GreenAsJade Posted September 6, 2004 Share Posted September 6, 2004 Originally posted by junk2drive: i tried it again with everything off. no sound both tests. 2:07 movie playback only took 60 seconds Funny man! first time i've watched it. what a zoo! Ain't it just! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawg Bonz Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 My results: -Mac 8500 (1996) / Sonnet G4 400MHz -overaged not overclocked -576 MB RAM -3:39 average ! Do I win anything for being the slowest CM machine benchmarked? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilroy Lurking Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 Dawg Bonz Hi! Interesting that you get times almost identical to mine I have a stock B&W G3/400. The motherboard is clocked at 100 whatsits. I probably would have "Sonnet G4'd" my old Mac7300 had not my son passed on his B&W to me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junk2drive Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 anybody try a pc in safe mode to see if cutting down on background stuff speeds things up? will cm start in safe mode? i cant believe paco's p4 is the same as my duron. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawg Bonz Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 KL- Amazing that with only 400MHz Macs we can still enjoy the CM games. I admit the fast 40 something second calculation times would make games much more zippy... 3 minutes more zippy! New / much faster computer soon I hope. Way past time for an upgrade. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 I was fine with my 400Mhz G4, but I found that and upgrade card, would extend the life of the machine. Getting a new G5 would be nice, but then playing the current CM games would not be an option. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 ...And so is the lure of "The Dark Side" 'Use the PC Luke... It is your destiny...' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Carr Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 Originally posted by Daman324: AMD Athlon XP 3200+ (Barton 400mhz bus), 1024 MB of PC3200 EL/DC RAM I ran three tests and got an average of about 46 Seconds. Nice! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Carr Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 Originally posted by Antonius 007: I've got myself a AMD64-3400+ with 1 GB ram and a GeForce Ultra 6800 Here are my benchmark results: 1) 41 sec 2) 44 sec 3) 42 sec I've to go to bed now, sorry.. Hans Oh Daddy-O! Those are some quick times there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kong Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 62 Second Average AMD XP 1900+ (1.6 Ghz) Asus A7N266 MB (nForce 1 chipset) 1 Gig PC2100 Ram CM should become a standard performance test for the CPU and Memory at Review sites! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junk2drive Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 kong, what video card do you have? i could build off your list fairly cheap and cut my time in half. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holien Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 Quick post before bed. AMD 64 3000, MSI KT8 Neo Board with DOT set to Captain level. Don't ask me how much over clocked this is. 512Mb RAM (I will dig out Speed in morning) Video is Nvidia Geforce FX5700 Ultra clocked to suggested levels (I.e. It did it itself!). Not sure what it set itself to. And the speeds were..... 1st run 49 seconds 2nd run 53 seconds 3rd run 55 seconds 4th run 52 seconds 5th run 46 seconds 6th run 50 seconds Night and I shall read the whole thread later. H Update on Memory (mine is poor) PC3200 DDR400 [ September 09, 2004, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: Holien ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kong Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 Junk, I'm running a BFC 5900XT OC (GeForce 5900XT), I got it a few months back replaced a GeForce ti4400. This current rig I built in April of 2002. Only other change to it was increasing Ram from 512 to 1024. I'm also running Win200. Just a comment, but I would suspect many of you out there could see a nice boost in performance by simply increasing your Ram. IMO Win2000, WinXP need at least 512 to run well and to get the most from your PC. Computer makers consistently put in low Ram to keep base prices low and to make more money when people add more. I know from the late 80's to mid 90's I saw the same situation with Mac's. You can NEVER have too much Ram! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawg Bonz Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 Thanks to the unofficial "Redwolf CM Bench" file, I now have a good idea now of what is CM fast. Her name is AMD ...and the lure of "The Dark Side" has me in its grip. When the AMD / PCI Express mobo's arrive ... with CMX2 I hope... "The Dark Side" will have its way with me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juju Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 Hey, Redwolf, Things get even better. And more interesting... At first I had average times of 2 minutes. After disabling Hyperthreading on my P-IV 2.4 GHZ I got average times of 1:30 minutes. Just now I popped in my new X800pro (yay, coolness! ) and did a full HD format and Windows re-install (kept the CM install, though, on a different partition) and am now down to 1:05 minutes! That's almost twice as fast as my first test of 2:07 minutes. Seems these times do not only depend on CPU speed. Possibly Windows- and registry clutter has something to do with it as well. CAn you explain this? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted September 9, 2004 Author Share Posted September 9, 2004 Juju, in theory the graphics crd is not involved in the computation. It should all run on the raw CPU. Your results make me believe your system was cluttered up with tiny little programs running in the background. A good test would be to keep your reinstalled system but put in your old video card (what was it?) for a quick comparision under the clean Windows. It might also explain why my times were pretty good. My Windows never sees websurfing, emailing, or any kind of "helpful" utilities, there is absolutely nothing in the background. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kong Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 Juju, that is a big change and my knee jerk reaction was Ram based, assuming you had say 512 or less and had ALOT of software/accesories loading at startup. But I see you have a Gig so lack of Ram is most likely not it. My other theory is since you wiped and reloaded with Hyperthreading off this might be the key factor. Did you disable hyperthreading in the BIOS or in software? Regardless it's usually a good decision to wipe your hard drive and reinstall your OS anytime you make a significant hardware change. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juju Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 Originally posted by Kong: Regardless it's usually a good decision to wipe your hard drive and reinstall your OS anytime you make a significant hardware change. That's why I did it, mainly. Even without new hardware I find it's usually best to start from scratch twice a year. That's MS Windows for ya. Oh, and I disabled HT in the BIOS, which I had also updated just prior to re-installing Windows. Redwolf, basically all that loads at startup are my antivirus and internet security sofware. I'm sure nothing else is\was running, as I run a tight ship, so to speak. I always keep my machine as clean and tidy as possible. My older card was a 9700PRO (and no, I'm not going to put it back ). I don't know if temperature may have something to do with it (the test load times, I mean), but changing from the 9700Pro to the X800Pro appears to have lowered both my system and CPU temperatures by as much as 15 to 20 degrees. When sitting idle my CPU temp used to be 59 degrees. Now it 39! Could that be a factor? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markl Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 With regard to Juju's post above I have Nortons Anti Virus and Firewall. Both of these are very big resource hogs and my PC runs far better with out them. Especially since I only have 250 meg of ram. If any one else uses Nortons Anti Virus do they know an easy way to disable it? It appears to load from the boot files so I can not ALt CTRL DEL and select to close it as this crashes the PC, I have to deselect it in Nortons options and reboot. This often results in me not disabling it. Cheers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted September 9, 2004 Author Share Posted September 9, 2004 Juju, modern P4s switch themself to run slower on overheating but I don't think this is an issue. If you want to know what's going on you have to run one test with your old card and the new, clean OS. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juju Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 Originally posted by markl: If any one else uses Nortons Anti Virus do they know an easy way to disable it? It appears to load from the boot files so I can not ALt CTRL DEL and select to close it as this crashes the PC, I have to deselect it in Nortons options and reboot. This often results in me not disabling it. Cheers I do, and I know of a sure-shot way. BUT it's kinda tricky... Some people wouldn't dare do this, I guess. What I do is I use a registry cleaner program that let's me delete these startup programs, making a backup, of course. Then I disable my internet connection and reboot. After I've finished doing what I'd be doing, I simply restore the backed up registry entries, re-boot and reconnect internet connection. I've done this only once, because I don't feel the need to go and disable it everytime. I know for a fact that there is a program out there that simply lets you disable those entries temporarily, instead of deleting them, but I can't remeber what it was anymore. And you're right, it is a hog. 250 megs is not a lot, seeing as it takes up about 50 megs on my machine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macphail Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 your computer wants more gasoline. and an oil change. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scheer Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Originally posted by markl: If any one else uses Nortons Anti Virus do they know an easy way to disable it? It appears to load from the boot files so I can not ALt CTRL DEL and select to close it as this crashes the PC, I have to deselect it in Nortons options and reboot. This often results in me not disabling it. Cheers Why dont you use msconfig to disable any unwanted autostart programs ? Do a search on your windows partition, if you use XP ist in the C:\WINDOWS\PCHealth\HelpCtr\Binaries. If you use Win98, its in the systems folder, I think. You just start msconfig and uncheck in the autostart tab the unwanted programs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted September 10, 2004 Author Share Posted September 10, 2004 Depending on the Windows version there are 6 or more different official ways to start programs at bootup or login time. And a virus would usually not use an official one. Closely observing the CPU monitor (although it has way too few features to tell anything about memory usage) on a second monitor does the job much better when you want to figure out where you CPU time went. [ September 10, 2004, 04:21 AM: Message edited by: Redwolf ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juju Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Originally posted by Redwolf: Depending on the Windows version there are 6 or more different official ways to start programs at bootup or login time... ...And I haven't been able to find a single one of them on W2K. Could you give me a hint of where to start looking? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.