Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sandin

CPU Benchmark

Recommended Posts

sandin

This is application that calculates π (Pi) with 2 different formulas, in first one, the calculation of the formula should perform only 1 core of your CPU, and in the other formula both cores participate in calculation, unfortunately AutoIt is limited to only 15 decimals, though you will never need more than first 4 dec. of Pi number :)

The less time in calculation you get, the better your CPU is, you may post your results here if you like.

Even if it's not working perfectly (cores ratio is not perfect), at least it has pretty gui, and it was fun building it.

Many thanks to MrCreator for his ControlHover UDF LINK, many thanks to UEZ for his text on GDI+ LINK, many thanks to monoceres for sharing his knowledge on GDI+, many thanks to n3nE for help, and everyone else on General Help and Support.

Posted ImagePosted Image

Posted Image

script requires <GUICtrlSetOnHover_UDF.au3> by MrCreator which can be downloaded here, or from his thread: LINK

Edit: I forgot to add: GDI+ is working even if the user is moving window :o

Edit2: "Please wait" on the beginning of the script is obtaining CPU name, it's slow operation, so I gave it it's own gui before main gui pops up =.=

Edit3: Changed single core test pi formula to the one Super PI uses LINK

previous downloads: 140

GUICtrlSetOnHover_UDF.au3

CPU_Benchmark.au3

Edited by sandin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Innovative

What does this do ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrettF

Calculates pi and times it... :)

All done with a very pretty GUI...

My Results:

Test:   Dual/Quad Core optimization
Your time:   27.2902 sec
π (pi) result:   3.14159265358979
Your CPU:   Intel(R) Pentium(R) III Xeon processor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sandin

it calculates PI number with complicated formula, thus overloading your CPU, and it measure the time required for your CPU to calculate pi, less time means better CPU. Benchmark means testing hardware to see which one is better, so, you can test your CPUs and compare results to other people...

Not the most useful tool, but it was fun building it :)

edit: typo :o

Edited by sandin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UEZ

...

Many thanks to MrCreator for his ControlHover UDF LINK, many thanks to EUZ for his text on GDI+ LINK, many thanks to monoceres for sharing his knowledge on GDI+, many thanks to n3nE for help, and everyone else on General Help and Support.

...

Your are welcome :)

Good work sandin :o

My results:

Test: Dual/Quad Core optimization

Your time: 23.8289 sec

π (pi) result: 3.14159265358979

Your CPU: Intel® Core2 Duo CPU T7300 @ 2.00GHz

One remark:

You can use & "Your CPU: " & StringStripWS($processor_name, 7) in line 170 and 486 to compact the CPU output.

And CPU usage during benchmark on my notebook for both CPU cores is "only" 50%

UEZ

Edited by UEZ

Please don't send me any personal message and ask for support! I will not reply!

Selection of finest graphical examples at Codepen.io

The own fart smells best!
Her 'sikim hıyar' diyene bir avuç tuz alıp koşma!
¯\_(ツ)_/¯  ٩(●̮̮̃•̃)۶ ٩(-̮̮̃-̃)۶ૐ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
argumentum

The less time in calculation you get, the better your CPU is, you may post your results here if you like.

Test: Single Core optimization

Your time: 81.4924 sec

p (pi) result: 3.14159265358979

Your CPU: Intel® Pentium® 4 CPU 3.00GHz

Test: Dual/Quad Core optimization

Your time: 60.9427 sec

p (pi) result: 3.14159265358979

Your CPU: Intel® Pentium® 4 CPU 3.00GHz

---------------------------------------------------------

Test: Single Core optimization

Your time: 107.9619 sec

p (pi) result: 3.14159265358979

Your CPU: AMD Athlon XP 2200+

Test: Dual/Quad Core optimization

Your time: 98.4637 sec

p (pi) result: 3.14159265358979

Your CPU: AMD Athlon XP 2200+

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Demonic

Test: Dual/Quad Core optimization

Your time: 18.5598 sec

π (pi) result: 3.14159265358979

Your CPU: Intel® Core2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz

I'm a winnerrrrrr

Very nice, I wish I could do awesome GUIs like that, but I can't even comprehend basic GDI+ :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Before

Nice!

Does it work with two processors? (yes, I mean PROCESSORS, not cores)

I got a dual-processor computer at home, (now at school) so I could test it if it doesn't work.

Also, Does my RAM Memory make any difference in the results?

Thanks, Beforez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KJohn

Your are welcome :)

Good work sandin :o

My results:

Test: Dual/Quad Core optimization

Your time: 23.8289 sec

π (pi) result: 3.14159265358979

Your CPU: Intel® Core2 Duo CPU T7300 @ 2.00GHz

One remark:

You can use & "Your CPU: " & StringStripWS($processor_name, 7) in line 170 and 486 to compact the CPU output.

And CPU usage during benchmark on my notebook for both CPU cores is "only" 50%

UEZ

I have a C2D T7200 @2.00 GHz with 4MB L2 cache (667MHz FSB)... It's the older version of the T7300 (which has 4MB of cache, running on a 800Mhz FSB) but I get a result of 43 seconds.. The 7300 is a newer processor but nearly double the performance of the T7200??

I also have a brand new C2D P8400 @2.26GHz with 3MB L2 cache running on a 1066Mhz FSB.. The result on that is 35 seconds... (sounds right considering it's slightly faster than the T7200)

So there is really no way you could have gotten a ~24 sec result on a T7300 (unless you OCed it to what.. 3.8Ghz?? and the T7300 is a notebook CPU at that). What's your windows performance index score for the CPU?

As for the program itself: It hardly crosses 60% on both my cores on either of my laptops... How can it be a CPU benchmarking s/w then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sandin

Your are welcome :)

Good work sandin :o

My results:

Test: Dual/Quad Core optimization

Your time: 23.8289 sec

π (pi) result: 3.14159265358979

Your CPU: Intel® Core2 Duo CPU T7300 @ 2.00GHz

One remark:

You can use & "Your CPU: " & StringStripWS($processor_name, 7) in line 170 and 486 to compact the CPU output.

And CPU usage during benchmark on my notebook for both CPU cores is "only" 50%

UEZ

tnx :( ya, I changed the stringstrip in line 471, and as for 50% of your CPU, I tried many methods of overloading CPU, and found out that complicated calculation formula would overload CPU the most, I couldn't make it 100% myself either, AutoIt is limited to only 15 decimals, if that could be changed I'm sure the script would overload CPU more than 50%

Why doesn't my gui look like the one in your screenshots?? Are you keeping the working script for yourself? :D

Posted Image

:D strange, I uploaded script with some modifications, try now.

Nice!

Does it work with two processors? (yes, I mean PROCESSORS, not cores)

I got a dual-processor computer at home, (now at school) so I could test it if it doesn't work.

Also, Does my RAM Memory make any difference in the results?

Thanks, Beforez

tnx ;)

There's only one way to find out, run the script and monitor CPU usage in task manager. No, ram shouldn't make much difference.

I have a C2D T7200 @2.00 GHz with 4MB L2 cache (667MHz FSB)... It's the older version of the T7300 (which has 4MB of cache, running on a 800Mhz FSB) but I get a result of 43 seconds.. The 7300 is a newer processor but nearly double the performance of the T7200??

I also have a brand new C2D P8400 @2.26GHz with 3MB L2 cache running on a 1066Mhz FSB.. The result on that is 35 seconds... (sounds right considering it's slightly faster than the T7200)

So there is really no way you could have gotten a ~24 sec result on a T7300 (unless you OCed it to what.. 3.8Ghz?? and the T7300 is a notebook CPU at that). What's your windows performance index score for the CPU?

As for the program itself: It hardly crosses 60% on both my cores on either of my laptops... How can it be a CPU benchmarking s/w then?

as for 60%, it's the same answer I gave to UEZ, and I stated this in the 1st post, but your results sounds little bigger then they should be, maybe some other high resource taker application was working on the background? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UEZ

I have a C2D T7200 @2.00 GHz with 4MB L2 cache (667MHz FSB)... It's the older version of the T7300 (which has 4MB of cache, running on a 800Mhz FSB) but I get a result of 43 seconds.. The 7300 is a newer processor but nearly double the performance of the T7200??

I also have a brand new C2D P8400 @2.26GHz with 3MB L2 cache running on a 1066Mhz FSB.. The result on that is 35 seconds... (sounds right considering it's slightly faster than the T7200)

So there is really no way you could have gotten a ~24 sec result on a T7300 (unless you OCed it to what.. 3.8Ghz?? and the T7300 is a notebook CPU at that). What's your windows performance index score for the CPU?

As for the program itself: It hardly crosses 60% on both my cores on either of my laptops... How can it be a CPU benchmarking s/w then?

It is a Dell Latitude D830 with 2GB memory and I tested it on Vista x32 without SP1.

The perfomance index - base score is 3,4:

Processor Intel® Core2 Duo CPU T7300 @ 2.00GHz 4,9

Memory 2,00 GB 4,8

Graphics NVIDIA Quadro NVS 140M 3,4

Gaming graphics 1022 MB Total available graphics memory 4,4

Primary hard disk 13GB Free (110GB Total) 5,2

UEZ

Edited by UEZ

Please don't send me any personal message and ask for support! I will not reply!

Selection of finest graphical examples at Codepen.io

The own fart smells best!
Her 'sikim hıyar' diyene bir avuç tuz alıp koşma!
¯\_(ツ)_/¯  ٩(●̮̮̃•̃)۶ ٩(-̮̮̃-̃)۶ૐ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pain

Wow, this looks sweet. I modified it some to work on version 3.2.10.0 and got same result as AdmiralAlkex.

After looking at the code I noticed a function that wasn't in 3.2.10.0.

_GDIPlus_GraphicsDrawImageRect($graphics, $bitmap, 1, 1, $width-10, $height-10)

so I replaced it with

_GDIPlus_GraphicsDrawImageRectRect($graphics, $bitmap, 1, 1, $width-10, $height-10, 0, 0, $width-10, $height-10)

The last parameters (bold) caused the problem so I played around with them and it worked like a charm.

My result:

Test: Single Core optimization

Your time: 71.4137 sec

p (pi) result: 3.14159265358979

Your CPU: AMD Athlon 64 Processor 3000+

Edited by Pain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
youknowwho4eva

Test: Single Core optimization

Your time: 37.9272 sec

π (pi) result: 3.14159265358979

Your CPU: Intel® Core2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz

Test: Dual/Quad Core optimization

Your time: 34.7871 sec

π (pi) result: 3.14159265358979

Your CPU: Intel® Core2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz

hmmm 3.2 seconds

P.S. I really like the gui

P.S.P.S. I looked through the code real quick, but I don't see it popping out (probably wouldn't know if I did see it) but what method are you using to calculate pi?

Edited by youknowwho4eva

Giggity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sandin
Paulchen

Nice GUI ;-)

Test: Single Core optimization

Your time: 36.0148 sec

π (pi) result: 3.14159265358979

Your CPU: Intel® Core2 Duo CPU T7500 @ 2.20GHz

Test: Dual/Quad Core optimization

Your time: 21.2709 sec

π (pi) result: 3.14159265358979

Your CPU: Intel® Core2 Duo CPU T7500 @ 2.20GHz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
youknowwho4eva

lol I just noticed, the difference is 3.1401. The difference is almost pi lol.

Edit: My results that is

Edited by youknowwho4eva

Giggity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ev0lving

great gui...

my results

Test: Dual/Quad Core optimization

Your time: 17.8013 sec

π (pi) result: 3.14159265358979

Your CPU: Intel® Core2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ptrex
sandin

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×