- This topic has 13 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I understand that the Atom has yet to be overclocked, and is no speed demon at number crunching, but wondered what your scores were.
http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/366a/super_pi_mod-1.5.zip
1m33s Atom @ 1.6Ghz 1GB Ram XP
It’s usually a value of 20, or up to 1048576 decimal digits.
Not really too sure what this is going to tell us though as unless someone manages to overclock their NC10 all the scores should be pretty similar.
1m23s Atom @ 1.6GHz 2GB RAM Fedora 10 Linux
Difference in score is likely due to slight differences in the Linux version of SuperPi.
How many digits of Pi you gys doing ?
For 16k under Vista(2gb Ram) I get 1.07sec
Update:
Close all foreground applications drops to 0.936Both on Battery
Out of interest my 4+ year old laptop running the same OS and SuperPi version gets this score:
41s AMD 3000+ @ 1.6GHz 512MB RAM Fedora 10 Linux
Which embarrassingly is around twice as fast as the NC10.
[quote1230558349=Alfihar]
Which embarrassingly is around twice as fast as the NC10.
[/quote1230558349]Just as well I have no need to calculate Pi ;)!
[quote1230558418=jez]Just as well I have no need to calculate Pi ;)![/quote1230558418]
Indeed, Super Pi isn’t even a very good benchmark anymore as it only utilises a single processing core, and is only really good for testing the CPU.Additionally my NC10 starts up faster and runs most applications far faster and smoother than my old laptop, with the exception of games (as my old laptop has a better graphics card).
16k resulted in 0.813s
32k resulted in 1.750s
64k resulted in 3.812s
128k resulted in 8.406s
256k resulted in 19.140s
512k resulted in 43.157srunning on my sammy which only has 1gb ram. will post any changes when i install my 2gb ram tomorrow.
[edit] the above figures were run on mains power.
Re-ran the test on battery power, got the following results:
16k @ 0.812s
32k @ 1.750s
64k @ 3.812s
128k @ 8.375s
256k @ 19.140s
512k @ 43.157sSecond run resulted in better results @ 16k and 128k. hmmm…..wonder how long to try and do the 32m test…………….
Will also post the results for my compaq which has similar spec to the Sammy….
hmm…… my old creaky Pentium M 1.73, WinXP, 1GB RAM:
16k @ 0.359
32k @ 0.796
64k @ 1.718
128k @ 3.781
256k @ 8.172
512k @ 18.156
1MB @ 45.750looks less creaky than i thought.
got curious and just found this link:
http://www.computerbase.de/news/hardware/prozessoren/intel/2008/maerz/erster_benchmark_intels_silverthorne/
which has a handy % faster or slower changing graphic if you wave your cursor over a processorsomebody please remind me whether hyperthreading with the atom kicks in automatically or whether software needs to ask for it?
[quote1230746446=dino]somebody please remind me whether hyperthreading with the atom kicks in automatically or whether software needs to ask for it?[/quote1230746446]
The program needs to support multi-threading to be able to use hyperthreading, multiple cores or multiple processors. Super Pi as far as I’m aware does not.found this supposedly mod to super-pi that is for hyperthreaded CPUs, though haven’t figured out if it just runs multiple instances and lets the scheduler deal with it or whether it is a fair comparison with single core figures.
Just tried running it under wine, it spawns multiple processes (and then hangs for me). Though the underlying super pi mod runs fine, and runs it’s calculations in a single process with a single thread.
From what I can tell hyper pi just runs several copies of super pi mod, if this is the case then don’t expect to get a faster score.
As long as people use the same program for benchmarking the results can be compared.
[quote1234374919=BluebirdNC10]
16k resulted in 0.813s
32k resulted in 1.750s
64k resulted in 3.812s
128k resulted in 8.406s
256k resulted in 19.140s
512k resulted in 43.157s[/quote1234374919]
i have managed to get these times, i got better performance by using taskbar to give super pi higher priority, so seems like any nc10 user can do this make a single programme run faster.
16k resulted in 0.797s
32k resulted in 1.703s
64k resulted in 3.687s
128k resulted in 8.078s
256k resulted in 18.703s
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.