+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 130

Thread: Football Manager 12 Benchmark Thread

  1. #1
    Amateur
    Join Date
    4th August 2004
    Location
    Serbia
    Posts
    589

    Default Football Manager 12 Benchmark Thread

    The answer to the very popular question 'How many leagues can my PC run?' is easy. You can run ALL leagues in the game. However, based on your PC specs speed experience will differ a lot. With decreased number of leagues speed increases, but it's still quite subjective if the game runs fast or not.

    With this benchmark we will get exact figures, so it will be easy to compare the differences in processing speed between various PC configurations.

    Here is how you can run the benchmark.
    Download this save game. ALL leagues in the game are loaded (117).

    Ensure that:
    - Processing Fixtures is set to Fastest (Can't Interrupt)
    - Auto Save Interval is disabled.

    Go on holiday for a week (don't resign) , and measure time needed for processing. This website is quite handy for measuring: http://www.online-stopwatch.com/ if you don't have stopwatch.

    Post the results in following format:

    CPU: AMD Phenom II X2 550
    CPU Frequency: 3400 MHz
    RAM: 4GB 800 MHz
    OS: Win 7
    Time: 9 min 16 sec

    I have results for one more machine:

    CPU: AMD Phenom II X2 550 (unlocked at X4 B50)
    CPU Frequency: 3600 MHz
    RAM: 4GB 1600 MHz
    OS: Win 7
    Time: 6 min 29 sec

    As you can see, processing time is greatly reduced with unlocked and slightly more overclocked CPU.

    TIME CPU FREQUENCY RAM OS
    3 min 19 sec Intel Core i7 3960X 4400 MHz 16GB 1600 MHz Win 7 64-bit
    3 min 27 sec Intel Core i7 2600K 4430 MHz 16GB 1600 MHz Win 7 64-bit
    3 min 48 sec Intel Core i7 2600K 4428 MHz 8GB 824MHz ? Win 7 64-bit
    3 min 58 sec Intel Core i7 2600K 4500 MHz 16GB Win 7 64-bit
    4 min 12 sec Intel Core i7 3930K 4290 MHz 32GB 1600MHz Win 7 64-bit
    4 min 20 sec Intel Core i5 2500K 4300 MHz 8GB 1600 MHz Win 7
    4 min 32 sec Intel Core i7 920 3800 MHz 6GB 1333 MHz Win 7 64-bit
    4 min 36 sec Intel Core i7-2600 4100 MHz 8GB 1333 MHz Win 7 64-bit
    4 min 37 sec Intel Core i7 930 3801 MHz 6GB 1600 MHz Win 7 64-bit
    4 min 38 sec Intel Core i5 2500K 4400 MHz 8GB 1600 MHz Win 7 64-bit
    4 min 40 sec Intel Core i7 3770 3400 MHz 8GB 1600 MHz Win 7 64-bit
    4 min 40 sec Intel Core i5 2500K 4400 MHz 4GB Win 7 64-bit
    4 min 42 sec Intel Core i7 930 3700 MHz 6GB 1600 MHz Win 7 64-bit
    4 min 58 sec Intel Core i7 930 3600 MHz 6GB 1600 MHz Win 7
    5 min 02 sec Intel Core i7 970 3800 MHz 12GB 1600 MHz Win 7 64-bit
    5 min 02 sec AMD FX-8150 4515 MHz 8GB 2000MHz Win 7 64-bit
    5 min 07 sec Intel Core i7 920 3800 MHz 6GB 1600 MHz Win 7 64-bit
    5 min 21 sec Intel Core i5 2400 3100 MHz 8GB 1333 Mhz Win 7 64-bit
    5 min 22 sec Intel Core i7 960 3200 MHz 12GB 1600 MHz Win 7 64-bit
    5 min 30 sec Intel Core i5 2500 3300 MHz 4 GB 1333 MHz Win 7
    5 min 30 sec Intel Core i5 2500 8GB Win 7
    5 min 37 sec Intel Core i3 2100 3100 MHz 4GB 1333 MHz Win 7 64-bit
    5 min 45 sec Intel Core i7 2670QM 2900 MHz 4GB Win 7
    5 min 51 sec Intel Core i7 950 3200 MHz 12GB 1600 MHz Win 7 64-bit
    5 min 56 sec Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 3825 MHz 4GB 900 MHz Win 7 64-bit
    6 min 01 sec Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 3400 MHz 4 GB 800 MHz Win 7 64-bit
    6 min 02 sec AMD Phenom II X6 1090T 3800 MHz 4 GB 1333 MHz Win 7
    6 min 15 sec Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 3800 MHz 8GB Win Vista
    6 min 29 sec AMD Phenom II X4 B50 3600 MHz 4GB 1600 MHz Win 7 64-bit
    6 min 51 sec Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 3000 MHz 6GB 667 MHz Win Vista 64
    6 min 54 sec AMD Phenom II X6 1090T 3200 MHz 4 GB 1600 MHz Win 7
    6 min 7 sec Intel Core i7 950 3000 MHz 6GB 1600 MHz Win 7 64-bit
    7 min 09 sec Intel Core 2 Quad Q9950 2830 MHz 4GB 800 MHz Win 7 64-bit
    7 min 50 sec AMD Phenom II x4 840 3200 MHz 4GB 1600 MHz Win 7 64-bit
    8 min 12 sec Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2400 MHz 8GB 800 MHz Win 7 64-bit
    8 min 16 sec Intel Core i5 480M 2670 MHz 4 GB 1333 MHz Win 7 64-bit
    8 min 30 sec Intel Core Duo PC E7500 2930 MHz 6GB 1066 MHz Win 7 64-bit
    8 min 52 sec Intel Core 2 Quad 6700 3340 MHz 8GB 800MHz Win 7 64-bit
    9 min 16 sec AMD Phenom II X2 550 3400 MHz 4GB 800 MHz Win 7 64-bit
    9 min 17 sec Intel Core i5 760 2800 MHz 8GB 1333 MHz OSX 10.7
    11 min 17 sec Intel Core i5 540M 2530 MHz 4GB 1067 MHz OSX 10.7
    11 min 30 sec Intel T4500 2300 MHz 4GB 2300 MHz ? Win 7 64-bit
    14 min 03 sec Dual CPU Intel Xeon 3600 MHz 4GB 800 MHz Win 7 64-bit
    Last edited by yugo23; 20-06-2012 at 13:14.

  2. #2
    Amateur
    Join Date
    30th September 2009
    Posts
    397

    Default

    CPU: Intel Core I5 2500 (turbo boost disabled)
    CPU Frequency: 3300 MHz
    RAM: 4GB 1333 MHz
    OS: Win 7
    Time: 5 min 30 sec

    Will be interesting to see what happens when I enable TB @ 4GHZ, might do that at some point.

  3. #3
    Amateur
    Join Date
    21st April 2008
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    252

    Default

    This is an awesome idea for a thread! Thank you yugo23 for making it. I'll post my results tonight

  4. #4
    Amateur
    Join Date
    6th January 2009
    Location
    El Salvador
    Posts
    774

    Default

    Great idea Yugo but, sadly, way too complicated for my computer skills I'm afraid!

  5. #5
    Youth Team
    Join Date
    10th August 2003
    Location
    Follow me @acidphire21
    Posts
    5,874

    Default

    CPU: Intel Core I7 930
    CPU Frequency: 3600 MHz
    RAM: 6GB 1600 MHz
    OS: Win 7
    Time: 4 min 58 sec
    Last edited by acidmonkey; 07-11-2011 at 18:58.

  6. #6
    Semi Pro
    Join Date
    7th August 2008
    Location
    Our integrity sells for so little, but it's all that we really have. It is the very last inch of us
    Posts
    3,417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soverntear View Post
    This is an awesome idea for a thread! Thank you yugo23 for making it.
    [QUOTE=bolulu;7283065]Great idea Yugo [/QUOT]

    Just to add to these I have to say this thread needs to be stickied.

  7. #7
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    28th April 2009
    Location
    Wohoo, we now have a FM Meme page! Contact me if you're interested :)
    Posts
    1,702

    Default

    Only one week to determine the computer speed? I think the test should run for at least a year but still then you won't know how performances differ in long time saves... good effort though.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    14th November 2007
    Posts
    1,865

    Default

    Took 5 minutes 21 seconds for me.

    CPU: Intel Core i5-2400
    CPU Frequency: 3.1GHz
    RAM: 8Gb 1333MHz
    OS: Win 7 64 bit

    That was with it playing a film on one side of my screen, about 40 tabs open in firefox and half a dozen files downloading at the same time.
    Last edited by mackemforever; 08-11-2011 at 20:16.

  9. #9
    Amateur
    Join Date
    23rd November 2006
    Posts
    144

    Default

    CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9950 processor
    CPU Frequency: 2.83 GHz
    RAM: 4GB 800 MHz
    OS: Win 7 64 bit
    Time: 7 min 09 sec

    Played in window mode, ran it in the background for a while, whilst I browsed the net.

    I've noticed detial level is set to default. Maybe setting it to maximum would be better for benchmarking?

    Awesome thread by the way!

  10. #10

    Default

    CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600
    CPU Frequency: 2.40GHz (stock)
    RAM: 8GB 800 MHz
    OS: Win 7 64 bit
    Time: 8 min 12 sec

    Not bad I guess but those "i" series are really beginning to show the age of my CPU

  11. #11
    Semi Pro
    Join Date
    20th August 2002
    Location
    Hither and thither
    Posts
    3,315

    Default

    Had to have a go Davor mate

    CPU: Intel Core i7 970
    CPU Frequency: 3800 MHz
    RAM: 12GB 1600 MHz
    OS: Win 7 x64
    Time: 5 min 2 sec

  12. #12
    Amateur
    Join Date
    15th July 2011
    Posts
    265

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carragherisgod View Post
    CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600
    CPU Frequency: 2.40GHz (stock)
    RAM: 8GB 800 MHz
    OS: Win 7 64 bit
    Time: 8 min 12 sec

    Not bad I guess but those "i" series are really beginning to show the age of my CPU
    I have an Intel Q8400 and 8GB DDR3 1066mhz RAM and I personally wouldn't upgrade to an i5 mate. i5's are dual cores (apart from the 750 series) with hyper threading. i7's are worth the upgrade, but the speed difference (between i7 and Intel QXXXX) isn't mind blowing. Your CPU may be old, but its still quick enough.
    Last edited by ChelseaSince86; 08-11-2011 at 15:10.

  13. #13
    Third Team
    Join Date
    7th March 2007
    Location
    Pro-consumer, anti-DRM. Never be satisfied with any answer. Dig until you drop.
    Posts
    6,670

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChelseaSince86 View Post
    I have an Intel Q8400 and 8GB DDR3 1066mhz RAM and I personally wouldn't upgrade to an i5 mate. i5's are dual cores (apart from the 750 series) with hyper threading. i7's are worth the upgrade, but the speed difference (between i7 and Intel QXXXX) isn't mind blowing. Your CPU may be old, but its still quick enough.
    Er, the speed difference between the Q6600 and i5-2500K is mind-blowing: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/53?vs=288

    Here's your CPU against the i5-2500K: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/89?vs=288

    Nehalem i7s are slightly slower but Sandy Bridge i7s are even quicker. Even Nehalem i5s are quite a bit quicker than your CPU: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/89?vs=191

    If you can afford it, upgrading from a Q6600 to, say, an i5-2500K or i5-2400 would provide you with a huge performance boost.

  14. #14
    Amateur
    Join Date
    15th July 2011
    Posts
    265

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by x42bn6 View Post
    Er, the speed difference between the Q6600 and i5-2500K is mind-blowing: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/53?vs=288

    Here's your CPU against the i5-2500K: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/89?vs=288

    Nehalem i7s are slightly slower but Sandy Bridge i7s are even quicker. Even Nehalem i5s are quite a bit quicker than your CPU: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/89?vs=191

    If you can afford it, upgrading from a Q6600 to, say, an i5-2500K or i5-2400 would provide you with a huge performance boost.
    Is it really worth shelling out £200+? Unless you're an avid gamer, I wouldnt say so. Just a personal preference of mine, but my next jump would be i7

  15. #15
    Third Team
    Join Date
    7th March 2007
    Location
    Pro-consumer, anti-DRM. Never be satisfied with any answer. Dig until you drop.
    Posts
    6,670

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChelseaSince86 View Post
    Is it really worth shelling out £200+? Unless you're an avid gamer, I wouldnt say so. Just a personal preference of mine, but my next jump would be i7
    That is an open question. It is up to the user...

    If you are looking to upgrade now, the i5-2500K is a good step. Ivy Bridge is coming out next year which is a while away but I suspect the i5-2500K is going to end up becoming a mid-range processor when that happens. It's priced very competitively, too, and has ridiculous overclocking potential.

    If you are happy with your Q8400, then stick with it. If you are looking to buy next year, wait for Ivy Bridge. That's what I would do.

    The i7-2600K is basically the i5-2500K which is better at heavily-threaded applications, with a much worse price per performance ratio. I wouldn't aim for that unless I am waiting until Ivy Bridge comes out, pushes the i7-2600K's price down and that chip turns into an upper-mid-range chip.

  16. #16
    Amateur
    Join Date
    9th August 2011
    Posts
    24

    Default

    CPU: Intel Core i5-2500
    CPU Frequency:
    RAM: 8GB
    OS: Win 7
    Time: 5 min 30 sec

  17. #17
    Amateur
    Join Date
    4th August 2004
    Location
    Serbia
    Posts
    589

    Default

    I hope we will see some results with i5/i7 CPUs clocked at around 5GHz.

  18. #18
    Amateur
    Join Date
    21st October 2011
    Posts
    96

    Default

    CPU: Intel i7 960 @3.20GHz
    RAM: 12GB 1600MHz
    OS: Win 7 64bit
    Time: 05:22

  19. #19
    Semi Pro
    Join Date
    20th August 2002
    Location
    Hither and thither
    Posts
    3,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yugo23 View Post
    I hope we will see some results with i5/i7 CPUs clocked at around 5GHz.
    I've got a 5GHz capable 2500K here. If nobody else has done one in a few days I'll build a rig up and give it a go.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChelseaSince86 View Post
    I have an Intel Q8400 and 8GB DDR3 1066mhz RAM and I personally wouldn't upgrade to an i5 mate. i5's are dual cores (apart from the 750 series) with hyper threading. i7's are worth the upgrade, but the speed difference (between i7 and Intel QXXXX) isn't mind blowing. Your CPU may be old, but its still quick enough.
    Oh I have no intention of upgrading at all. I was just saying the i series are pretty good compaired to my older quad. However it must be noted my quad is running on much slower ram as well as an older motherboard. And as you say the Q6600 is still a fine piece of work. It can handle anything I throw at it with ease. If I wanted a new i7 I'd have to change my motherboard/CPU/RAM. So basically a new PC. Not worth the gains really.

  21. #21
    Amateur
    Join Date
    13th August 2008
    Location
    Ljubljana, Slovenia
    Posts
    368

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carragherisgod View Post
    Oh I have no intention of upgrading at all. I was just saying the i series are pretty good compaired to my older quad. However it must be noted my quad is running on much slower ram as well as an older motherboard. And as you say the Q6600 is still a fine piece of work. It can handle anything I throw at it with ease. If I wanted a new i7 I'd have to change my motherboard/CPU/RAM. So basically a new PC. Not worth the gains really.
    Uhh. An i5 is leagues better than any Q series chip, it's not all about cores and speed.

    And sorry to burst your bubble but uhh... Heres an actual website with reliable benchmarks. Just find your CPU on there and you can see how good it is. It's a good idea but... yeah, already been done. Admittedly it doesn't take RAM into account but the difference ram makes is pretty much moot.(Do not, some processors vary slightly, but not by more than some guy with a stopwatch will)

  22. #22
    Reserves
    Join Date
    4th March 2004
    Location
    Granada, Spain @GranadaCdeF_en & @HeathISF Editor: InsideSpanishFootball.com
    Posts
    10,700

    Default

    I'd love to participate in this, but I'm not having much luck so far...


  23. #23
    Semi Pro
    Join Date
    20th August 2002
    Location
    Hither and thither
    Posts
    3,315

    Default

    No wonder you're struggling Heathxxx. You haven't got the 16K RAM expansion.

  24. #24
    Amateur
    Join Date
    4th August 2004
    Location
    Serbia
    Posts
    589

    Default

    First post updated with results we have so far.

  25. #25
    Semi Pro
    Join Date
    4th May 2003
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,606

    Default

    Think I'm gonna try this on both my computers later on tonight.

    Must agree that the free service of the download site is horrible though.
    Last edited by mimland; 08-11-2011 at 23:29.

  26. #26
    Semi Pro
    Join Date
    20th August 2002
    Location
    Hither and thither
    Posts
    3,315

    Default

    It's depressing how little extra threads/cores are used

  27. #27
    Amateur
    Join Date
    29th November 2008
    Posts
    5

    Default

    I thought I'd give it a try on my Macs to see what it was like...depressing how slow they are compared to the rest!

    CPU: Intel Core i5 540M
    CPU Frequency: 2530 MHz
    RAM: 4GB 1067 MHz
    OS: OSX 10.7
    Time: 11 min 17 sec

    CPU: Intel Core i5 760
    CPU Frequency: 2800 MHz
    RAM: 8GB 1333 MHz
    OS: OSX 10.7
    Time: 9 min 17 sec

  28. #28
    Amateur
    Join Date
    16th October 2011
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Well, the more you increase the detail level the better the multi-core cpus perform (in comparison to the single/dual core cpus). Seems like in this file the detail level is almost minimal. It would be interesting to make the same comparison with full detail - I did it on my system (set international and club to Maximum in the top right corner).

    Anyway, my result:
    CPU: Intel Core i7-2600
    CPU Frequency: 4100MHz (105*39 when all cores under full load)
    RAM: DDR3 8GB 1333 MHz
    OS: Win7 64bit
    Time: 4 min 36 sec

    Result on full detail:
    CPU: Intel Core i7-2600
    CPU Frequency: 4100MHz (105,1*39 when all cores under full load)
    RAM: DDR3 8GB 1333 MHz
    OS: Win7 64bit
    Time: 16 min 11 sec

  29. #29
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    15th February 2005
    Location
    http://www.twitch.tv/roykela
    Posts
    1,885

    Default

    CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad 6700
    CPU Frequency: 2660 MHz - Overclocked to 3340MHZ
    RAM: 8GB 800MHz
    OS: Win 7 Ultimate 64-bit
    Time: 8 min 52 sec

    Looks like it's time for me to upgrade soon

  30. #30
    Amateur
    Join Date
    8th November 2006
    Posts
    125

    Default

    CPU: Intel Core I5 2500K
    CPU Frequency: 4.4GHz (overclocked)
    RAM: 8GB DDR3 1600 MHz
    OS: Win 7 64 bit Ultimate
    Time: 4 min 38 sec

  31. #31
    Amateur
    Join Date
    9th January 2009
    Posts
    6

    Default

    CPU: AMD Phenom II x6 1090T
    CPU Frequency: 3200 MHz
    RAM: 4GB 1600 MHz
    OS: Win 7
    Time: 6 min 54 sec

    CPU: AMD Phenom II x6 1090T
    CPU Frequency: 3800 MHz
    RAM: 4GB 1333 MHz
    OS: Win 7
    Time: 6 min 02 sec

  32. #32
    Amateur
    Join Date
    12th August 2008
    Location
    Bahrain
    Posts
    415

    Default

    CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E8400
    CPU Frequency: 3400 MHz (Overclocked)
    RAM: 4GB 800 MHz
    OS: Win 7 64-bit
    Time: 6 min 01 sec

    Kind of surprised it did better than the Core 2 Quads

  33. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    12th October 2011
    Posts
    179

    Default

    My Computer:
    CPU: Intel Core i7 930
    CPU Frequency: 3801GHz
    RAM: 6Gb 1600MHz
    OS: Win 7 64 bit
    4 Mins 37 Secs

  34. #34
    Amateur
    Join Date
    11th November 2011
    Posts
    344

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gawler10 View Post
    I thought I'd give it a try on my Macs to see what it was like...depressing how slow they are compared to the rest!

    CPU: Intel Core i5 540M
    CPU Frequency: 2530 MHz
    RAM: 4GB 1067 MHz
    OS: OSX 10.7
    Time: 11 min 17 sec
    CPU: Intel Core i5 480M
    CPU Frequency: 2670 MHz
    RAM: 4GB 1067 MHz
    OS: Windows 7 (64 bit)
    Time: 8 min 16 sec

    Tells you something about the difference between Mac and Windows really...Anytime someone says Mac is better than Win PC, I can give him a link to this thread The two processors should be exactly on par according to notebookcheck (maybe very slight advantage to 480M). Would love to see a test on Sandy Bridge mobile processors just to see IF I've really gone wrong with the older gen when buying mine a few months ago.
    Last edited by alexyfoot; 21-11-2011 at 11:54.

  35. #35
    Third Team
    Join Date
    11th October 2005
    Location
    Rock>>Me<<Hard Place
    Posts
    8,226

    Default

    This is a great idea, but I think you have left open too many variables by just saying to holiday for a week and don't resign. For one, people could be selecting different countries as their starting point, so some may start in January and others in July. Also the team chosen could have an effect on how much news and other items are processed in the first week. One week is also too short a time period.

    I would recommend suggesting everyone must pick the same starting league (England, for example so everyone starts in July) and to start unemployed and holiday for 1 year. This would provide much more accurate results.

  36. #36
    Amateur
    Join Date
    11th November 2011
    Posts
    344

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenco View Post
    This is a great idea, but I think you have left open too many variables by just saying to holiday for a week and don't resign. For one, people could be selecting different countries as their starting point, so some may start in January and others in July. Also the team chosen could have an effect on how much news and other items are processed in the first week. One week is also too short a time period.

    I would recommend suggesting everyone must pick the same starting league (England, for example so everyone starts in July) and to start unemployed and holiday for 1 year. This would provide much more accurate results.
    There is a save game in the first topic, which you load.

  37. #37
    Third Team
    Join Date
    11th October 2005
    Location
    Rock>>Me<<Hard Place
    Posts
    8,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alexyfoot View Post
    There is a save game in the first topic, which you load.
    Ah sorry, missed that!

  38. #38
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    12th November 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    1,122

    Default

    CPU: Intel i7 950
    CPU Frequency: 3000 MHz
    RAM: 6GB 1600 MHz
    OS: Win 7 64-bit
    Time: 6 min 7 sec

  39. #39
    Semi-Pro
    Join Date
    21st September 2006
    Location
    Cambridge / Lincs & Humber Database
    Posts
    2,994

    Default

    CPU: Intel i7 920
    CPU Frequency: 3600 MHz
    RAM: 6GB 1600 MHz
    OS: Win 7 64-bit
    Time: 5 min 25 sec

    This is my 'comfort settings' not total all out OC as I have had it up at 3.8 stable this morning but I don't feel comfortable with the voltages needed to get it to 4 or more yet... Im sure my rig can do it I'm just new to OCing and this was my first attempt! I started last night
    Last edited by nine_iron; 17-12-2011 at 23:52. Reason: Forgot to do it with "fastest, cant interrupt"

  40. #40
    Amateur
    Join Date
    23rd January 2000
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Great idea for a thread. Had just been wondering recently what difference a cpu upgrade would have with FM.

    Anyway, here's mine:

    CPU: Intel Q6600
    CPU Frequency: 3000 MHz
    RAM: 6GB 667 MHz
    OS: Win Vista 64
    Time: 6 min 51 sec

  41. #41
    Amateur
    Join Date
    18th July 2006
    Location
    The Capital of Europe
    Posts
    515

    Default

    This is one of the most useful threads on this forum!

  42. #42
    Amateur
    Join Date
    3rd January 2011
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    83

    Default

    CPU: i5 2500k
    CPU Frequency: 4300mhz
    Ram: 8gb 1600mhz
    OS: Win 7 Ultimate SP1
    Time: 4 minutes 20 seconds

  43. #43
    Youth Team
    Join Date
    19th March 2011
    Posts
    4,566

    Default

    Intel Core Duo PC E7500 (Acer Aspire m3800)
    2.93ghz
    6gb ram 1066mhz
    Windows 7 64bit

    Time: 8.30

  44. #44
    Amateur
    Join Date
    4th August 2004
    Location
    Serbia
    Posts
    589

    Default

    First post updated with all results we have so far.

  45. #45
    Semi-Pro
    Join Date
    21st September 2006
    Location
    Cambridge / Lincs & Humber Database
    Posts
    2,994

    Default

    Done a bit more tweaking, tried to optimise the sytem as much as possible outside of the game, done some really decent OCing today and got this:

    CPU: Intel i7 920
    CPU Frequency: 3800 MHz
    RAM: 6GB 1600 MHz
    OS: Win 7 64-bit
    Time: 5 min 07 sec

    It seems just a 0.2 increase on the clock made a difference, tried to get 4.0Hgz to desktop but struggling, I think its the QPI voltages etc as they are not as high as they could be, I think also there are some other things I can tweak to allow higher OCs but I am just not that proficient.

    Currently the i7 @ 3.8 mean core temp is 67C under 100% load after 15 mins, the CPU temp is mid to high 40s an the case temp is mid 40s during that test. I think that means there is some headroom if I can get my head round how the voltages work!
    Last edited by nine_iron; 18-12-2011 at 13:26.

  46. #46
    Semi-Pro
    Join Date
    21st September 2006
    Location
    Cambridge / Lincs & Humber Database
    Posts
    2,994

    Default

    This thread is really showing a good comparison between systems over a short run.

    It is nicely highlighting the improvements between the 1st and 2nd generation i7s and i5s. An old i7 moderatly OCed ~= to a stock 2nd gen i5!!!

    I need a new MOBO and processor me thinks :*(

  47. #47
    Stoke City Researcher
    Join Date
    1st January 2007
    Location
    Nihilism.
    Posts
    3,596

    Default

    Nine Iron is your i7 920 a D0 or C0? Only reason I ask is my i7 920 D0 easily pushes 4.2ghz, it's always been too excessive for what I wanted and had to push the voltage above 1.3 to keep it steady I preferred to keep it around 1.22 at 3.8ghz; but I also have a H50 cooler for my processor which may assist in keeping it cooler at higher OC's.

  48. #48
    Semi-Pro
    Join Date
    21st September 2006
    Location
    Cambridge / Lincs & Humber Database
    Posts
    2,994

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by santy001 View Post
    Nine Iron is your i7 920 a D0 or C0? Only reason I ask is my i7 920 D0 easily pushes 4.2ghz, it's always been too excessive for what I wanted and had to push the voltage above 1.3 to keep it steady I preferred to keep it around 1.22 at 3.8ghz; but I also have a H50 cooler for my processor which may assist in keeping it cooler at higher OC's.
    Very new to this so need to find out what that means Only been doing this since Friday evening! Read up on it then an decided to give it a go.

    My system was OCed at time of build to 3.4 (bought it Jan 2009) but I went into the bios and set it back to stock a few months back because it kept freezing. I then replaced the thermal compound, replaced a few fans and gave it a deep clean. I decided now its all stable again to OC it back up. I read a few articles online and played a little then tried it yesterday and got to 3.6, then 3.8 today.

    I downloaded a few programs to test stability and some to OC the graphics card too. I optimised that this morning.

    There is A LOT I still have to learn but I am not sure how to know if I can get to a higher clock speed. I have an old one of these http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/artic...oling-LCLC/388 and it does a decent job.

    EDIT: If it is the "Revision" section in CPUZ then its C0, sorry for not knowing mate
    Last edited by nine_iron; 18-12-2011 at 14:10. Reason: i think ive found it!

  49. #49
    Amateur
    Join Date
    14th January 2009
    Location
    Walsall
    Posts
    230

    Default

    CPU: Intel t4500
    CPU Frequency: 2300 MHz
    RAM: 4GB 2300 MHz
    OS: Win 7 64-bit
    Time: 11 min 30 sec



    Worst so far

  50. #50
    Stoke City Researcher
    Join Date
    1st January 2007
    Location
    Nihilism.
    Posts
    3,596

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nine_iron View Post
    Very new to this so need to find out what that means Only been doing this since Friday evening! Read up on it then an decided to give it a go.

    My system was OCed at time of build to 3.4 (bought it Jan 2009) but I went into the bios and set it back to stock a few months back because it kept freezing. I then replaced the thermal compound, replaced a few fans and gave it a deep clean. I decided now its all stable again to OC it back up. I read a few articles online and played a little then tried it yesterday and got to 3.6, then 3.8 today.

    I downloaded a few programs to test stability and some to OC the graphics card too. I optimised that this morning.

    There is A LOT I still have to learn but I am not sure how to know if I can get to a higher clock speed. I have an old one of these http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/artic...oling-LCLC/388 and it does a decent job.

    EDIT: If it is the "Revision" section in CPUZ then its C0, sorry for not knowing mate
    Yea, the revision section for mine says D0, unfortunately the C0 doesn't have quite as much potential with overclocking as the D0. The whole reasons of why and how I don't know, generally the C0 is limited to 3.6 - 3.8ghz in its OC's the D0 has been pushed as high as 5ghz by some. Just the way it breaks down because of something in the chip design/manufacture.

  51. #51
    Amateur
    Join Date
    22nd October 2011
    Posts
    14

    Default

    I gave this a go and got

    CPU: Intel Core I7 2600k
    CPU Frequency: 4428 MHz
    RAM: 8gb DDR3 824 MHz
    OS: Win 7 64bit22
    Time: 3:47:999
    Air cooled

  52. #52
    Amateur
    Join Date
    14th September 2008
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Here we go:

    CPU: Intel Core I7 3930K
    CPU Frequency: 4290 MHz
    RAM: 32gb DDR3 1600 MHz
    OS: Win 7 64bit
    Time: 4:12
    Corsair H100 WaterCooling Kit

    Apparently, It's a matter of Highest CPU Frequency. It doesn't matter if it's dual/quad/hexa core CPU. It would be really good if SI could make the application use as many cores as possible efficiently.

  53. #53
    Amateur
    Join Date
    14th January 2009
    Location
    Walsall
    Posts
    230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra82 View Post
    Here we go:

    CPU: Intel Core I7 3930K
    CPU Frequency: 4290 MHz
    RAM: 32gb DDR3 1600 MHz
    OS: Win 7 64bit
    Time: 4:12
    Corsair H100 WaterCooling Kit

    Apparently, It's a matter of Highest CPU Frequency. It doesn't matter if it's dual/quad/hexa core CPU. It would be really good if SI could make the application use as many cores as possible efficiently.
    I think this is the case aswell, my 2.3Ghz returned 11.5 minutes :/

  54. #54
    Semi-Pro
    Join Date
    21st September 2006
    Location
    Cambridge / Lincs & Humber Database
    Posts
    2,994

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by santy001 View Post
    Generally the C0 is limited to 3.6 - 3.8ghz in its OC's the D0 has been pushed as high as 5ghz by some. Just the way it breaks down because of something in the chip design/manufacture.
    Well I am happy to have 3.8 running very stable and at decent temps, ie 70C and below. I guess it means I can leave it there and use it as I have no need to have a CPU at above 3.8 for day to day gaming.

    Mine is such an old i7, having ordered it only a month or two after it was 1st available. I will leave it where it is and maybe one day in the future I will buy a new CPU and clock high for fun... and probably a new PSU as it might strain it a bit!
    Last edited by nine_iron; 18-12-2011 at 18:51.

  55. #55
    Semi-Pro
    Join Date
    21st September 2006
    Location
    Cambridge / Lincs & Humber Database
    Posts
    2,994

    Default

    This has got me thinking, many other games have benchmarking tools or tests that report back FPS, SI could easily make something, collect the data and use it to make some improvements or give the user feedback on speed... nothing like seeing how the average PC handles it, not the ones used in the offices. Maybe even have the ability to rank it as an incentive to get people to send the data in!

    I think SI can actually even get some info just from this thread, its real world data like this that can make a big difference!

  56. #56
    Amateur
    Join Date
    4th August 2004
    Location
    Serbia
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by remmah View Post
    I gave this a go and got

    CPU: Intel Core I7 2600k
    CPU Frequency: 4428 MHz
    RAM: 8gb DDR3 824 MHz
    OS: Win 7 64bit22
    Time: 3:47:999
    Air cooled
    Could you please re-run the test. Your result is extremely good for that frequency, perhaps hyperthreading plays important role. FM is on Intel's list of games that benefit from HT. Also, what is your RAM frequency, as 824 MHz is too low for DDR3? 1648 maybe?
    Last edited by yugo23; 19-12-2011 at 10:00.

  57. #57
    Amateur
    Join Date
    4th August 2004
    Location
    Serbia
    Posts
    589

    Default

    First AMD Bulldozer results are in (thanks to kull from benchmark.rs):

    CPU: AMD FX-8150
    CPU Frequency: 4515 MHz
    RAM: 8gb DDR3 2000 MHz
    OS: Win 7 64bit
    Time: 5 min 2 sec

  58. #58
    Semi-Pro
    Join Date
    21st September 2006
    Location
    Cambridge / Lincs & Humber Database
    Posts
    2,994

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yugo23 View Post
    First AMD Bulldozer results are in (thanks to kull from benchmark.rs):

    CPU: AMD FX-8150
    CPU Frequency: 4515 MHz
    RAM: 8gb DDR3 2000 MHz
    OS: Win 7 64bit
    Time: 5 min 2 sec
    I am surprised how similar that is to my aging i7 @ 3.8 which got 5 min 07 sec with slower ram!

    Dont forget to add my new one in post 46 and all the others, we are collecting some really good data! I cannot OC my i7 920 (C0) any further... WONT shell out for a new CPU just for this... HONEST!

    PS anyone got any pics of their rigs? We could do a neat little modders contest! Mine is a mess with cabling but still looks cool with the lights an all, prob needs another thread in the OTF or summat.

  59. #59
    Third Team
    Join Date
    6th August 2007
    Posts
    8,482

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nine_iron View Post
    CPU: Intel i7 920
    CPU Frequency: 3600 MHz
    RAM: 6GB 1600 MHz
    OS: Win 7 64-bit
    Time: 5 min 25 sec
    A rather strange set of numbers for me, I even ran the test 3 times & only had a 2 second variance.

    CPU: Intel i7 920
    CPU Frequency: 3800 MHz
    RAM: 6GB 1333 MHz
    OS: Win 7 64-bit
    Time: 4 min 32 sec

    Either I have missed a step on the test run or by luck more than design I have eek'd out even more performance from my rig than I anticipated.
    Last edited by Barside; 19-12-2011 at 17:47.

  60. #60
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    24th November 2004
    Location
    Knee-deep in clunge
    Posts
    1,368

    Default

    We have a winner!!! (the slowest is the winner right?)

    CPU: Dual CPU Intel Xeon

    CPU Frequency: 3600MHz
    RAM: 4GB 800 MHz
    OS: Win 7 64-bit
    Time: 14 min 03 sec



    Bit disappointed with that to be honest, I know the RAM is slow (PC3200) and the 800MHz FSB is a bottleneck but there's 2 x Intel Xeons running at 3.6GHz each with HT, so 4 logical processors at 3.6GHz is (in theory at least) 14.4GHz! (OK I know it doesn't work quite like that!) On top of that, two 10k rpm SCSI hard drives set up in a mirrored array, hard drives don't come much faster than that....
    Last edited by robzilla; 19-12-2011 at 19:48.

  61. #61
    Semi-Pro
    Join Date
    21st September 2006
    Location
    Cambridge / Lincs & Humber Database
    Posts
    2,994

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barside View Post
    A rather strange set of numbers for me, I even ran the test 3 times & only had a 2 second variance.

    CPU: Intel i7 920
    CPU Frequency: 3800 MHz
    RAM: 6GB 1333 MHz
    OS: Win 7 64-bit
    Time: 4 min 32 sec

    Either I have missed a step on the test run or by luck more than design I have eek'd out even more performance from my rig than I anticipated.
    Only 30 odd seconds faster than my best time with the same CPU speed. Mine is a very old creaky i7 so maybe yours is a more recent version, I also have turbo boost off as mine is a C0 version, not a D0 which could handle turbo boost on at that clock.

    The other surprising times are the two i7 930s clocking in similar times, someone obviously knows how to get more out of a CPU than just its clock speed! The only difference between the 920 and the 930 is a slightly different stock clock.

    I guess I must be the person doing something wrong if i7 930 and other 920 users are beating me by half a minute with the same clock speeds, then again I have only been OCing since Friday so I am very new to it all!
    Last edited by nine_iron; 19-12-2011 at 18:07.

  62. #62
    Third Team
    Join Date
    6th August 2007
    Posts
    8,482

    Default

    I hadn't noticed the other 920/930 results, these little beggars never cease to amaze me, so much bang for so little buck. After more than 2 years I'd have expected my system to be ready for some minor upgrades but other than my gxf not being able to run BF3 on max detail I can probably go another year without considering any hardware upgrades.

  63. #63
    Semi-Pro
    Join Date
    21st September 2006
    Location
    Cambridge / Lincs & Humber Database
    Posts
    2,994

    Default

    Mine is very nearly 3 years old so maybe thats why im 30 seconds behind, unless you got any other ideas!

    I am also at 3800 Mhz and RAM is 1600 but time is only 5 mins 07 seconds!

    If you have any suggestions they are more than welcome!

    All I have done is tweaked the base clock up, tweaked the voltages a tad and tested its stable for a few hours and that was it I know total OC newb
    Last edited by nine_iron; 19-12-2011 at 18:54.

  64. #64
    Semi-Pro
    Join Date
    21st September 2006
    Location
    Cambridge / Lincs & Humber Database
    Posts
    2,994

    Default

    I have seen this thread linked to quite a bit recently, well done OP for your great idea! It was also good not to put names to speeds, this isnt a competition... honest it wasnt for me!

  65. #65
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    11th November 2007
    Location
    Germoney
    Posts
    1,960

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra82 View Post
    Here we go:
    Apparently, It's a matter of Highest CPU Frequency. It doesn't matter if it's dual/quad/hexa core CPU. It would be really good if SI could make the application use as many cores as possible efficiently.
    Untrue. I don't know how this save is set up, but unlike the majority of video games out there, the full detail match sim of FM grabs any core and thread it can. As for everything else though, probably not so much.

  66. #66
    Amateur
    Join Date
    11th August 2005
    Location
    Aberdeen
    Posts
    208

    Default

    CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550
    CPU Frequency: 3825 MHz
    RAM: 4GB 900 MHz
    OS: Win 7 64-bit
    Time: 5 min 56 sec

    The higher frequency from my overclock definitely makes a difference.

  67. #67
    Semi-Pro
    Join Date
    21st September 2006
    Location
    Cambridge / Lincs & Humber Database
    Posts
    2,994

    Default

    Yup, clock speed does make a difference against similar processors where RAM does not seem to for similar processors.

    I think the OP will come along soon as there are up to 8 scores since my one which has not been listed, my i7 920 @ 3.8 doing it in jus over 5 mins. A 200Mhz clock increase took nearly half a minute off my score!

  68. #68
    Amateur
    Join Date
    4th August 2004
    Location
    Serbia
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Results updated. I would really like to see some more 2600K results. They should perform very well, thanks to hyperthreading, but second placed 3930K also has HT, with even more threads, and is still behind by almost half minute, because of slower clock? More 2600K and 3930K results should clarify this.

  69. #69
    Third Team
    Join Date
    6th August 2007
    Posts
    8,482

    Default

    The 3930K result seems too slow, I suspect that the test file has not used its strengths &/or that rig has a major bottleneck which is stunting the CPU's performance.

  70. #70
    Semi-Pro
    Join Date
    21st September 2006
    Location
    Cambridge / Lincs & Humber Database
    Posts
    2,994

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barside View Post
    The 3930K result seems too slow, I suspect that the test file has not used its strengths &/or that rig has a major bottleneck which is stunting the CPU's performance.
    Can I ask what i7 you have Barside? Mine is the old C0 stepping, I have been puzzling for ages trying to work out why your time is 30 seconds faster than mine where we basically have the same CPU. PM if you think you might know whats going on as I would love to try and get more out my system.

  71. #71
    Amateur
    Join Date
    9th December 2007
    Location
    Somewhere in the countryside
    Posts
    94

    Default

    CPU : AMD Phenom II x4 840
    CPU frequency : 3.2ghz
    Memory : 4gig 1600mhz
    OS : Win7 64bit
    Time : 7mins 50secs

    About expected for low end cpu.

    Nice thread idea OP btw

  72. #72
    Amateur
    Join Date
    17th December 2011
    Posts
    19

    Default

    CPU: Intel Core i3 2100
    CPU Frequency: 3100 MHz
    RAM: 4GB 1333 MHz
    OS: Win 7 64-bit
    Time: 5 min 37 sec

    Pretty pleased with that considering I have a budget build.

  73. #73
    Semi-Pro
    Join Date
    21st September 2006
    Location
    Cambridge / Lincs & Humber Database
    Posts
    2,994

    Default

    nice one, fmpillow, it does highlight how much better the new generation i3/5/7s are as my i7 920, one of the very first ones I must add, only bettered that by half a minute!

  74. #74
    Lurker
    Join Date
    31st December 2011
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Thank you for a good tread, helped me to decide what computer i did buy.
    Config 1
    CPU: Intel core 2 duo E8500
    CPU Frequency: 3800 MHz
    RAM: 8GB
    OS: Vista
    Time: 6 min 15 sec

    Config 2 Laptop
    CPU: Intel core i7-2670qm 2200 MHz
    CPU Frequency: 2200 MHz @ 2900 MHz
    RAM: 4GB
    OS: Win 7 Home Premium
    Time: 5 min 45 sec

  75. #75
    Amateur
    Join Date
    11th November 2011
    Posts
    344

    Default

    Just a small correction. On the 480M entry the RAM is 1333MHz, not 1067, don't know why I wrote the opposite, lol. 2670QM in 5:45 - who said laptops will never match desktops? It seems laptops roughly catch-up a just couple of years after desktops reach a certain level.
    Last edited by alexyfoot; 31-12-2011 at 09:16.

  76. #76
    Amateur
    Join Date
    9th June 2003
    Location
    Dumfries
    Posts
    998

    Default

    CPU:Intel Core i5 2500k
    CPU Frequency: OC'd to 4400 MHz
    RAM: 4GB 800 MHz
    OS: Win 7 64bit
    Time: 4m 40s

  77. #77
    Semi Pro
    Join Date
    16th April 2005
    Posts
    2,923

    Default

    Does anyone have the save game still, would love to give this a go, but meagupload isn't open for business anymore!

  78. #78
    Amateur
    Join Date
    4th August 2004
    Location
    Serbia
    Posts
    589

  79. #79
    Semi Pro
    Join Date
    16th April 2005
    Posts
    2,923

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yugo23 View Post
    Can't download from there without a premium account, won't allow it for UK users:

    You may have reached this page due to a known problem with some UK ISPs. You may contact your ISP for support.An alternative is to buy a FileSonic Premium account. Click here to join now.
    (ref: cpc1-bigg3-2-0-cust242.9-2.cable.virginmedia.com)If the problem persists, clear your cookies and try again.

  80. #80

  81. #81
    Semi Pro
    Join Date
    16th April 2005
    Posts
    2,923

    Default

    Yeah, that's cool. Fileserve worked for me, thanks. Will be back with a few results!

  82. #82
    Semi Pro
    Join Date
    16th April 2005
    Posts
    2,923

    Default

    CPU: Intel i7 930
    CPU Frequency: 3700MHz
    RAM: 6GB 1600 MHz
    OS: Win 7 64bit
    Time: 4m 42s

  83. #83
    Semi-Pro
    Join Date
    21st September 2006
    Location
    Cambridge / Lincs & Humber Database
    Posts
    2,994

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davehanson View Post
    CPU: Intel i7 930
    CPU Frequency: 3700MHz
    RAM: 6GB 1600 MHz
    OS: Win 7 64bit
    Time: 4m 42s
    Pretty impressive time there! outperforms others similar and supposedly slightly superior. I guess there is more to the time than just processor type and clock speed. There must be an effect of other components in the system. Maybe the motherboard is having an effect?

  84. #84
    Semi Pro
    Join Date
    16th April 2005
    Posts
    2,923

    Default

    CPU: Intel i7 3960X
    CPU Frequency: 4400MHz
    RAM: 16GB 1600 MHz
    OS: Win 7 64bit
    Time: 3m 19s

    This isn't my PC, but just wanted to see exactly what £3k could do!

  85. #85
    Semi Pro
    Join Date
    16th April 2005
    Posts
    2,923

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nine_iron View Post
    Pretty impressive time there! outperforms others similar and supposedly slightly superior. I guess there is more to the time than just processor type and clock speed. There must be an effect of other components in the system. Maybe the motherboard is having an effect?
    It is a quick system, slightly over-voltaged RAM, and 2x SSD's. I wouldn't have thought the MB is an effect, unless other people are using really cheap ones, which is unlikely.

  86. #86
    Semi-Pro
    Join Date
    21st September 2006
    Location
    Cambridge / Lincs & Humber Database
    Posts
    2,994

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davehanson View Post
    CPU: Intel i7 3960X
    CPU Frequency: 4400MHz
    RAM: 16GB 1600 MHz
    OS: Win 7 64bit
    Time: 3m 19s

    This isn't my PC, but just wanted to see exactly what £3k could do!
    Sounds like a sweet system, any pics?

  87. #87
    Semi Pro
    Join Date
    16th April 2005
    Posts
    2,923

    Default

    Sorry mate, not my PC. Will get him to take some and post them up for you.

  88. #88
    Amateur
    Join Date
    12th August 2008
    Location
    Bahrain
    Posts
    415

    Default

    Got a new system

    CPU: Intel i7 2600k
    CPU Frequency: 4430MHz
    RAM: 16GB 1600 MHz
    OS: Win 7 64bit
    Time: 3m 27s

  89. #89
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    15th March 2010
    Location
    Bournemouth
    Posts
    1,310

    Default

    Has anyone had a chance to test AMD Black Edition - AMD FX 3.6 GHz Quad Core Processor? Will be in my new PC along with 8GB of 1600MHz RAM when I get around to building it and I'm interested to know what FM speeds will be like

  90. #90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slawbawn View Post
    Has anyone had a chance to test AMD Black Edition - AMD FX 3.6 GHz Quad Core Processor? Will be in my new PC along with 8GB of 1600MHz RAM when I get around to building it and I'm interested to know what FM speeds will be like
    Should be able to possibly tomorrow when I get mine built. This is what is going into it: click here

  91. #91
    Amateur
    Join Date
    8th November 2007
    Posts
    3

    Default

    None of the links seems to work anymore.

    Can someone reupload the save? Thanks.

  92. #92
    Amateur
    Join Date
    8th November 2007
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Got a working download link from yugo23: http://depositfiles.com/files/52vl64k8h

    CPU: Intel i7 2600k
    CPU Frequency: 4500 MHz
    RAM: 16 GB 800 MHz
    OS: Win 7 64bit
    Time: 3 min 58 sec

  93. #93
    Amateur
    Join Date
    1st December 2008
    Posts
    365

    Default

    Mac in theory should be 10 times better than PC wouldn't it? with an SSD drive even more so

  94. #94
    Third Team
    Join Date
    6th August 2007
    Posts
    8,482

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by penza View Post
    Mac in theory should be 10 times better than PC wouldn't it? with an SSD drive even more so
    Nope.

    That is all

  95. #95
    Amateur
    Join Date
    4th August 2004
    Location
    Serbia
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Table updated with all remaining results.

  96. #96
    Third Team
    Join Date
    6th August 2007
    Posts
    8,482

    Default

    I now want a 3000 series i7.

  97. #97
    Amateur
    Join Date
    23rd November 2006
    Posts
    144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by forzamr_b View Post
    CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9950 processor
    CPU Frequency: 2.83 GHz
    RAM: 4GB 800 MHz
    OS: Win 7 64 bit
    Time: 7 min 09 sec

    Played in window mode, ran it in the background for a while, whilst I browsed the net.

    I've noticed detial level is set to default. Maybe setting it to maximum would be better for benchmarking?

    Awesome thread by the way!
    Recently upgraded my PC. Here's my new specs and test results:

    CPU: Intel i7-3770
    CPU Frequency: 3.4 GHz
    RAM: 8GB 1600 MHz
    OS: Win 7 64 bit
    Time: 4 min 40 sec

  98. #98
    Third Team
    Join Date
    6th August 2007
    Posts
    8,482

    Default

    4m 40s? This test is starting to demonstrate a fatal flaw by not having fixtures processed in full detail as that's 8s slower than my 920
    Last edited by Barside; 14-06-2012 at 09:37.

  99. #99
    Amateur
    Join Date
    4th August 2004
    Location
    Serbia
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Whether it's a flaw or not is debatable. Default setting in FM is that even the league where you're managing is not set to full detail. I believe many people never even change these settings. i7 3770 is also 400 MHz slower.
    Last edited by yugo23; 14-06-2012 at 09:58.

  100. #100
    Third Team
    Join Date
    6th August 2007
    Posts
    8,482

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yugo23 View Post
    Whether it's a flaw or not is debatable. Default setting in FM is that even the league where you're managing is not set to full detail. I believe many people never even change these settings. i7 3770 is also 400 MHz slower.
    This is not correct, every competition that your team is entered in is set to full detail & cannot be downgraded, you're right that many people probably don't change these settings for other competitions which is why we see threads asking whether FM supports multi-core/hyper-threading as only full detail match processing takes advantage of all available physical & virtual cores.

    As for the clock speed even at the stock speed the 3770 should cream my overclocked 920 when all 8 cores of both cpu's are being used & I'd be disappointed that it doesn't when FM is not utilising H/T although that disappointment would be more directed at FM rather than an issue with the chip.
    Last edited by Barside; 14-06-2012 at 11:09.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts