, with quite few explorer windows, + watching old Screensaver videos on YouTube. And this whole thing is only using 80% of CPU. And to tell you about working with video.... I love it. I'm capturing through firewall MiniDV tapes, or encoding video, and I can do most things with my PC, where before I had to wait. If you're multitask a lot.... I totally reccomend Dual Core!
3,560,561 tries a second on a A64 3200+(Socket 754@ stock 2.2) so i don't know if the program truly uses 2 cores i don't have a dual core chip. But i do use a dual xeon workstation at work and it does make a difference
Good thread, think whenI can afford an XP 3800 Dual Core I get one as I;'m struggling with my 3200 Venice chip, an extra gig of ram and a x2 CPU, will make my system really usable
Number of processors detected and utilised are 2. The bios doesn't allow HT to be switched off, unfortunately. The word I used was 'letter'. TBH, I was on my lappy, ran the test and thought I'd bung the result in just as a comparison. I'll have to run it on my X2 3800. I had my A64 3000+ at 270FSB and tbh 'upgrading' to an X2 3800, it seems to run at a similar speed, although it's still running stock atm
Who here here has upgraded from an AMD single core to an X2 around the same speed? [Edit] If so what kind of results
"Upgraded" from a 2.7ghz Opty 144 to a X2 3800 running at 2.1ghz (CPU wouldnt clock at all) General useage wise the X2 was a LOT smoother than the opty. ie, atm the PC's virus scanning and it's not noticable at all. Before the machine lagged etc. Things "feel" slightly slower though, assuming this is due to the lack of raw clockspeed. The 2.9ghz X2 on the other hand is a different beast, multi tasks really nicely very nippy little thing indeed.
I've upgraded the program a bit. It now should detect the number of processors whenever the program is brought into focus. IE if you change the program's affinity after starting it and then start running it, it should be able to adjust the number of threads it uses accordingly. Also I've optomised it a little so it's about 3-4 times faster now. Get the new version here.
Yeah, it's not really an optimisation, more of a slight cheat. Instead generating a new random 32bit number for each letter I now generate just 1 for every 6 letters and use 30 out of the 32bits generated instead of the previous 8. That means you'll notice a significant drop in the tries/s from 6 to 7 letters. But all this means that the random numbers are not so random and in fact some letters are more likely to be generated than others.
14.31 million tries/second using the word "second". Nearly took 1 billion tries though to find it! Does the program find numbers aswell? Ed
Interesting.... I have two PCs 1. Pentium D805 Dual Core @ 4Ghz, 2Gb RAM, Windows XP-Pro First run: 9,035,736 tries/s Second run: 9,126,846 tries/s 2. Athon XP2600-M @ 2.465Ghz, 1Gb RAM, Windows 2000 First run: 13,337,918 tries/s Second run: 13,397,378 tries/s Word used for all tests: monkey Very odd results, my ageing single core XP whips my dual core Pentium and beats quite a few of the dual core AMDs clocked higher than my XP.
That is quite odd, webchimp. Are you sure that both cores are being used on the Pentium system? Also isn't the XP2600-M designed for multi-processor systems? And you only have one of them? Even so it's quite possible that the AMD chips run this program a lot quicker than pentiums. There are somethings that AMD kicks pentium's arse at and vice versa. As I said before, it's not a brilliant benchmarking tool.
Hi Dex, Yes both cores were detected and used on the Pentium system and I could see both cores maxed out on the Asus motherboard utility doohickey while the program was running. The Athlon XP2600-M is a mobile processor, although I'm using it in a desktop PC with a standard ATX motherboard. The mobile athlons had unlocked multipliers and a lower standard VCore requirement than their desktop counterparts; better for overclocking. It would appear that this particular test favours the AMD architecture over the Pentium IV architecture by a considerable margin. However, what's really surprising is that it beats the 10.9 million tries/s of Callum's Athlon 64 X2 3800+, which I believe runs at 2400Mhz, very similar to the 2465Mhz I have my XP running at. It would appear that the 2nd core has very little benfit or is posibly a hinderance, for this particular test.
word used second match found in 890045187 tries and 75 seconds 11815596 tries/s 2nd try word = monkey match found in 292315302 tries and 25 seconds 11707129 tries /s i have found that i can run bf2 and virus scan and make a dvd with no significant slow down using the machine specs below. standard settings no overclock. 4400x2 4gb pc3200ram 2xx1800xt 512's xfire mode sapphirre pure xfire mobo 2x250gb sata drives water cooled cpu.
I went from a 3000+ to a X2 3800+, worth every penny. With both clocked to around 2.4GHz, the dual core is notably snappier in everything, and lets me recode stuff MUCH faster and still have enough left over to have a usable system. I'm on my Mac at the moment so I can't try the monkey program, unfortunately.
