Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Core i5 750, Core i7 870 Linux Benchmarks

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Kano
    replied
    That was a test PTS vs. Kanotix 64 Excalibur. Kanotix was faster in that one, but slower in some others. Btw. i have got results with 3.8 GHz too.

    http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...32-23210-22346

    http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...27-14842-17066

    To be fair, the EIST was enabled in BIOS, but Linux was set to use performance mode.

    Leave a comment:


  • justapost
    replied
    He He you ran the pts-livecd. Can it be your test file was on a ramdisk.

    Update: Can't be looking at the second result. 8GB may have an impact.

    Found those intel results.
    http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...06-11719-16230

    I need 3.8GHz on the 955BE with 8GB ram to reach your results.
    http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...42-23762-13556
    Last edited by justapost; 09-18-2009, 12:27 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kano
    replied
    64 bit i guess, that's intersting my 3.16 s775 cpu beats that.

    http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...23-26178-18490

    Leave a comment:


  • justapost
    replied
    The system is busy running universe-cli here atm, but 7zip already ran.

    i5 750 Turbo/CS/Eist On: 8647,66 MIPS
    955BE CnQ On: 7553.00 MIPS

    Leave a comment:


  • Kano
    replied
    Could you do 7zip benchmarks? I like those as they are really fast to test - maybe with EIST on too.

    Leave a comment:


  • justapost
    replied
    Updated the bios to the lates available version..

    Then I played with Turbo, C-State and Eist settings. For the higher turbomodes in windows all C-State options must be enabled. Without turbo behaves like I thought it behaved under linux yesterday and the max multi was 21x (2.8GHz).
    Looking at the linux results it seem higher multis where in effect yesterday but the correct frequencies are not reported under /proc/cpuinfo.
    With EIST/Turbo and CS off the result looks like 2.66GHz. Once I enable Turbo but leave C-States disabled it looks moore like 2.8GHz and with C-States enabled the frequency should have been 3.2GHz.

    11.46*2.66GHz = 30.48
    10.91*2.8GHz = 30.54
    9.55*3.2GHz = 30.56

    A sidenote, results are repeatable here.
    Last edited by justapost; 09-18-2009, 08:10 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kano
    replied
    Thats not really logical to me when this would be a Win only feature. That is not really predictable that is partly clear as it depends on the core temp.

    Leave a comment:


  • AdrenalineJunky
    replied
    Originally posted by Kano View Post
    Well maybe you need a much better cpu cooler to enable higher turbo boost or the bios is bad. Maybe there is a newer beta one.
    since you meantioned you didn't read what the problem was

    enabling turbo boost led to erratic/poor performace, test results varied greatly from one run to the next and all of them were worse then with it off. also the cpu wasn't actually scaling up like it should (thats what micheal had happen any)

    Leave a comment:


  • justapost
    replied
    Originally posted by Kano View Post
    Well maybe you need a much better cpu cooler to enable higher turbo boost or the bios is bad. Maybe there is a newer beta one.
    Well cpufreq-info only shows speeds up to 2.8GHz. Maybe turbo works better if I disable EIST and do not use cpufreq-acpi at all.
    I tried to log the cpufrequency during the test but only one core appeared. As for cooling, I'm currently only using the stock cooler because I do not have the proper clips for my other ones. I expect an Corsair Hydro H50 in the next few days but I thought I only need it to reach ~4GHz and not at stock.
    Can be it's a bios issue with the linux acpi tables, under windows I already saw above 3GHz.
    Will do more testing tomorrow, preparing universe will take a while.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kano
    replied
    Well maybe you need a much better cpu cooler to enable higher turbo boost or the bios is bad. Maybe there is a newer beta one.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X